Court : Chennai
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:04. 02.2013 Coram The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition Nos.22069 of 2012 and 799 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2012 and 1 & 1 of 2013 C.P.C.(P) Ltd., rep. By its Dy. Manager Personnel Mr.Jayaveeran having registered office at No.207, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbator030. .... Petitioner in W.P.No.22069 of 2012 Kovai District New Democratic Labour Front rep. By its General Secretary, Regn.No.1241/06 Shop No.137, 1st Floor, K.R.R.Complex, Thadagam Road, KNG Pudur (Branch) Coimbator108. .... Petitioner in W.P.No.799 of 2013 Vs.1. The District Collector, District Collectorate, Coimbatore.2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, D.I.G.Office, Race Course Road, Coimbator018. 3. The Inspector of Police, Thudiyalur Police Station, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore.4. The New Democratic Labour Front, (Reg.No.1241), rep. By its Organising Secretary, Vilavai Ramasamy, Having District Head Office at No.137, 1st Floor, K.R.R.Complex, Thadakam ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
Rakesh Nath, Technical Member: 1. This Appeal has been filed by the Beta Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 28.12.2011 passed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) regarding transmission charges applicable to the wind power developers who desire to avail Renewable Energy Certificate under the Regulations notified by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. 2. The Appellant is engaged in the business of generation and supply of power from renewable energy sources. The Appellant has established wind power projects with total installed capacity of 82.6 MW within the State of Tamil Nadu. The power generated from wind power projects of the Appellant is transmitted and wheeled to the Appellants group companies. The State Commission is the 1st Respondent. Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. and Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. are the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under:- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Review Petition No.544/2012 29/1/2013 Shri N.S.Ruprah, Advocate for the petitioner. Arguments concluded. This is a petition, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for review of the order-dated 5/3/2012 passed in M.A.No.464/2012, directing the Registry to return the appeal for its presentation before the Bench at Gwalior in view of the fact that cause of action had arisen at a place between Jora Alapur and Sumaoli Railway Stations located in Distt. Morena, that falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench of this Court at Gwalior. Learned counsel for petitioner, the Union of India, has strenuously contended that the order deserves to be reviewed as the order passed by the Tribunal, situated within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court, constituted a part of cause of action and for the purpose, an analogy could have been drawn from Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. To buttress the argument, implicit reliance has been placed on a four...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) By this Petition, the Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") for quashing an offence registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1988"). The First Information Report was registered by the fifth Respondent-the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. The first Informant is the sixth Respondent. The Petitioner accused was a Police Constable who was at the relevant time attached to Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai. The allegation against him is of demand of illegal gratification from the sixth Respondent. On the basis of information supplied by the sixth Respondent, a trap was laid on 31st October 2012 when the Petitioner was caught raid-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.18,000/- in cash. 2. The ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:29. 01.2013 Coram The Honourable Mrs.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH Writ Petition Nos.25699, 25882, 25889, 25890, 31749, 24817 to 24820, 23753, 23754 , 25824 to 25826, 26005 to 26010, 26193 to 26197, 24793, 24918, 24919, 24917, 25591 to 25594, 27809 to 27834, 28051, 26980, 26467 to 26479, 31934, 25089, 26870, 30542, 25993, 27055 to 27059, 26440, 26441, 27746, 27792, 28530, 28800, 30305, 33951, 25972, 27846, 23528, 23529, 26811, 31066, 31067, 25708, 26047 to 26051, 26076 to 26079, 26080 to 26084, 26134 to 26137, 26138 to 26142, 26171, 26172 of 2012 and W.P.No.491 of 2013, 25343, 25950 to 25952, 26487, 26504, 24187 to 24189, 31020, 26088, 26089,27758, 26342, 24473, 24866, 25173, 25386, 28175, 28176, 29028, 26932, 26851, 27358, 27558, 27700, 28445, 29574, 29630, 34058, 34489 of 2012, W.P.Nos.922, 1126, 1127, 1016 and 1260 of 2013 and W.P.(MD)Nos.12871 and 12273 of 2012 & Connected Miscellaneous Peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 CIVIL APPEAL No.516 OF 201.3 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.22617 of 2008) State of Bihar & Anr. .... Appellant (s) Versus Sunny Prakash & Ors. .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJ.No.10870 of 2008 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) issued mandamus directing the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna to ensure that the commitment given by the State Government to the Bihar State University and College Employees Federation (in short the Federation) is honoured and implemented within one month from the date of the judgment. 3) Brief facts: (a) The Government of Bihar, Education Department, vide G.O. dated 25.02.1987, declared the non-teaching staff of Universities and Constituent Colleges equivalent to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) Leave granted.2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 10870 of 2008 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) issued mandamus directing the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna to ensure that the commitment given by the State Government to the Bihar State University and College Employees Federation (in short “the Federation”) is honoured and implemented within one month from the date of the judgment.3) Brief facts:(a) The Government of Bihar, Education Department, vide G.O. dated 25.02.1987, declared the non-teaching staff of Universities and Constituent Colleges equivalent to the Government staff.(b) On 16.07.2003, an Agreement/Compromise was arrived at between the Federation and the State Government, regarding parity between the employees of the Constituent Colleges of the University and the State Government. On...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1578 of 2008 --- Bhola Paswan --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Deptt. & others --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner:Mr.Shresth Gautam&Mr.Sumantra Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Piyush Chawla, JC to GA --- 04/ 10.01.2013 Heard counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Memo dated 12th April 2007 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bokaro whereby his application for grant of caste certificate has been rejected on the ground that he was not able to submit the required documents such as caste certificate and copy of the Khatiyan. The petitioner has also prayed for consequential order upon quashing of the impugned order to direct the respondents to issue caste certificate to the petitioner of caste to which he belongs i.e. 'Dusadh' whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :08. 01.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN Writ Petition No.31921 of 2012 M.S.Arasa Kumar ... Petitioner. vs. 1.The Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 3.The Chief Engineer, Highways Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai. 4.The Divisional Engineer (H) Chennai City Road, Government of Tamilnadu, No.394/4, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents from erecting any Arch on Rajaji Salai and Kamarajar Salai (Beach Road), Chennai including erection of Tamilnadu Assembly's Diamond Jubilee Memorial Arch. For Petitioner : Mrs.C.Dakshayini Reddy for Mr.D.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan Advocat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2013(2)MLJ77; AIR2013SCW347; AIR2013SC403; 2013(2)SCC29; 2013(1)SCJ973
Dipak Misra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th July, 2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 865 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench concurred with the view expressed by the learned single Judge in CWP No. 1383 of 2009 whereunder the respondents were held entitled for grant of Assured Career Progression Scale (for short “the ACP Scale”) on completion of ten years of service which included training as apprentice.3. The facts as have been undraped are that the three respondents invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court claiming the benefit of the second ACP Scale on completion of twenty years of service on the base that their period of training as apprentice had to be taken into consideration. Such a claim was founded on the assertion that they had joined as trainees between 17.4.1987 to 30.4.1987 and were subsequently absorbed and brought into the cadre. On...
Tag this Judgment!