Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2287; III(2006)BC392(SC); [2006]131CompCas591(SC); (2006)5CompLJ30(SC); 2006(3)CTC569; 2006(6)SCALE154; (2006)5SCC361; [2006]68SCL216(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the SEBI') is the appellant in the present appeal under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. This appeal was filed against the final judgment and order dated 21.08.2003 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in appeal No. 50 of 2002 and 51 of 2002 raising an important question of law as to whether once it is conclusively established that the Mutual Fund has violated the terms of the Certificate of Registration and the statutory Regulations i.e. SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') the imposition of penalty becomes a sine qua non of the violation. The respondents have not chosen to enter appearance though they were served with the notice. Since the service is complete and the appeals are ready for hearing, the above appeals were listed for final hearing. 2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2339; 2006(2)KLT923(SC); 2006(6)SCALE167; (2006)6SCC395; 2007(1)SLJ164(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Mr. K.H. Siraj is the appellant in Civil appeal Nos. 2539- 2540 of 2005. Aggrieved against the judgment and final order dated 1.3.2005 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal Nos. 1496 & 1584 of 2004 whereby the Division Bench by its judgment and order allowed the appeals filed by the respondent-High Court of Kerala, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and held that the selections and appointments made were regular in all respects.2. Mr. C.T. Sivanandan and Mr. Shahjahan M. are the appellants in Civil appeal Nos. 3377-3378 of 2005. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 1.3.2005 in Writ appeal No. 1584 of 2004 and O.P. No. 6784 of 2002 of the High Court of Keraka, they filed the above appeals by which the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge. Special Leave Petition(c) Nos. 14140-14141 of 2005 were filed by Mr. V.R. Manu Manaswini against the common impugned judgment dated 1.3.2005 passed in W.A. No. 1497 of 2004 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(110)FLR384]; 2006(6)SCALE274
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dt. 07.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 3920 of 1989 whereby the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants herein. The first appellant is the Principal, Ayurvedic College, District Pilibhit (U.P.) and the second appellant is the Director of Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Lucknow (U.P.). The third appellant is the State of U.P. through Collector, Pilibhit, District Pilibhit (U.P.). The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Science demonstrator in Lalit Hari Ayurvedic college, Pilibhit (U.P.). In the year 1966, the District Magistrate was appointed as a Receiver in the College. Thereafter, all the appointments and removal of teacher was required to be done by the Receiver, i.e., the District Magistrate. On 19.11.1967, respondent No. 1 was subsequently appointed as lecturer in science subject by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2301; 2006(3)CTC746; 2006(6)SCALE291; (2006)10SCC448
AR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Maharashtra. Since respondent Nos. 2 to 15 are not apparently interested in contesting these appeals, notice of lodgment of petition of these appeals were ordered to be issued only to respondent No. 1 for hearing.2. The present appeals are directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur against the judgment and final order dt. 25.09.2003 in Civil Application No. 3778 of 2003 in Writ Petition No. 2564 of 2002 and the judgment and final order dt. 24.11.2003 passed in Civil Application No. 6770 of 2003 in Civil Application No. 3778 of 2003 in the same Writ Petition whereby the High Court finally dismissed both the aforesaid applications of the petitioner therein who is the appellant in these two appeals. The Writ Petition No. 2564 of 2002 was filed by the petitioners as Public Interest ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2122; 2006(6)ALD86(SC); 2006(5)ALT24(SC); 2006(3)AWC3068(SC); 2006(3)CTC750; 2006(6)SCALE271; (2006)9SCC723
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. H.M. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Counsel for the respondent. The matter relates to the acquisition of the land owned by the respondent for public purpose. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 4.2.1981 for the acquisition of the land in question situate in village Kambali, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar for the purpose of expansion of Industrial Focal Point Mohali. The Land Acquisition Officer by its award dated 22.12.1983 awarded a sum of Rs. 85,000/- per acre for Chahi land. We are concerned only with Chahi land in these appeals and not other lands. On 2.9.1986, the District Judge maintained the award of Rs. 85,000/- per acre as regards Chahi land was concerned. The matter was taken up on appeal by the State of Punjab. The respondent claimant also filed an appeal. Both the appeals were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment on 18.1.1989. The High Court awarded the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(3)CTC669; [2006(110)FLR568]; JT2006(7)SC31; (2006)IILLJ1043SC; 2006(6)SCALE358; (2006)11SCC147; 2007(1)SLJ46(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Director (Marketing) and General Manager (Operations), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. are the appellants before us. The respondent is a dismissed employee of the Appellant-Corporation. The respondent joined the appellant - Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'The Corporation') in the year 1987. He was posted as Assistant Manager (Operation) at Hissar Depot of the Corporation in the year 1995. He was charge-sheeted on account of irregular supply of High Speed Diesel to the purchasers without following the procedure. The incident at Hissar Depot and 12 KL of High Speed Diesel was supplied twice from 17.6.1996 to 19.6.1996 against the same challan by the respondent. A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent. Eight charges were framed against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report which is available at page 26 to 40 of the paper book. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of charge Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The other ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2316; [2006(110)FLR356]; (2006)IILLJ1122SC; 2006(6)SCALE264; (2006)5SCC377; 2007(1)SLJ59(SC); 2006(2)LC830(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. We have heard Mr. V. Sudeer, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. L. Nageswar Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Advocate for the respondents. 2. The appellant was appointed as a security officer of the respondent Bank in 1980 and was working in middle Management Cadre (Grade-III) as Manager. Security in 1998 when he was dismissed from the services of the respondent Bank for alleged violation of Regulation 13 of the Union Bank of India Officer Employee (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. In the charge sheet, it was alleged that he was not reporting for his duties since 3.6.1997. It was further stated that the appellant's services were transferred to Chennai but the appellant did not carry out his transfer orders to Chennai and was remaining absent without sanction of leave. Regulation 13(1) requires that 'no officer/employee should absent himself in case of sickness or accident without submitting a proper medical certificate'. The Bank's Staff C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2127; 2006(6)SCALE268; (2006)10SCC294; 2007(1)SLJ49(SC)
ORDER1. The present Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.04.01.1996 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Misc. Petition No. 2611 of 1992.2. We have heard Mr. A. Sharan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellants. The first respondent died during the pendency of this appeal in this Court. Though his Lrs. were impleaded vide Courts Order dt.20.04.2006 in I.A. No. 2, there is no response on their behalf. Notice has also been served on respondent Nos. 1(i), 1(ii), 2 and 3. In spite of service, none appears for the said respondents. The respondents were found guilty by the Officer Commanding, Troops, C.O.D., Jabalpur by order dt.18.04.1992. They were sentenced to undergo RI for one year and dismissal from service. This was in respect of respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo RI for six months each and also suffered dismissal from service. All the three respondents approached the High Court on 05.08.1992 by way of W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(4)ALD40(SC); 2006(3)AWC2757(SC); 2006(6)SCALE122; (2006)9SCC695
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 31.3.2000 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Appeal No. 820 of 1987. The same has been pending before this Court since 2000.2. The above matter was listed for final hearing before us during summer vacation. On 18.5.2006, after hearing the respective learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we passed an order requesting the learned Counsel for the parties to discuss this matter with their respective clients and explore the possibility of settling the matter amicably by sharing the compensation amount according to their due share and thereafter pursue the Reference jointly under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. Again on 18.5.2006, we passed a detailed order after hearing all the parties. Both the parties agreed to share the compensation at the rate of 65% for the respondents 1, 2 & 3 and 35% for the appellants and respondent No. 5. Certain o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2006)IILLJ1119SC; 2006(6)SCALE218; 2006(1)LC785(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and the counsel for Union of India. This Writ Petition was sent by Narender Malav by post to this Court expressing some grievances in regard to the working conditions of salt workers in Kachchh District, Gujarat. The letter sent by Mr. Narender Malav was considered and numbered as a Writ Petition by this Court. The matter is pending in this Court from 2001. Several Orders were passed issuing several directions to the State of Gujarat and other functionaries. Several reports have also been filed. Finally, an Order was passed by this Court on 20.04.2005 issuing certain directions. By the said Order, the Education Department was directed to look into the issue of education of children of salt pan workers at the work place, where currently no educational facility is made available. The matter was ad...
Tag this Judgment!