Court : Mumbai Nagpur
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. On this writ petition, from time to time, orders have been made directing that it would be heard finally at Admission stage. Accordingly, we proceed to issue Rule and by consent of parties, all of whom are appearing through advocates and waive service, we dispose of this writ petition finally by this judgment. 2} By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24th February 2011 by which the Vice Chancellor of the 1st respondent-University has withdrawn and cancelled the approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a lecturer in Mass Communication in Central India Institute of Mass Communication administered by Institute of Educational Research and Development Affairs, Nagpur. It is also declared by this order that the petitioner shall cease to be a teacher within the meaning of section 2(34) of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 (for short “M.U. Act”) from the date of this orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. On this writ petition, from time to time, orders have been made directing that it would be heard finally at Admission stage. Accordingly, we proceed to issue Rule and by consent of parties, all of whom are appearing through advocates and waive service, we dispose of this writ petition finally by this judgment. 2} By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24th February 2011 by which the Vice Chancellor of the 1st respondent-University has withdrawn and cancelled the approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a lecturer in Mass Communication in Central India Institute of Mass Communication administered by Institute of Educational Research and Development Affairs, Nagpur. It is also declared by this order that the petitioner shall cease to be a teacher within the meaning of section 2(34) of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 (for short M.U. Act) from the date of this order. 3} The peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
JUDGMENTR.M. LODHA, J.Introduction1. This group of six appeals occupied considerable judicial time. These matters were heard on ten days between November 2, 2011 and November 29, 2011. Although the facts differ from one another in some respects but since fundamental issues appeared to be common and all these matters arise from a common judgment dated April 4, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, we have heard all these matters together which are being disposed of by this common judgment.Prayers2. The prayers in the writ petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court also differ. However, principally the reliefs prayed for by the appellants in their writ petitions were for quashing (i) the decision of the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand contained in the letter dated September 13, 2005 whereby the State Government sought to withdraw the recommendation for grant of mining lease made in favour of the appellants in the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.6135 of 2012 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------------Saroj Kumar Jena Petitioner Opposite parties Versus State of Orissa and others For petitioner - Mr. Prabodh Chandra Nayak For opposite parties - Addl. Government Advocate (for opp. parties 1 to4) M/s. S.R.Pattnaik, P.K.Mohanty, S.K.Nayak and Miss M.Mohapatra (for opp. party no.5) --------------PRESENT THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. V. GOPALA GOWDA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of hearing 17.07.2012 : Date of judgment - 17.07.2012 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.K.Mishra, J.The petitioner in this case assails rejection of his technical bid by the opposite party no.3, the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Cuttack wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
W.P.No.19140 of 2011 (O).WP No.19140/2011(O) WP No.5308/2004(O) WP No.2654/2006(O) WP No.1893/2007(O) WP No.2261/2007(O) WP No.2135/2008(O) 16.7.2012. Shri Mukesh Agrawal for the petitioner in W.P.No.19140/2011(O).Shri H.S.Shrivastava, Counsel assisted by Shri Sandesh Jain for the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.19140/2011(O) and for petitioners in W.P.No.5308/04(O).W.P.No.2654/2006(O).W.P.No.1893/2007(O) and W.P.No.2261/2007(O).As the controveRs.involved in all these cases are identical, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19140/2011(O).The petitioner has sought the following relief : 7.1 to quash the assessment order dated 30.01.2006 (P/3).7.2 to quash the appellate order dated 12.04.2007 (P/5).7.3 to quash the revision order dated 23.06.2011 (P/7).7.4 to hold that notification dated 19/02/1991 (P/1) is still applicable; 7.5 to hold that no tax is payable by the petitioner in respect of purchases made between 2002-03 ...
Tag this Judgment!