Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 30th July, 2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petitions Nos. 6876 and 8979 of 2009 whereby a total of 15 seats in the 1st year MBBS course have been directed to be reduced from out of the management quota of the appellant-college for the academic session 2010-2011, with a direction to the Admission and Fee Regulator Committee to ensure that the order passed by the Court is carried out in letter and spirit. The facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petitions may be summarized as under:3. For the academic session 2006-2007 the appellant-M/s R.D. Gardi Medical College, Ujjain, admitted to the first year of MBBS course as many as 19 students who had not secured 50% marks in the examination conducted by the Association of Private Medical and Dental College of M.P. The legality of the said admissions came up for scrutiny before the High Court who declared the same to be illegal hence liable to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Leave granted.2. Applications were invited from eligible candidates, by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission for filling up one post of Instructor (Dress Making). The essential qualification prescribed for the post was as follows :"Qualification Essential :(i) Matric with Mathematics or its equivalent from a recognized University/Board.(ii) One year National Trade Certificate in Dress Making and one year National Trade Certificate in Embroidery and Needle Work. (iii) Central Training for Instructor (CTI) course of one year duration in the related trade i.e. Dress Making or Embroidery (or Trades for which Craft Training Instructor Training facility is not available, at least four years experience in the trade concerned in an Industrial Training Institute and or in reputed Industrial concern). (iv) At least two years experience in the Trade concerned."3. Out of the 60 applications received, 14 candidates including the appellant and the fourth respondent were found eligible and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. All these appeals are arising out of the land acquisition proceeding in which various notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were issued in proximity of time, i.e. in 1981, with respect to adjoining lands in the Erode and Periasemur Villages for the construction of houses for the scheme called "Erode West Neighbourhood Scheme" and therefore we propose to decide them by a common judgment and order. The Civil Appeal Nos. 1760-1761 are directed against final judgment and order dated 18-01-2001 passed by the Madras High Court in Appeal No.298/92 and CMP No. 15057/97 wherein the High Court by its impugned judgment partly allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent and declined to condone the delay of 7 days in filing the Cross appeal by the appellants and consequently, dismissed the CMP No. 15057/97. Consequent thereto, the cross-appeal of the Appellants was also dismissed without going into merit. The Civil Appeal No. 687...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The present appeals are filed by the appellant and are directed against the judgment and order dated 08.06.2001 passed by the High Court holding that the respondents-claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square yard for the acquired lands after deducting 1/3rd from the said amount, i.e., Rs. 25/- per square yard, along with other benefits as awarded by the Civil Court.2. The State Government of Andhra Pradesh by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] on 16.01.1985, which was published in the Gazette on 17.04.1985, proposed to acquire an extent of land measuring 84 acres 24 guntas of land situated in Survey Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 108 of Pothireddipalli village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. The aforesaid notification was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter, taking into consideration the sale transactions of ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.1.2003 rendered by the Madras High Court allowing Writ Petition No. 1311 of 1999 filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and setting aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27.11.1998 which had allowed the Original Application No. 891 of 1996 filed by the appellant herein. The O.A. filed by the appellant thus stood dismissed by the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.2. Short facts leading to this appeal are as follows:- At the relevant time in November 1994, the appellant was working as a Chief Law Assistant which was a Group-`C' post in the Southern Railways. The post higher to this post is that of the Assistant Law Officer which is a Group-`B' post. At the relevant time the total cadre strength of Assistant Law Officers in Southern Railway was three. Initially when `Assistant Law Officer' was a single post cadre, in the year 1991, it was filled by an open category candidate. Subsequ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The present appeal, by special leave, raises the issue, indeed the only issue, of assessment of loss of earnings in respect of the victim of a motor accident who was certified 70% permanent disablement.2. Arvind Kumar Mishra - appellant - a student of engineering final year at Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra (B.I.T.) at the time of accident was seriously injured as a result of a truck bearing registration No. DEG 3291 being negligently driven on June 23, 1993. The truck coming from the opposite direction hit the motorcycle and the appellant riding the motorcycle was thrown on the road. He sustained multiple injuries; diffused multifocal damage of brain with interventricular hemorrhage; optic atrophy in right eye and 3+ relative afferent papillary in left eye; amputation of right hand distal to carpometacarpal joint level; compound fracture of shaft of tibia (left); total bronchial plexus palsy; blocking of anterior wall of the trachea at the level of the 3rd and 4th cartilagino...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. These appeals are directed against judgments dated 21.4.1997 and 20.5.1998 of the learned Single Judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court whereby they allowed the second appeals preferred by the plaintiffs- respondents (hereinafter referred to as `the respondents') and restrained the defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as `the appellants') from interfering with their right, title and interest as well as possession over the suit properties without following the procedure established by law. In his judgment dated 21.4.1997 rendered in Second Appeal No. 98/1992, which is under challenge in Civil Appeal No.4109 of 2002, the learned Single Judge also made payment of compensation as a condition for taking possession of the land.2. We shall first notice the factual matrix of Civil Appeal Nos. 3751- 3752 of 2002.2.1 The respondents filed Suit No.44/1 of 1987 for grant of a declaration that they are the owners of land measuring 381 bigha 8 biswas comprised in Khewat Khatuni No.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.The facts of the present case reveal that a person who initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for disobeying his own orders; appointed his subordinate as an inquiry officer; appeared as a witness in the proceedings to prove the charges of disobedience of his orders; accepted the enquiry report; and further passed the order of punishment - i.e. dismissal of the appellant from service. The question does arise as to whether such a course is permissible in law. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12th July, 2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), dismissing the Writ Petition No. 782 of 2007 filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') Lucknow dated 25th May, 2007, by which the Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition No. 837 of 2003 filed by the appellant and upheld the order of dismissal of the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 30.01.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No. 710 of 2005 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge.2) Brief facts:a) According to the appellant, he is a freedom fighter, who sacrificed his studies in the freedom struggle and had taken active part in the 1942 agitation and was forced to remain an absconder for more than four years i.e. from 20.08.1942 till September, 1946 as he was made an accused in G.R. Case No. 985 of 1942 and in Mokama P.S. Case No. 259 (8) of 1942 titled State vs. Mahender Singh & Ors., relating to the incidents of burning and damaging of a post office, railway line etc. at Mokama during freedom struggle. In 1972, Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme was introduced by the Government of India for the grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families. In 1980, the benefit of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1) Leave granted.2) By our order dated 14.09.2010, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, we had directed the release of the detenu, since we were satisfied that the appellant prima- facie had made out a case for release of the detenu. Now we give our reasons for allowing this appeal in support of our pre-emptory order.3) Here is an unfortunate case involving a person who ought not to have been detained under preventive detention and have his liberty curtailed by virtue of his incarceration under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter "NS Act").4) Individual liberty is a cherished right, one of the most valuable Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizens of this Country. On "liberty", William Shakespeare, the great play writer, has observed that "a man is master of his liberty". Benjamin Franklin goes even further and says that "any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neit...
Tag this Judgment!