Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1. These appeals under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are filed by original plaintiffs. They filed suits seeking declaration that they being employees of the erstwhile Junagadh State, they could not be retired at the age of 58 years but would be entitled to continue in service till 60 years of age as they would continue to be governed by the rules of erstwhile Junagadh State even after its merger into Saurashtra State which merged into bilingual State of Bombay and then Gujarat State on bifurcation from Bombay State. 2. The appellant of Second Appeal No. 86 of 1997 had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 700 of 1985 and his case in the suit is that he was initially appointed by the Revenue Commissioner vide order dated 10.2.1948 as writer clerk in the erstwhile Junagadh State, that the Junagadh State merged into Saurashtra State and thereafter in Bombay State and then, the State of Bombay was bifurcated and State of Gujarat came into existence with effect from 1.5.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment : [ R.M. Borde, J.] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Bhavsar Kshetriya caste which is included in Other Backward Class category. The petitioner is serving as Conductor in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The school record of the petitioner records caste as 'Hindu Maratha'. According to the petitioner, while securing admission in school, his father has erroneously recorded the entry as 'Hindu Maratha'. He further contends that old record pertaining to his father, uncle and other near relatives show that they belong to 'Bhavsar Kehstriya caste'. The petitioner has also been issued caste certificate by the competent authority. The son of the petitioner has also been issued caste certificate by the competent authority certifying that he belongs to 'Bhavsar Kshetriya caste' and his caste claim has been validated by the compe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment : [ R.M. Borde, J.] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Bhavsar Kshetriya caste which is included in Other Backward Class category. The petitioner is serving as Conductor in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The school record of the petitioner records caste as 'Hindu Maratha'. According to the petitioner, while securing admission in school, his father has erroneously recorded the entry as 'Hindu Maratha'. He further contends that old record pertaining to his father, uncle and other near relatives show that they belong to 'Bhavsar Kehstriya caste'. The petitioner has also been issued caste certificate by the competent authority. The son of the petitioner has also been issued caste certificate by the competent authority certifying that he belongs to 'Bhavsar Kshetriya caste' and his caste claim has been validated by the compe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL Appellate Jurisdiction
V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Appellant, M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of passenger vehicles and has a manufacturing facility at Manesar, Haryana. For the purposes of its business activities, Appellant has established a captive power plant having a capacity of 66 MW within the premises of its facility at Manesar, Haryana. 2. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) is the 1st Respondent herein. 2nd Respondent, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) is one of the distribution licensees in the state of Haryana having Southern Haryana as its area of supply. The premises of the Appellant at Manesar fall within the area of supply of the 2nd Respondent (DHBVNL). 3. The Commission has passed the impugned tariff order on 27th May 2011 determining the Annual Revenue Requirement of the 2nd Respondent and retail tariff for the year 2011-12. The Appellant got aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
V.J. TALWAR TECHNICAL MEMBER, J. 1. The Appellant, M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of passenger vehicles and has a manufacturing facility at Manesar, Haryana. For the purposes of its business activities, Appellant has established a captive power plant having a capacity of 66 MW within the premises of its facility at Manesar, Haryana. 2. Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) is the 1st Respondent herein. 2nd Respondent, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL) is one of the distribution licensees in the state of Haryana having Southern Haryana as its area of supply. The premises of the Appellant at Manesar fall within the area of supply of the 2nd Respondent (DHBVNL). 3. The Commission has passed the impugned tariff order on 27th May 2011 determining the Annual Revenue Requirement of the 2nd Respondent and retail tariff for the year 2011-12. The Appellant got aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.1922/12 3/10/12 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. Challenging the order dated 19/01/11 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Khandwa in an ex parte proceedings held under Section 33 (c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directing the petitioner Corporation to pay to the respondent employee a sum of Rs.1,73,797/- on various counts, this writ petition has been filed. Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the material available on record and tried to emphasize that an ex parte proceeding has been held without prior notice to the respondent and by pointing out financial status of the respondent Corporation and the reorganization which resulted in certain administrative difficulties, Shri P.K.Mishra emphasizes that the default should be condoned and liberty be granted. Shri A.K.Gupta has filed a detailed reply and submits that inspite of notice as the petitioner did...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.13863 / 2012 (S.C.Rahatgaonkar, ..Vs..Lokayukta, M.P.& otheRs.21-09-2012 Shri D.N.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.1, dated 23-8-2003, the order passed by the respondent No.4, dated 17-3-2009 and the subsequent directions issued by the respondent No.4, dated 26-3-2009 (Annexure P-4) . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to bifurcation of State of Madhya Pradesh into two States i.e.State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh, respectively, the petitioner was posted in the Forest Department at Amarkantak and at that point of time certain members of the subordinate staff filed a complaint against the petitioner before the respondent No.1, Lokayukta, Madhya Pradesh, pursuant to which notices were issued to the petitioner, however, subsequently on formation of the State of Chhattisgarh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment dated 07/03/2011 delivered by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court. They involve the same questions of law and facts and hence can be disposed by a common judgment. The appellants in these appeals were posted as Additional District Judges, Fast Track Courts. They are direct recruits from the bar. By the impugned order, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the Judicial Officers who are members of the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Jharkhand, challenging the appointment of the appellants to the posts of Additional District Judge (for short, ADJ), Fast Tract Courts (for short, FTC). The writ petitioners before the High Court, inter alia, claimed that they were eligible for being appointed as ADJs and that they are directly affected persons in monetary terms as well as in terms of their future promotional avenues because of the appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. The Constitution makers fervently hoped to usher a society committed to equality, where barriers of race, gender, domicile, descent and the unforgiving marginalization of a large section of the society as a result of the ills of the caste system and the practise of untouchability, would eventually be eliminated. The commitment has remained largely an unrealized promise. The strategy of the State to bridge the social gulf through affirmative action has thrown up constant challenges which Courts are called upon to resolve. This is one such challenge, where the Court has to grapple with the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 read with Article 16, in the context of differing standards of what is the permissible reservation standard applicable on the one hand to residents of states who take up residence in one state, as opposed to residents of states who take up residence in Union territories. This judgment seeks to answer a reference made to the Full Bench, constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
ORDER WRIT APPEALS UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 The following order of the Court was passed by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. (1) Heard. (2) The decision rendered in W.A. No.342 of 2011 shall also govern the disposal of other appeals being W.A. Nos. 343 of 2011, 344 of 2011, 345 of 2011 and 358 of 2011, because, all these appeals involve identical issues and secondly arise out of common order passed by the writ Court ( Single Judge ). (3) This is an appeal filed by the respondents of W.P.(S) No. 974 of 2005 under Section 2 (1) f the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against the common order dated 04.04.2011 passed by the Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petition and other connected writ petitions. (4) By the impugned order, the writ Court (Single Judge) allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein (employees) and in consequence, set aside the dismissal order of the writ petitioners (respo...
Tag this Judgment!