Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2007(3)JCR524(Jhr)]
Permod Kohli, J.1. Petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is alleged that about 8,000 Chemists, Druggists and Pharmacists are its members.The grievance projected in this petition is non-acceptance of the applications for renewal of the Pharmacists Licence and consequently non-renewal of such licences. The members of the petitioner-Society were duly registered and entered in the register maintained under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 prior to creation of State of Jharkhand. After bifurcation of State of Bihar and creation of successor State of Jharkhand, such of the pharmacists who had have their place of business/profession in the State of Jharkhand have been denied renewal of their Pharmacists Licence. Petitioner-Society has named a number of such pharmacists/ licensees who were registered in the unified State of Bihar by the Bihar State Pharmacy Council, Patna but have been refused renewal of their registration in the State of Jharkhand after its c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC669; [1967]1SCR400
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order dated February 25, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 72 of 1965. The High Court summarily dismissed the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing a notification issued in pursuance of sub-section (1) of s. 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962 in respect of the delimitation of certain Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petition was rejected on the short ground that under Art. 329(a) of the Constitution the said notification could not be questioned in any court. Article 329 - which is relevant for our purpose - reads : 'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR25; 2008(131)ECC102; 2008(157)LC102(Bombay); 2008(230)ELT22(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Revenue has preferred this appeal against the common order dated 5th April, 2005 passed by CESTAT in the Appeals and Applications which were filed before it. The Appeals were preferred against the common order in original dated 23rd March, 2005 of the Commissioner of Central Customs (Preventive) in the matter arising out of the show cause notice dated 7th August, 2003. The Appeals preferred were allowed, both as to objection as to jurisdiction as also on other points which are set out in para.7 of the impugned order. It is Revenue which has preferred this Appeal.2. One of the question of law which was urged before the learned CESTAT and which was framed, read as under:Whether the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) was the proper officer having jurisdiction to seize the rig in the EEZ and whether he was competent to issue a show cause notice and adjudicate the same to demand duties on goods imported, assessed and cleared on assessment orders of the proper officer of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: July 17, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2342/2012 DR.JYOTI HYANKEY Represented by: .....Petitioner Mr.Praveen Kr.Singh and Mr.Safiullah, Advocates. versus UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION .....Respondent Represented by: Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Aditi Gupta and Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates for R-1. Mr.Arjun Pant, Advocate for R-2. Dr.Sunita R-3 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. An advertisement was published in the Employment News dated 22-28 March, 2008 which was issued by the Union Public Service Commission on behalf of the Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy, Government of NCT, Delhi inviting applications from eligible candidates to be appointed as Medical Officer (Homeopathy). Four posts, with which we are concerned, were shown as reserved for members belonging to notified Scheduled Tribes.2. The writ petitioner applied and cleared t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1966)7GLR532
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from a decision of Bhagwati J., recorded in Second Appeal No. 13 of 1964 by which the learned Judge dismissed summarily that Second Appeal. The learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 raises a preliminary point and that is that the Letters Patent Appeal does not lie under the circumstances of this case. In order to decide this preliminary point, it is not necessary to state the facts relating to the merits of the case. It will be enough only to mention a few facts which have a bearing on the preliminary point. The Letters Patent Appeal arises from out of Civil Suit No. 37 of 1961 which was instituted by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mandvi, Kutch. The learned Judge passed a preliminary decree for partition in that suit. Appellants, defendants. Nos. 1 and 2, preferred Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1962 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Kutch at Bhuj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC747; 1977(1)KarLJ57; (1977)ILLJ262SC; (1977)2SCC457; [1977]2SCR282
Jaswant Singh, J.1. This batch of appeals by special leave, the first one out of which is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 7, 1968, of Somnath Iyer, J. of the Mysore High Court in R.S A. No. 627 of 1964, and the rest whereof are directed against the common judgment and decree dated March 26, 1968 of M. Santhosh, another learned Judge of that Court, in R.S.A. Nos 120, 881, 117 to 119 and 882 to 884 of 1967 shall be disposed of by this judgment as they raise a common question as to the validity of orders of dismissal from service of persons who are arrayed as first respondents in all these appeals.2. The facts leading to the appeals are : The first respondent in each of these appeals was working as a conductor in the Road Transport Department of the erstwhile Stats of Hyderabad prior to the coming into force of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. On the reorganisation of the States with effect from November 1, 1956. consequent upon the coming into force of the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1957Bom165; (1957)59BOMLR355; ILR1958Bom32
Shah, J.1. In this application the petitioner Padmakar Balkrishna Samant has sought to challenge the validity of certain provisions of the States Re-organisation Act (37 of 1956). The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Goregaon, without the limits of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, in the Taluka of Borivali, District Thana. The petitioner says that Goregaon was declared to be 'a village' within the meaning of Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 1923, and that the said village had a panchayat consisting of 15 elected members, that about 25000 persons are residing in the village and that the panchayat 1ms a revenue of about two lacs of rupees per annum and that the Goregaon Village Panchayat is the 'biggest and the most progressive' village panchayati within the State of Bombay. The petitioner further stated that under authority conferred upon the State of Bombay by an enactment entitled the Bombay Municipal (Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA ) (Amen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1968Bom219; (1967)69BOMLR871; 1967MhLJ954
(1) The petitioner Shri. S. H. Mankar has challenged the election of the respondent as a member of the Maharastra Legislative Assembly from 104 Balapur Assembly Constituency in Akola District, at the recent elections held in February, 1967.(2) The petitioner was himself a candidate at such election. The petitioner had originally challenged the election of the respondent on two grounds. Firstly he contended that the respondent was holding an office of profit under the State of Maharastra and was therefore disqualified from being nominated to or becoming a member of the Maharastra Legislative Assembly under Article 191 of the Constitution. His second ground of attack was that the respondent had himself used his office and taken help of Government officials and vehicles to strengthen his election machinery.(3) Both these allegations were denied by the respondent in his written statement; but the petitioner made a statement before this Court on 24-6-1967 that he did not want to press the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971AP1
Vaidya, J.1. The appellant in all these writ appeals are personnel who were in the service of the State of Hyderabad as it was existing prior to 1-11-1956 and were allotted t the State of Andhra Pradesh from 1-11-56. The Appellants in W.A.No.167 of 1967. and 9,10 and 11 of 1968 were Tahsildars on 1-11-56 and were promoted as Deputy Collectors after that date. They filed writ petitions out of which these writ appeal arise on their being reverted to the post of Tahsildars. Writ Appeal No. 167 of 1967 arises out of Writ Petition No. 2067 of 1966. Writ Appeals 9,10 and 11 of 1968 air out of Writ petitions 2082 of 1966. 60/67 and 244/67 respectively. The Writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgment rendered by our a common judgment rendered by our learned brother Chinnappa Reddy. J. The appellation Writ Appeal No. 253 of 1968 was a Nayab Tahsildar (Deputy Tahsildar) on 1-11-1956 and was later promoted as Tahsildar. he filed writ petition No. 825 f 1967 out of which the aforesaid appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1233; 1977LabIC554; (1977)ILLJ442SC; (1977)2SCC587; [1977]2SCR956
P.K. Goswami, J.1. These appeals are by certificate of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Civil Appeal No. 1299 of 1969 is concerned with the appellant's suit for declaration of his dismissal order dated October 21, 1959, as void and illegal. Civil Appeal No. 1298 of 1969 arises out of his suit for arrears of salary. Both the matters were heard together in the High Court and the judgment out of which Civil Appeal No. 1299 of 1969 arises is the principal judgment following which a short order was passed by the High Court dismissing the other suit of the appellant for arrears of salary. The High Court granted certificates in both the appeals. It will be sufficient to deal with Civil Appeal No. 1299 of 1969 in this judgment as the decision therein will govern the other appeal.2. The facts may now be briefly stated:3. The appellant who was the plaintiff in the court below was appointed as a clerk in the Patiala State some time in July 1948. On the formation of the new State of Punjab on...
Tag this Judgment!