Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2419; 119(2005)DLT401(SC); JT2005(5)SC28; (2005)5SCC363; 2005(2)LC993(SC)
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging a decision of the first respondent Union of India appointing the respondent No. 2 as a member of the National Human Rights Commission (the Commission). The primary basis of the challenge to his appointment is on the ground that prior to the impugned appointment the second respondent was holding the post of Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and was also holding the post of Vice-President (Asia) Interpol. According to the petitioner, the appointment of a person who served in the police force as a Member of the N.H.R.C. is contrary to the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, (the Act), apart from being opposed to the very aims and objects for which the said Commission was constituted. The petitioner urges that such appointment would underline the status and international recognition of the Commission as an institution for protection of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2412; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)922; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN164; [2005(105)FLR1051]; JT2005(5)SC62; (2005)IILLJ684SC; (2005)5SCC51; 2005(2)SLJ440(SC); 2005(2)LC891(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. This appeal by grant of leave is directed against the judgment dated 31.03.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta at Calcutta in M.A.T. No. 4310 of 1998. By the impugned order the Division Bench has set aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge of the same High Court in C.O. No. 6266 (W) of 1990 with C.O. No. 6274 (W) of 1990. The Single Judge had allowed the writ application filed by the appellants and directed the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia Oil Refinery (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') to absorb the appellants in its service and regularise their services. Division Bench, has set aside the aforesaid direction given by the learned Single Judge and held that the appellants were neither entitled to be absorbed nor regularised in the service of the respondent.2. Short facts of the case are as under:-Two sets of writ applications were filed in the High Court of Calcutta involving common question of law and fact, both...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3033; 2005(185)ELT3(SC); JT2005(5)SC13; 2005(2)KLT948(SC); (2005)4SCC472; [2005]141STC1(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. challenging the final order dated 16.9.1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the Trade Tax Revision No.3 of 1999 whereby the High Court allowed the revision of the respondent-assessee.2. The brief facts pertaining to the present appeal are as under:By the impugned order, the High Court allowed the revision filed by the respondent and quashed the order of demand of interest on the ground that no notice in writing was issued. It was observed in the judgment that even if the dealer was liable to pay interest on the late payment of amount of tax a notice is necessary for demand of interest. In the instant case, the assessing authority passed the order on 30.7.1990 imposing interest against the respondent. The respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, now Trade Tax, Allahabad Region, Allahabad. In the appeal, the respondent mentioned that ex parte proceedings im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2384; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN47; 2005(3)CTC40; JT2005(5)SC38; (2005)141PLR185; (2005)4SCC572
Ashok Bhan, J.1. This appeal by grant of leave has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.03.2002 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Regular First Appeal No. 280 of 1982. By the impugned order the High Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree for possession of the suit property and damages passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.FACTS2. Premises in dispute is an evacuee property i.e. shop No. 114, New Qutab Market, New Delhi, a Government Built Property in terms of Rule 2(d) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 and forms part of the compensation pool within the meaning of Section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').3. Bhagwan Das, father and predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-respondent who was not a displaced person filed C.W.P. No. 458-D of 1958 in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Delhi s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2658; 2005CriLJ3077; 120(2005)DLT1(SC); JT2005(11)SC106; (2005)4SCC605
1. Leave granted.2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, aggrieved against the judgment and final order dated 26.03.2004 passed by the High Court Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 185 of 2004 by which order the High Court gave the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as 'POB Act') to the second respondent - Gurcharan Singh but maintained the conviction, preferred the above appeal.3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are as under:One Mr. M.K. Verma (PW-4), Junior Engineer, Civil Line Zone, visited 189 Prem Gali, Punja Sharif, Mori Gate where he found unauthorized construction going at the first floor of the said plot. F.I.R. was prepared on the report of Mr. M.K. Verma who forwarded the F.I.R. before Zonal Engineer, who ordered to issue notice under Section 343/344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short the 'DMC Act'). Subsequently, the second respondent along with Kuldeep Singh w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2379; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)581; JT2005(5)SC4; (2005)5SCC46; 2005(2)LC870(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short) puts in issue an order passed by the designated Election Judge of the High Court, whereby an election petition filed by the appellant has been directed to be dismissed at the threshold as disclosing no cause of action. 2. The sole ground on which the election of respondent No. 1 was sought to be challenged and set aside, is that the respondent No.1 had committed the corrupt practice within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Act, which reads as under:'123. Corrupt practices -- The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:-xxx xxx(3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2426; 2005(3)ALD75(SC); 2005CriLJ2581; 119(2005)DLT430(SC); JT2005(5)SC1; RLW2005(2)SC241; (2005)5SCC359
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2005 of Delhi High Court by which the habeas corpus petition filed by the appellant was disposed of with certain directions.3. The appellant Rajesh Kumar Gupta is an Advocate-on-Record and is practicing in the Supreme Court of India since 1996. His marriage with Smt. Aruna Gupta daughter of Shri Ram Gopal Agarwala (respondent No. 1 herein) took place on 24.8.1997 and a daughter Rose Mala was born out of the wedlock on 5.6.2003. It appears that some differences have arisen between the appellant and his wife Smt. Aruna Gupta and currently she is living along with her parents, who have also been arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the special leave petition. The dispute here is about the custody of the child Rose Mala, who is with her mother. The appellant filed a habeas corpus petition in the Delhi High Court seeking the custody of his daughter Rose Mala mainly ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2391; 2005(4)ALT11(SC); JT2005(11)SC16; (2005)4SCC191
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2002 of Allahabad High Court by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants was dismissed.3. Jawahar Lal, the father of the appellants was a tenant of a shop bearing No. 29/17, Namak Ki Mandi, Agra and it was purchased by the respondent Smt. Munni Devi on 23.01.1976. After the death of Jawahar Lal, the appellants being his sons inherited the tenancy and started paying rent to the respondent. The respondent filed an application in the year 1987 seeking release of the shop on two grounds, namely, that the building was in a dilapidated condition and is required for the purpose of demolition and new construction wherein her husband will carry on the business after new construction had been made. The second ground pleaded was that one of her sons was unemployed and was sitting idle and he would also establish his business in the shop. The appellants contested ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2005)ACC384; AIR2005SC2663; 2005(4)ALD1(SC); JT2005(5)SC50; (2005)4SCC391
Arun Kumar, J.C.A. 3700-3712/20011. These appeals along with connected appeals have been placed before the Constitution Bench in view of an order of reference made by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court. For appreciating the point regarding which reference has been made, it is necessary to state a few facts. The appellant is a State Road Transport Corporation of the State of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). In public interest, the Corporation framed Schemes for providing transport services in different regions of the State. We are presently concerned with the West Godavari District of the State. The Schemes framed by the Corporation were subsequently approved by the State Government and notified in the official Gazette. The scheme which is subject-matter of the present appeals cover the route D.N.R. College (Bhimavaram) to Srinvavruksham. The route fells within the mofussil service which was nationalized under the Scheme. The effect of nationaliz...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2671; JT2005(11)SC166; 2005(4)KarLJ321; (2005)10SCC25
B.P.Singh, J. 1. Civil Appeal Nos.5684-5686 of 1999 by special leave are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 4.11.1998 in Writ Appeal Nos.5678, 5580 and 5622 of 1996. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court quashed the order of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge and remitted the matters to the Special Deputy Commissioner on a finding that the Land Tribunal ceased to have jurisdiction after the Amending Act, 1979 was declared ultra vires by the High Court by its judgment dated 24.4.1992. The order in the instant case was passed by the Tribunal on 8.6.1994, much after the Amending Act of 1979 ,was declared to be ultra vires.2. Civil Appeal No.5687 of 1999 is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court dated 24.4.1992 in which Petition No.7230 of 1979, whereby the Amending Act of 1979 was declared ultra vires in its entirety. 3. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed. There were two Acts in the State ...
Tag this Judgment!