Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2003(II)OLR1
L. Mohapatra, J.1. Criminal Misc. Case No. 306 of 2003 has been filed :(a) To quash the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer (Vigilance Cell), Bhubaneswar in V.G.R. Case No. 17 of 2001 pending in the Court of Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar;(b) To quash the order taking cognizance dated 9.12.2002 wherein learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 468/471/420 of the Penal Code.Criminal Misc. Case No. 149 of 2003 has been filed challenging the order dated 18.1.2003- passed by the learned Special C.J.M. (Vigilance). Bhubaneswar rejecting the petition filed by the petition under Section 205, of the Cr.P.C. to dispense with his personal attendance in Court.Criminal Misc. Case No. 141 of 2003 has been filed challenging the order dated 18.1.2003 passed by the Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in the aforesaid V.G.R. Case rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to recall the order dated 2 1.12.2002 wherein non-bailable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)IIMLJ367
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993, a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other Writ Petitions the prayer is for either issue of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaint or for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints. 2. The petitions can be classified into three groups :- A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC1058IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL WRIT / APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1099 of 2019 IN RE: ARTICLE370OF THE CONSTITUTION With Writ Petition (C) No.871 of 2015 With Writ Petition (C) No.722 of 2014 With SLP (C) No.19618 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.1013 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1082 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1068 of 2019 1 With Writ Petition (C) No.1037 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1062 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1070 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1104 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1165 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1210 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1222 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.396 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.756 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.398 pf 2018 With 2 Writ Petition (C) No.924 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1092 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1162 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1048 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1268 of 2019 And With Writ Petition (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)2MLJ367
Srinivasan, J.1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993 a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b)) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other writ petitions the prayer is for either issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaints or for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints.2. The petitions can be classified into three Groups:A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Institutions:...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE19H DAY OF MARCH201528TH PHALGUNA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 2429 of 2013 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST41162011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,NEDUMANGAD ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. SHANTANU KHOSLE (MANUFACTURER) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO PROCTER AND GAMBLE & HOME PRODUCTS LIMITED P AN G PLAZA, CARDINAL GRACIAS ROAD, CHAKALA ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400099.2. BHARAT PATEL NON-EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN PROCTER AND GAMBLE & HOME PRODUCTS LIMITED P AN G PLAZA, CARDINAL GRACIAS ROAD, CHAKALA ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400099.3. M/S.PROCTER AND GAMBLE & HOME PRODUCTS LIMITED P AND G PLAZA, CARDINAL GRACIAS ROAD, CHAKALA ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400099. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC591
1. These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No. 3/95, dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi.Following are the particulars of the appellants :______________________________________________________________Appeal No. Name of the appellant Referred to asE/ 209/ 96- A M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. ITCE/210/96-A J.N. Sapru -E/211/96-A J. Narayan -E/288/96-A M/s. Asia Tobacco Ltd. ATCE/289/96-A M/s. Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette HDCF Factory Ltd.E/290/96-A M/s. Lakshmi Tobacco Co. LTCE/291/96-A M/s. Reliable Cigarettes RCTI and Tobacco IndustriesE/292/96-A M/s. Master Tobacco Co. MTCE/293/96 M/s. Crown Tobacco Co. CTCE/294/96-A R. Bhoothalingam 2. The particulars of demand of duty proposed in the show cause notice for the period 1-3-1983 to 28-2-1987 and demand confirmed and penalty imposed on the assessees are as follows :-_____________________________________________________________Concern Duty proposed Duty confirmed Penalty Penalty (in rupees) (in rupees) in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-790-MA-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 18, 2013 **** M/S.Tata Steel LTD.. . Petitioners versus M/S.Atma Tube Products LTD.& ORS.. . Respondents **** CRM-A-547-MA-2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 18, 2013 **** Kesar Singh . . Petitioner versus Dheeraj Kumar . . Respondent **** CORAM: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HONBLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH HONBLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. **** Present: Mr.HL Tikku, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate; Mr.Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate (in CRM-790-MA-2010) Mr.PS Ahluwalia and Mr.Arjun Sheoran, Advocates (CRM-A-547-MA-2011) for the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Mr.Pardeep S. Poonia, Additional AG Haryana; Mr.Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana; Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, DAG Haryana; and Mr.Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana Mr.Amit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(4)BomCR719
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. All ten writ petitions, together with four surviving civil applications therein, are being considered together, for disposal. Common factor in all these matters, is Godavari Dudhna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. at and post office Dev Nandra, Taluka Pathri, District Parbhani (henceforth, referred to as 'the sick factory'). The sick factory has come to grinding halt, so far as its business of production of sugar is concerned. After interim order of liquidation under Section 102 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ('MCS Act' for brevity's sake) dated 14.3.2002, finally, liquidation of the said sick factory, which is a specified cooperative society under Section 73-G of the MCS Act; is ordered on 15.5.2002. During the period the sick factory is under liquidation, there had been oscillation of decisions by the authorities under the MCS Act, regarding fate of the sick factory, whether to run it by granting lease or to effect sale of the same for satisfying...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(6)BomCR574; (2005)107BOMLR337; (2006)4CompLJ117(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The above Petition has been filed in larger public interest, to protect the interests of residents of Mumbai and to improve the quality of life in Mumbai, which has drastically deteriorated during the last fifteen years. The above Petition is prevent further serious damage to the town Planning and ecology so as to avoid an irretrievable breakdown of the city. Recent deluge during the last week of July this year, exposed as to how the city's sewerage and drainage system was unable to cope up and for almost a week the entire city was completely crippled.2. The first Petitioner Bombay Environmental Action Group is a public charitable trust duly registered and also a registered society. Its aims and objects are, inter alia, to look after the environment in all aspects. On a number of occasions, the above Petitioner has initiated and/or participated in matters of environmental importance for the preservation and improvement of the environment in furtherance of the pub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)BomCR705
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The challenge in all these petitions is to the constitutional validity of Sections 33A and 33B of the Bombay Police Act, as amended by the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005. The bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 21st July, 2005 and by the Legislative Council on 23rd July, 2005 and has now come into force. The Sections under challenge may be gainfully reproduced:33A(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section 33 for the area under their respective charges, on and from the date of commencement of the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005,-(a) holding of a performance of dance, of any kind or type, in any eating house, permit room or beer bar is prohibited;(b) all performance licences, issued under the aforesaid rules by the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate or any other officer, as the case may be, being the Licensing Authority,...
Tag this Judgment!