Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC46; (1983)85BOMLR21; 1982(2)SCALE948; (1982)3SCC519; [1983]1SCR655; 1982(14)LC905(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated December 14, 1981. By its Judgment the High Court struck down an order dated August 27, 1981 by which the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, in exercise of his powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 (Act XXXVII of 1956) (for short 'the Act') with the prior approval of the Governor of Maharashtra, directed that the Judges and Division Courts of the High Court of Bombay shall also, sit at Aurangabad with effect from August 27, 1981 for the disposal of cases arising out of the Marathwada region of the State of Maharashtra.2. By an order dated May 4, 1982 we allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment of the High Court since it did not appear to us that the impugned order issued by the Chief Justice suffered from any infirmity, legal or constitutional. We now proceed to give our reasons.3. By virtue of Sub-section (1) of Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC1607; (1967)ILLJ438SC; [1966]3SCR486
Satyanarayana Raju, J.1. This appeal, on certificate granted by the High Court of Punjab, arises out of a suit filed by one Ram Prasad, against the State of Punjab, for a declaration that the order of compulsory retirement passed by the latter against him was invalid. 2. Ram Prasad originally entered service as a Clerk, in the year 1924, in the Patiala Saddar Treasury in what was then the Patiala State. He was subsequently transferred in the same capacity to the Patiala State Bank on February 27, 1984 Bk and was confirmed in his appointment. On September 1, 1985 Bk, he was promoted to the next higher grade on the establishment of the Patiala State Bank. Thereafter, he was promoted as Manager and posted to Bhatinda branch of the Bank on April 1, 1944. On April 1, 1949 he was promoted as Selection Grade Manager by the Board of Directors of the Bank in the grade of Rs. 340-20-500-525-700. On September 23, 1953 he was compulsorily retired from service but was subsequently reinstated by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1991Mad116; (1991)IMLJ469
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. These writappeals are directed against the common order of the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 6537, 7142 and 7143 of 1985. In each of those writ petitions, the first-respondent in the respective writ appeals was the petitioner; respondents 2 to 4 were respondents 1 to 3; and the appellant was the fourth-respondent. We are referring to the parties as per their array in the writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners seeking for writs of mandamus to forbear the respondents from acquiring the lands of the petitioners, on the ground of inordinate delay in the prosecution of the land acquisition proceedings. Certain dates have to be set down. The notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Act was published on 10-5-1962. The declaration under S, 6 of the Act was published on 18-1-1969. The proceedings under S. 9(3) read with S. 10 of the Act took place only on 15-5-1985. Thus, there was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC648; (1964)0GLR481; [1964]5SCR294
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1963. Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 14, 1962, of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 145 of 1961. G.S. Pathak, G. Dutta, J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. C.K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, N.S. Bindra and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondents. November 5, 1963. The Judgment of P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.C. Shah and Raghubar Dayal JJ. was delivered by Shah J. The dissenting Opinion of K.N. Wanchoo and Subba Rao JJ. was delivered by Wanchoo J. SHAH J.-By notification published on September 1, 1960 under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, the Commissioner, Baroda Division, State of Gujarat, exercising functions entrusted to him under a notification dated July 24, 1959, issued by the President, under Art. 258(1) of the Constitution, notified that a piece of land Part of Final Plot No. 686, Ellis Bridge Town Planning Scheme, belonging to the appellant was like...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC415; 1986LabIC238; (1987)IILLJ25SC; 1986(2)SCALE1051; 1986Supp(1)SCC584; [1987]1SCR584
A.P. Sen, J.1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution assail the constitutional validity of a notification issued by the State Government of Haryana in the Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) dated June 22, 1984 purporting to amend Rule 6(b) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Class I Rules') with retrospective effect from July 10, 1964 as violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and also ultra vires the State Government by reason of the proviso to Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The purport and effect of the impugned notification is to nullify the decision of this Court in A.S. Parmar v. State of Haryana : [1984]2SCR476 , holding that a degree in Engineering was not essential for such promotion. By the impugned notification, a degree in Engineering is made an essential qualification for promotion of Assistant Engineers in the Irrigation Branch, a C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC929; 1975LabIC585; (1975)4SCC203; [1975]3SCR306
1. The short question that arises for consideration in these petitions is as to the validity of the equation of posts of graduate teachers allotted to the new State of Mysore constituted under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. This Act re-drew the boundaries of the different States in India with effect from 1st November, 1956 and inter alia a new State of Mysore was formed comprising the territories of the existing States of Mysore and Coorg, four districts in the existing State of Bombay, three districts in the existing State of Hyderabad and one district in the existing State of Madras. Prior to the reorganisation, each of these five integrating areas, which went to make up the new State of Mysore, had a different set up of school administration. The schools in the Mysore and Coorg areas were classified into Primary schools, Middle schools and High schools. In the Bombay and Madras areas, the schools were classified into Primary schools and Secondary schools and in the Hyderabad a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2668
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of on 18.9.2002 by this Court and said Judgment was challenged in Special Leave Petition by the present appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court vide its Order dated 13.10.2004 delivered in Civil Appeal No. 1416/03, remanded the matter back to this Court in view of the Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in case of Rahul Sharad Awasthi v. Ratnakar Trimbak Pandit and Ors. : 2004(5)BomCR50 . It appears that on 18.9.2002, this Court took a view that Section 4 of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, especially in relation to Section 100A thereof was applicable retrospectively and, therefore, letters patent appeals already filed were not maintainable. This Court, at that time, granted certificate under Article 134, r/w Article 133 of the Constitution of India to the appellants in LPA No. 7/96. In view of the orders dated 13.10.2004 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present appeal has been listed before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001(1)AWC1; (2001)1UPLBEC3
G. P. Mathur, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (for short P.U.C.L.) praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the incident which occurred on May 18, 2000 in which women were subjected to inhuman treatment and lathi charge by the police at Dehradun and for commanding the State of U. P. to hold disciplinary enquiry against the erring officers and to punish them in accordance with law and also for a direction to respondents to pay compensation to the victims of police atrocities.2. The petitioner (P.U.C.L.) claims that it is an organisation which is dedicated to upholding of human right, civil liberties and democratic rights. According to the petitioner, an organisation known as Uttarakhand Mahila Manch (hereinafter referred to as Mahila Manch) used to stage regular 'dharnas' in the Court campus of Dehradun in connection with their demand of separate Ut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3422; JT2001(7)SC335; 2001(6)SCALE69; (2001)7SCC645; 2002(1)SCT234(SC); 2002(1)LC53(SC)
Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9.12.1989 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, whereunder the claim of the first respondent came to be allowed with a direction that the case of the first respondent and other similarly situated students, who applied for the Post-graduate course in the Goa Medical Colleges in terms of the 1998 Rules, shall be considered keeping in view that the residency requirement as contained in Rule III 1(iii) is directory. The effect of the said direction is to, in substance, dispense with or doing away with the eligibility requirement envisaging ten years residency in the State of goa in the matter of selection of the candidates for admission to the Post-graduate courses in Medicine and MDS for the academic year 1999-2000. The relevant portion of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Post-Graduate Degree Courses of the Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Goa Rules 1998') reads as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR785]; [2008(3)JCR129(SC)]; (2008)IIILLJ1012SC; 2008(10)SCALE15
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In the instant Application, the petitioner seeks directions from this Court on the following:(a) Direct the respondent State/JHALCO to immediately comply with the Order dated 13.1.2005 and pass the Order of absorption in JHALCO with respect to 213 employees listed in the letters issued by MD, JHALCO on various dates (annexed to the I.A.), pursuant to the Order dated 13.1.2005 leaving the employees who have died. (b) Pass any other Order (s) as may be deemed fit and proper.2. The short history for proper decision would be necessary.History:3. Original State of Bihar came to be divided into existing State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand by Bihar Reorganisation Act with effect from 15.11.2000. The State of Jharkhand exercising its power under Section 85 of the Bihar Reorgnisation Act constituted a Corporation called 'Jharkhand Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation' (hereinafter called `JHALCO') by notification No. 2580 with effect from 29.12.2001.4. It may be recalled...
Tag this Judgment!