Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IIAD(SC)337; AIR1998SC1242; JT1998(2)SC90; 1998LabIC1065; 1998(2)SCALE14; (1998)4SCC189; [1998]1SCR1053
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. These eight appeals are directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dated 26.8.1994, and involve common questions of law. By the impugned order the Tribunal has quashed the two Notifications dated 15.12.1993 and 16.12.1993 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel inter alia on the ground that the Notifications in question amending the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation') contravenes Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Recruitment Rules). The appellants in all these appeals are the promotees to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service who had been recruited by way of direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Collectors in the State Service. Respondents nos. 1 to 4 in Civil Appeal No 6525 of 1994 are the direct recruits to the Indian Administrative Service. These responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE20H DAY OF FEBRUARY20151ST PHALGUNA, 1936 WA.NO. 1824 OF2014() IN OP.30036/2002 ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP300362002 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED2502-2014 APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------- 1. K. BHASKARAN NAIR DEPUTY MANAGER(RTD)STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE R/A.TRWA124 NEAR INDIRA GANDHI STATUE, THALIYAL KARAMANA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TC3466(C)MUTTADA P O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695025 2. M K DAMODARAN NAIR CHIEF MANAGER(RTD)STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE R/A.FLAT NO G2, P.R.S.ENCLAVE, EASWARAVALLESWAROM ROAD NEAR CENTRAL H S JAGATHY, THYCAUD P O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014 PRESENTLY R/A.HOUSE NO VP XIII/690 SREENILAYAM M C ROAD, VATTAPARA P O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695028 3. S SOORYANARAYANAN DEPUTY MANAGER NRI(RTD)STATE BANK OF TRAVANC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR3153; 1993(4)KarLJ604
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. In these Writ Petitions the basic question pertains to the power of the State Government to fix the price of rectified spirit to be sold to the manufacturers of arrack. This question is sought to be projected by reference to several Rules made under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 ('the Act' for short).Petitioners primarily rely on the Decision of the Supreme Court in SYNTHETICS & CHEMICALS LTD. ETC. v. STATE OF UP. AND ORS., (hereinafter referred as the 'Second Synthetics case'). Rectified spirit is manufactured out of molasses by a process of fermentation. It is not fit for human consumption and it is not potable alcohol. Therefore, according to the petitioner it is not an 'intoxicant' or 'liquor' in the ordinary sense of the term. Rectified spirit is also called, industrial alcohol which is the raw material for the use in many chemical and drug industries. It is also a raw material in the manufacture of potable alcohol including arrack a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD392; 2006(5)ALT772
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the permit No. 475/94 in file No. 35/IP6/94 issued by the respondents 1 to 3 in favour of the sixth respondent permitting respondents 4 to 6 to construct a multi-storied building complex in premises No. 4-1-1225, King Kothi Road.2. Necessary facts which are relevant for disposal of the writ petition are briefly stated thus: Late A.B.H. Khursheed who is the owner and possessor of the premises bearing No. 4-1-1225 had constructed two separate buildings, one on the south and another on the north facing the main CC road leaving a passage of about 10 feet in-between the two buildings. The second petitioner purchased the southern side of the building, namely, D. No. 4-1-1225/2 in the year 1975 and since then she has been in possession of the said property. Late Khursheed executed a will in favour of his unmarried sister Ms. Khursheed Banu and as per the wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1325; 127(2006)DLT226; JT2006(2)SC448; 2006(2)SCALE364; (2006)3SCC399
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. In respect of large number of immoveable properties throughout Delhi, flagrant violations of various laws including Municipal Laws, Master Plan and other plans besides Environmental Laws have been engaging the attention of this Court for number of years. With a view to secure the implementation of laws and protect fundamental rights of the citizens, various orders were passed from time to time.2. This Court has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. What happens when violators and/or abettors of the violations are those, who have been entrusted by law with a duty to protect these rights? The task becomes difficult and also requires urgent intervention by court so that the rule of law is preserved and people may not lose faith in it finding violations at the hands of supposed implementers. The problem is not of the absence of law, but of its implementation.3. Considering such large-scale flagrant violations, this Court had to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1990LC69(Delhi); 1986(24)ELT205(Del)
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. The Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd., petitioner No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners') are challenging the order in revision passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, dated 25th September, 1980 rejecting the revision application of the petitioners against an order dated 23rd August, 1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The petition inter alias involves the question of the effect of repeal of Rules 10 and 10-A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 which were repealed vide Notification No. 267/77, dated 6th August, 1977 whereby new Rule 10 was substituted in the Central Excise Rules. The petition also involves, inter alia, another question relating to true scope and construction of Clause 6 of the Notification No. 189/73-C.E., dated 4th October, 1973. 2. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are briefly that M/s. The Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd., the Holding Company have been in the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1969Ker38
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Writ Appeal No. 30 of 1968 is by the State against the judgment' dated February 8, 1968, of Gopalan Nambiyar, J., in O. P. No. 4134 of 1967, wherein the Kerala Rice and Paddy (Procurement by Levy) Order, 1966, and Clause 4 of the Kerala Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1966, have been held violative of Constitutional provisions. The two Orders will be referred to here-inbelpw as 'the Levy Order' and 'the Declaration Order' adopting the short-names used by the learned Judge.2. The petitioners in the above-said O. P. (a mother and son) are admittedly cultivators of paddy in 30.49 acres of land -- according to the State they cultivate 34.91 acres -- who challenged the Levy Order which compels them to sell paddy to Government on a graduated scale according to acreage against payment of price not exceeding the maximum price fixed by the Government, and the Declaration Order under which they might be compelled to declare the paddy in their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:19. h September, 2019 Pronounced on:1. t October, 2019 + W.P. (C) 7666/2019 and CM No.31863/2019 LAXMI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION .Petitioner Versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR. .Respondents W.P. (C) 6417/2019 and CM No.27264/2019 W.P. (C) 6438/2019 and CM No.27341/2019 W.P. (C) 7050/2019 and CM No.29407/2019 W.P. (C) 7354/2019 and CM No.30646/2019 W.P. (C) 7572/2019 W.P. (C) 7664/2019 and CM No.31861/2019 W.P. (C) 7665/2019 and CM No.31862/2019 W.P. (C) 7856/2019 and CM No.32668/2019 W.P. (C) 7858/2019 and CM No.32671/2019 W.P. (C) 7867/2019 and CM No.32684/2019 W.P. (C) 7869/2019 and CM No.32689/2019 W.P. (C) 7870/2019 and CM No.32694/2019 W.P. (C) 7871/2019 and CM No.32695/2019 W.P. (C) 7872/2019 and CM No.32696/2019 W.P. (C) 7873/2019 and CM No.32697/2019 W.P. (C) 7875/2019 and CM No.32704/2019 W.P. (C) 7908/2019 and CM No.32769/2019 W.P. (C) 8244/2019 W.P. (C) 8863/2019 W.P. (C) 9676/2019 + + + + + + + + + + + +...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(3)AWC2574; (1999)3UPLBEC1702
S. R. Singh, J.1. The controversy in Special Appeal No. 191 of 1998 State of U. P. and others v. Smt. Shakuntala Shukla as well as in special appeals and writ petitions connected thereto pertains to validity of selection of Sub-Inspectors of Police for promotion to the rank of Circle Inspector. The special appeal sterns from the Judgment and order dated 20.2.1998 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the Smt. 'Shakuntala Shukla v. State of U. P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20716 of 1997 and quashed the impugned selection of Sub-Inspectors for promotion to the rank of Circle Inspectors and issued consequential directions to the authorities concerned to initiate fresh selection in the light of the observations embodied in the Judgment. Since the challenge in all the special appeals and writ petitions converged to the self same select-list 1996-97, all the petitions and special appeals were lumped together with the aforesaid Special Appeal No. 191 of 1998 for decision as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2941; JT2008(6)SC95; 2008(6)SCALE721; (2008)8SCC42; 2008AIRSCW4946
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions. 3. Challenge in these appeals and Writ Petitions is to the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. In the writ petitions, challenge was to validity of Sections 326A to 326J of the Chennai City Municipal Act, 1919 (in short the 'Act') and the Chennai City Municipal Corporation (Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax) Rules, 2003 (in short the 'Advertisement Rules').4. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court. But a Committee was constituted for identifying and enumerating the places of historical importance or aesthetic value and popular places of worship in and around the city of Chennai. It was also directed to oversee the operation of the removal of illegal and unauthorized hoardings in the city of Chennai. The Committee was directed to be headed by a retired Judge and to consist of several other persons. The State Government was direc...
Tag this Judgment!