Court : Uttaranchal
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Oral: 1. These are the extremely old matters pertaining to the year 2001. The counter affidavit on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh is on record. In spite of repeated opportunities provided to the State of Uttarakhand, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand, as yet. Although learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand - Mr. N.P. Sah has submitted before the Court that he has received instructions in the matter only on 10.07.2012. 2. Heard Mr. Alok Mehra and Ms. Vandhna Singh, advocates for the petitioners, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 3. All these writ petitions have been filed by the employees of Uttar Pradesh State Employees Welfare Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation), which has a registered office at 742 Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Prior to 09.09.2000, before creation of the State of Uttarakhand,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the second and third respondents not to pass, number or list writ petitions, writ appeals and habeas corpus writ petitions even if the respondents are from Delhi or Chennai falling within the Madurai Bench territorial jurisdiction / part of falling within Madurai jurisdiction / cause of action and when the petitioner's address is within the Madurai Bench jurisdiction irrespective of the respondents' addresses, at the Principal Seat, Chennai and to further transfer all pending writ petitions, writ appeals and habeas corpus writ petitions filed at the Principal Seat on or after 24.07.2004 falling within the Madurai jurisdiction.ORDERK.CHANDRU, J.1. This Special Bench was constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 14.10.2011 to hear the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.5709 of 2011. The Bench came to be constituted on a reference being made by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS v. PATCHAK etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 11246.Argued April 24, 2012Decided June 18, 2012[ 1 ] The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire property for the purpose of providing land to Indians. 25 U.S.C. 465. Petitioner Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (Band), an Indian tribe federally recognized in 1999, requested that the Secretary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. M/S Tarini Infrastructure limited, a company under the Companies Act,1956 responded to the call of Narmada Water Resources, a statutory body under the Government of Gujarat for participation in the bids from private parties for building Small Hydro Power Generation Project in river Daman Ganga at Madhuban reservoir which is about 35 kilometres from Vapi in the district of Valsad, and was successful in getting its bid accepted and accordingly was awarded the Concession for building two Small Hydro Power Projects of 3 MW (2X 1500KW) and 2.6 MW ( 1X 2600 KW) at Daman Ganga. The ‘Bid Document’ was prepared and issued on 9.11.2006 by the Govt. of Gujarat. The Concession Agreement between the Narmada Water Resources and the appellant was executed on 27.8.2007 and the power plants were to be at a distance of 1km from each other and were to be connected to the nearest sub- station of the Respondent No. 1 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (GUVNL) whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
P.S. DATTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, J. 1. When the appeal was being heard continuously for a number of days the learned counsels for both the parties would for the sake of convenience and also, of course, in lighter vein term the appeal as a ’good will’ case because the whole gamut of the appeal centres round the question whether the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, the respondent no.1 herein, was legally justified in making some alleged adverse criticisms against the appellant, namely Reliance Infrastructure Limited, a company under the Companies Act, 1956 in its 4-page order dated 9th September, 2010 passed in case no 121 of 2008. 2. Maintainability of the appeal in its present form and prayer has been no doubt, questioned by the Commission which we will advert to at the appropriate place ; for the present the essence of the order as has been expressed in paragraph 7 thereof is reproduced below after which we will revert back to the background of the case in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether the Uttarakhand High Court could ordain promotion of respondent No.1 Umakant Joshi to the post of General Manager with effect from 16.11.1989, i.e., prior to formation of the State of Uttaranchal (now known as the State of Uttarakhand) with the direction that he shall be considered for promotion to the higher posts with effect from the dates persons junior to him were promoted is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals, one of which has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand and the Director of Industries, Dehradun and the other two have been filed by Sudhir Chandra Nautiyal (hereinafter described as, Appellant No.1) and Surendra Singh Rawat (hereinafter described as, Appellant No.2) respectively against order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the Division Bench of that High Court in Writ Petition No.324 of 2008.2. The service profile of Appellant No.1:2.1 On being selected by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hall v. United States NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus HALL et ux. v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 10875.Argued November 29, 2011Decided May 14, 2012 Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code allows farmer debtors with regular annual income to adjust their debts subject to a reorganization plan. The plan must provide for full payment of priority claims. 11 U.S.C. 1222(a)(2). Under 1222(a)(2)(A), however, certain governmental claims arising from the disposition of farm assets are stripped of priority status and downgraded to general, unsecured claims that are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. All these matters are taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. In these letters patent appeals and writ petitions, learned Counsel for both parties made their submissions on the questions, which we have framed in this judgment. 3. Advocate Shri Khapre appearing for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.368/2011 made the following submissions : (i) The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was enacted to regulate and make better provisions for the administration of public religious and charitable Trusts in the State of Bombay. Various officers who are required to implement the provisions of the said B.P.T. Act, 1950, namely the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Deputy Charity Commissioner, Joint Charity Commissioner and Charity Commissioner are performing judicial functions or in respect of some provisions; the quasi-judicial functions. That is evident from the reading of several pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.1. Leave granted.2. The sole question for consideration in these appeals is whether on a complaint made to the Copyright Board under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the said Board under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) can pass an interim order in the pending complaint. Since, we shall be dealing with the said section throughout this judgment, the same is extracted here in below : "31. Compulsory licence in works withheld from public.(1) If at any time during the term of copyright in any Indian work which has been published or performed in public, a complaint is made to the Copyright Board that the owner of copyright in the work-(a) has refused to republish or allow the re-publication of the work or has refused to allow the performance in public of the work, and by reason of such refusal the work is withheld from the public; or(b) has refused to allow communication to the public by [broadcast], of such work or in the case of a [sound recording] the work recorded in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant was working as Superintendent with the Respondent No.2, namely, the National Gallery of Modern Art, Jaipur House, New Delhi. When the respondents were in the process of establishing a branch of the Respondent No. 2 in Bangalore in April/May, 2008, it decided, vide Annexure A-2 letter dated 13.02.2008, to transfer one post of Keeper/Deputy Keeper and one post of Superintendent to Bangalore Branch for a period of two years or till the sanction of the regular staff for that Branch whichever is earlier. Accordingly, one Smt. Rehana Shah holding the post of Keeper/Deputy Keeper was transferred there in order to take charge of the accounting functions of the said branch. Likewise, the applicant was also transferred for a period of two years vide Annexure A-4 letter dated 13.04.2008. He handed over the charge to one Shri Zile Singh, UDC working under him and got relieved from his duty. However, after joining the Branch Office at Bangalore, he was facing serious health problem...
Tag this Judgment!