Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1918; JT1994(2)SC215; 1994(2)SCALE37; (1994)3SCC1; [1994]2SCR644
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. On behalf of Kuldip Singh, J. and himself. Article 356 has a vital bearing on the democratic parliamentary form of government and the autonomy of the States under the federal Constitution that we have adopted. The interpretation of the Article has, therefore, once again engaged the attention of this Court in the background of the removal of the governments and the dissolution of the legislative assemblies in six States with which we are concerned here, on different occasions and in different situations by the exercise of power under the Article. The crucial question that falls for consideration in all these matters is whether the President has unfettered powers to issue Proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution. The answer to this question depends upon the answers to the following questions: (a) Is the Proclamation amenable to judicial review? (b) If yes, what is the scope of the judicial review in this respect? and (c) What is the meaning of the expr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas241(Bom)
Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. The questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition filed by Escorts Ltd. and its shareholder and managing director are quite unique and important. The decision thereon may affect not only the petitioner-company but the entire corporate sector and the public financial institutions. Naturally, this writ petition has attracted considerable public attention both lay and legal. Quite a few facts are required to notice to appreciate the issue canvassed in this case. Though inferences sought to be down and the conclusions sought to be pressed by the parties form the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition differ, the facts themselves in the ultimate analysis are not very much in dispute.2. Till 1980, among the non-residents, only individuals of Indian nationality origin were given the facility to invest in Indian Industries; not the companies. The Government of India was eager to attract larger foreign remittances into India. In a report of the Wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2012)9SCC1; JT2012(8)SC4; 2012(4)KCCR271(SN); 2012AIRSCW4942; AIR2012SC3565; 2012(7)SCALE553
Aftab Alam, J.1. The appellant, Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’ or as ‘Kasab’), who is a Pakistani national, has earned for himself five death penalties and an equal number of life terms in prison for committing multiple crimes of a horrendous kind in this country. Some of the major charges against him were: conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India; collecting arms with the intention of waging war against the Government of India; waging and abetting the waging of war against the Government of India; commission of terrorist acts; criminal conspiracy to commit murder; criminal conspiracy, common intention and abetment to commit murder; committing murder of a number of persons; attempt to murder with common intention; criminal conspiracy and abetment; abduction for murder; robbery/dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt; and causing explosions punishable under the Explosive S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2002]109CompCas18(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The notices of motion in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 seek to challenge the legality and validity of substantial acquisitions of shares by defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in defendant No. 12-company allegedly in violation of the provisions of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994, and pray for the annulment thereof, particularly in the context of the breaches of regulations 9 and 10 which require a public announcement of the intention to acquire substantial shares in certain circumstances. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 on the other hand, dispute the right of third parties like the plaintiffs to challenge such acquisitions, the rights of plaintiffs claimed to be based in common law and/or statute and as to whether the voting rights flowing from such shares can be injuncted by filing a suit in the context of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act. Consequently, the questions pertaining to balance of convenience and appropriate orders to be passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1994Ker308
Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. This isa public interest litigation. Petitioner is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Charitable, Literary and Scientific Societies Act. It claims that it is involved in legal research legal literacy and espousing public interest causes before Courts.2. In this petition the petitioner wants to spearhead and underscore the high potency danger involved in allowing to continue the operation by the first respondent a 10,000 tonne Ammonia Storage Tank in Willingdon Islandin Port Area.3. The first respondent the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., Udyogamandal is a public sector undertaking. It is engaged in the production of fertilisers. O. 27% of the shares in the Company is held by the public, the balance being held by the Government of India, the Government of Kerala, the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Its manufacturing units for production of chemical fertilisers are Cochin Division at Ambalamedu and Udyogaman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10 of 2006 and 6711 of 2007. 1. The legal questions in this batch of criminal appeals relate to the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques, namely narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases. This issue has received considerable attention since it involves tensions between the desirability of efficient investigation and the preservation of individual liberties. Ordinarily the judicial task is that of evaluating the rival contentions in order to arrive at a sound conclusion. However, the present case is not an ordinary dispute between private parties. It raises pertinent questions about the meaning and scope of fundamental rights which are available to all citizens. Therefore, we must examine the implications of permitting the use of the impugned techniques in a variety of settings.2. Objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(6)ALD582; 2005(6)ALT364
Bilal Nazki, A.C.J. for himself and on behalf of Hon'ble Sri R. Subhash Reddy, J.1. I have the privilege of going through the elaborate opinions framed by my brother Judges Mr. Justice Goda Raghuram and Mr. Justice V.V.S. Rao. By and large, I am in agreement with them, but there are some areas, where I could not pursue myself to go along with the opinion of my brothers, though the fate of the cases would be the same and the writ petitions would have to be allowed. Facts have been mentioned in detail by my learned brothers in then judgments, but in order to frame my opinion, certain facts would have to be repeated.2. Andhra Pradesh Reservation of seats in the Educational Institutions and of appointments/posts in the Public Services under the State to Muslim Community Ordinance, 2005 (Ordinance No. 13 of 2005, dated 20-06-2005), is under challenge in these writ petitions. A battery of lawyers assisted us in these writ petitions. There are writ petitioners, respondents and the intervenes....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2002)2GLR741
B.C. Patel, J.1. This petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation as fire safety system was not provided to prevent accidents in cinema halls, factories and high rise buildings. The petitioner sought for several directions including to take action against erring officers, who are responsible for gross violation of Rules and Regulations and to direct the respondents to create an independent machinery as also for mandatory agency representing various Sections of the people to monitor working of the fire safety measures. Initially the Division bench (Coram: R.A. Mehta, Actg. C.J. & N.N. Mathur, J.) issued notice on 1.7.1997, returnable on 21.7.1997. Thereafter, on 4.9.1997, the Court (Coram: R.A. Mehta, Actg. C.J. & N.N. Mathur, J.) considered the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent admitting the fact that there are large number of high-rise buildings within the municipal limits, which are said to be without the required fire safety and fire prevention equipments. This being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
WP 21933/2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned notification issued by the first respondent in GSR No.218(E) published in Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II-Section 3-Sub-section (i) dated 16.3.2011 in so far as it relates to item No.(i), i.e., Gatifloxacin formulation of systemic use in human by any route including oral and injectable and direct the respondents to review the prohibition after giving an opportunity to the petitioner.WP 25442/2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned notification issued by the first respondent in GSR No.218(E) published in Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II-Section 3-Sub-section (i) No.139, dated 16.3.2011 and to quash the same in so far as it relates to ite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR439; 1994(1)KarLJ421
ORDERM.Ramakrishna, J1. These Writ Petitions have been referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench consisting of Shivashankar Bhat and Ramakrishna, JJ., by invoking the power under Section 10(v) of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by their Order dated 30.6.1992, for consideration. Hence, they have been taken up for consideration by this Full Bench.2. The legal contention urged in support of the Writ Petitions is that the Decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in RAJAMALLAIAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA : ILR1985KAR1802 , requires to be reconsidered in view of the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in (1) DWARKADAS MARFATIA AND SONS v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY, : [1989]2SCR751 , (2) MAHABIR AUTO STORES AND ORS : [1990]1SCR818 . v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND ORS., (3) KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS : AIR1991SC537 . and observations made by another Division Bench of this Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA v. K.M.SHANKARAN R....
Tag this Judgment!