Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3619; 2006(5)ALD66(SC); JT2006(6)SC13; 2006(6)SCALE493; (2006)9SCC138; 2006(2)LC824(SC)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 5147-5148/2005 were admitted as students by the Himalaya Ayurvedic Mahavidyalaya between 1992 to 1995 in its Medical College being the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 5149-5150/2005. Inasmuch as, the aforesaid college had not obtained affiliation from any recognized university the appellants in the first set of appeals were not allowed to appear for examinations conducted by the university.2. It may be indicated that soon after the aforesaid college was established in 1993, the college applied for affiliation under Section 37(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State University Act for the course of Ayurveda Acharya, Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine/Surgery, (hereinafter referred to as 'the BAMS') to the Vice-Chancellor of Shri Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur, now known as Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University. According to the college, it admitted three students during the academic year 1992-1993, 15 students for the academic year 1993-1994...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(110)FLR709]; [2007(1)JCR250(SC)]; JT2006(7)SC200; (2006)IIILLJ11SC; 2006(6)SCALE492; (2006)5SCC673
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the respondents.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1505/1996 allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein. The High Court by the impugned order modified the punishment by way of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and quashed the order of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent herein. The High Court also ordered reinstatement with all pecuniary and consequential service benefits. 3. We have been taken through the charges framed against the respondent herein and also the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and also the order passed in the Claim Petition. Five charges were framed against the respondent herein. The charges are very serious in nature. The charges No. 1,2,3 and 5 have been proved beyond any doubt. Charge No. 4 has not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2464; 2006CriLJ3283; 130(2006)DLT591; 2006(3)KLT269; RLW2006(4)SC2731; 2006(6)SCALE489; (2006)5SCC733
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. This petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') is for a direction to conduct enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the 'CBI') into the murder of one Yashvir Singh, son of the petitioner. The allegation is that though First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') has been lodged with the police to the effect that said Yashvir Singh has been murdered and has not committed suicide, because of the pressure of some influential people, police has not taken any positive steps, and on the contrary the petitioner is being harassed and threatened by certain persons. As culled out from the petition, said Yashvir Singh was posted as Additional Commissioner of Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh and was found dead in his official residence on 19th January, 2006. Petitioner made a grievance that the police officials in collusion with some relatives - more particularly in-laws of the deceased- Yashvir Singh are pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2449; 102(2006)CLT648(SC); 2006CriLJ3285; JT2006(6)SC1; RLW2006(4)SC3080; 2006(6)SCALE483; (2006)5SCC752; [2006]69SCL105(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. When the matter was placed for admission, the office report pointed out that the appellant in each Appeal has not surrendered and therefore in terms of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (in short the 'Rules') the Criminal Appeal cannot be taken up. It is pointed out that in each case an application has been filed for staying operation of the impugned judgment and final order dated 12th April, 2006 passed by the Special Court at Bombay constituted under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 (in short the 'Act') in Special Case No. 4 of 1996 during the pendency of the appeal and to suspend the sentence of the appellant and the fine.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal is under Section 10 of the Act and the learned Judge of the Special Court has suspended the substantive sentence passed against each of the accused for a period of 10 weeks from the date of judgment. For that purpose each of the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2460; 2006CriLJ3284; JT2006(6)SC22; 2006(6)SCALE478; (2006)5SCC674
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants question correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court who dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants simply observing that the Criminal Revision Petition No. 117 of 2001 filed by the informant has been dismissed and the said revision and appeal related to the same judgment. It is to be noted that the appellants as accused Nos. 2 and 3 faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'), along with accused No. 1 i.e. Tej Ram who has expired in the meantime, while several others some of whom have died in the meantime, the allegations were under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC for which the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were also similarly charged.3. The trial court by its judgment dated 13.11.2000 held that the appellants Kalu Ram and Roop Chand were guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC3076(SC); 2006(6)BomCR168; JT2006(6)SC19; (2006)144PLR190; RLW2006(4)SC2882; 2006(6)SCALE480; (2006)5SCC520
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. The State of Haryana, Deputy Commissioner-cum- Collector, Faridabad and the Sub-Registrar, Faridabad call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which Civil Writ Petition No. 167 of 2006 filed by the respondent was disposed of.3. The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition with the following direction:The only prayer of the petitioner at this stage is that the present matter be disposed of by the respondents by keeping in mind the order of this Court appended as Annexure P-7 with application. We accordingly issue a direction to the respondents that necessary exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court without indicating as to how the order of the High Court in an earlier case in Ramesh Chand and Ors. v. The Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006CriLJ4605; 2006(6)SCALE462; (2006)5SCC676
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The order of detention passed in respect of Ganapathy @ Undakkuli @ Salve Ganapathy (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') was questioned by his mother the appellant by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition before the Madras High Court. The same was dismissed by the impugned judgment.3. Mainly three grounds were urged in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition. It was submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation. Further that the detenu had not filed any application for bail, therefore, the detaining authority had committed error in holding that there was imminent possibility of his coming out on bail. Further the detaining authority had relied upon the confessional statement of a co-accused without supplying copy thereof. That denied detenu the opportunity of making an effective representation. The High Court did not find any substance in the aforesaid submissions and dismissed the petition.4. In support of the appeal, learned Couns...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2326; [2006(110)FLR704]; [2006(4)JCR50(SC)]; JT2006(6)SC56; (2006)3MLJ305(SC); 2006(6)SCALE466; (2006)6SCC57; 2007(1)SLJ77(SC)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated April 3, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench in O.A. No. 1094 of 2001 and confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on April 16, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 25452 of 2002.2. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondent herein, Mr. M. Mathivanan was selected for recruitment to the cadre of Postal Assistant on December 28, 1981 and was appointed as Postal Assistant on daily wages basis. He underwent necessary training and was placed in Reserve Training Pool (RTP), Postal Assistant to be absorbed as regular Postal Assistant and was posted to work in the post offices in Cuddalore Postal Division. In August 1983, the respondent, volunteered for enrolment in Army Postal Services (APS). By an order dated August 19, 1983 his request was accepted and he was appointed as Postal Assistant, Cuddalore with effect from August 27, 1983. The appointment was made subj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2336; [2006(110)FLR617]; JT2006(6)SC8; (2006)IILLJ1128SC; 2006(6)SCALE473; (2006)5SCC442; 2007(1)SLJ67(SC); 2006(2)LC811(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer').The High Court by the impugned order quashed the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Lucknow Region, Lucknow. The said authority had issued a certificate for recovery of Rs. 60,810.76 from respondent No. 1 in terms of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (in short the 'Act').2. Background facts filtering out unnecessary details are as follows:On the basis of a complaint received from the appellant, the Assistant Labour Commissioner issued a notice to respondent No. 1 stating that it had not paid outstanding wages to the employees/workmen of the establishment amounting to more than Rs. 60,000/-. The authority asked the respondent No. 1-employer to show cause as to why recovery under the Act shall not be made as arrears of land re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2257; 2006CriLJ2926; 2006(3)KLT218(SC); 2006(6)SCALE454; (2006)5SCC425
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, upholding the conviction recorded and sentenced imposed on the appellant by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959, (in short the 'Arms Act'). The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. He was also convicted in terms of Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ with default stipulation.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:(i) Vishnu Ram (PW-8) followed agricultural pursuits at village Tharwa. His elder brother Prithi Raj lived separately...
Tag this Judgment!