Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2011(4)ILR(Ker)885; 2012(1)KLT18(SN); 2012(1)LW209; 2012(2)MLJ442; 2012(1)KantLJ629; 2012(1)KarLJ629; AIR2012SCW651; 2012(2)SCJ8
1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals have been filed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur and one Mr. Wahangbam Joykumar impugning the judgment dated 29th July 2010 passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 11 and 12 of 2008 in connection with two Writ Petition No.733 of 2007 and Writ Petition No. 478 of 2007. The material facts giving rise to the controversy in this case can be summarized as follows: 3. Appellant No.2 filed an application dated 9th February, 2007 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act (Act) for obtaining information from the State Information Officer relating to magisterial enquiries initiated by the Govt. of Manipur from 1980-2006. As the application under Section 6 received no response, appellant No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 18 of the Act before the State Chief Information Commissioner, who by an order dated 30th May, 2007 directed respondent No. 2 to furnish the information within 15 days. The said direction was challenged by the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2012)1SCC753; AIR2012SC852
1. Whether the Haryana Housing Board (for short, `the Board') could ignore the time limit of 7 years specified in clause 2(w) of the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement executed by the appellants as per the requirement of Regulation 11(4) of the Housing Board Haryana (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1972 (for short, `the Regulations') framed by the Board in exercise of the power conferred upon it under Section 74 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (for short, `the Act') and demand additional price from them after 10 years of the allotment of tenements is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the letters patent appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining their prayer for quashing the demand of additional price was upheld.2. In response to an advertisement issued by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2012)1SCC551; AIR2012SC885
1. Leave granted.2. The State of Maharashtra made a law known as “Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste) Certificate Act, 2000”. Under Section 3 of the said Act it is stipulated that any person belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribes etc, is required to produce a `caste certificate' in order to claim benefit of reservation either for the purpose of public employment or admission to educational institutions or for contesting elections in any * Sec.2(a) “Caste Certificate” means the certificate issued by the Competent Authority to an applicant indicating therein the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, De-Notified Tribe (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Classes, Special Backward Category, as the case may be, to which such applicant belongs; local authority etc. and such a ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT21(SN); 2012(1)SCC762; 2012(1)SCJ567; AIR2012SCW297; AIR2012SC329
The returned candidate -- Ramesh Rout - whose election to the 14th Orissa Legislative Assembly from 89-Athagarh Assembly Constituency has been set aside by the High Court of Orissa has preferred these two appeals under Section 116A read with Section 116C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, `the 1951 Act').2. The Election Commission of India (for short, `Commission') in order to constitute 14th Legislative Assembly announced general elections in the State of Orissa to be held in two phases on April 16, 2009 and April 23, 2009. Following this, the Governor of the State of Orissa in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5(2) of the 1951 Act issued a notification which was published in the official gazette on March 28, 2009. The 89 - Athagarh Assembly constituency is one of the 147 Assembly constituencies in the State of Orissa and is `General' constituency. The Commission appointed the following schedule of election :28.3.2009To04.04.2009 = Period prescribed for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2012)1SCC690; AIR2012SC1769
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. A suit was filed by the appellants praying for payment of money which according to the appellants was due to them for undertaking the construction work on behalf of the defendants. The suit was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 12th November, 2009 by the District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, inter alia, holding that the plaint cannot be registered as it was barred by limitation as also in view of the fact that there was no compliance with Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code insofar as notice on defendant No. 2 is concerned.4. On an appeal before the High Court, the High Court was pleased to hold that the suit is barred by limitation but on the question of notice, the High Court came to a different finding and came to the conclusion that notice was served. The material facts of the case are as follows:5. The appellants-plaintiffs entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 for construction of a school auditorium for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)SCC555; 2012(1)KLT9(SN); AIR2012SCW205; 2012(2)SCJ158; 2012(2)LW289; AIR2012SC357
1. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 18.02.2003 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.371 of 2000. 2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent No.3 booked a consignment of monoblock pumps with the appellant for transportation from Coimbatore to respondents No.1 and 2 at Gwalior in March, 1997. While the appellant was transporting the consignment in a truck, there was an accident and the monoblock pumps were damaged. The respondents No.1 and 2, therefore, did not take delivery of the 198 damaged monoblock pumps at Gwalior. In the circumstances, the appellant returned the 198 damaged monoblock pumps to the respondent No.3. 3. The respondents No.1 and 2 then filed Complaint No.101 of 1998 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, and their case in the complaint was that they had paid the price of the consignment to respondent No.3 and were entitled to Rs.3,61,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT10; AIR2012SCW207; AIR2012SC364; 2012CriLJ1001
1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions filed by Shri Sumedh Singh Saini. 2. These appeals have been preferred against the orders dated 30.5.2007, 22.8.2007, 5.10.2007 and 4.7.2008 in Crl. Misc. No. 152- MA of 2007; order dated 19.9.2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 86286 of 2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 152-MA of 2007; and orders dated 2.11.2007 and 6.11.2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 93535 of 2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 152-MA of 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. For the sake of convenience of disposal of the appeals, we would refer only to the criminal appeals filed by the State. 3. The Appeals herein raise peculiar substantial questions of law as to whether the High Court can pass an order on an application entertained after final disposal of the criminal appeal or even suo motu particularly, in view of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) and as to whether in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)SCC429; 2012(1)SCJ339; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)464; AIR2012SCW728; 2012(1)TNMAC85; AIR2012SC361
1. Delay condoned 2. Leave granted 3. The original appellant, Ram Kiran Goyal @ Ram Karan, who had gone to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident, is no more. He died during the pendency of the appeal and was substituted by his legal representatives, who now pursue the claim. 4. On December 14, 1987, Ram Karan was travelling in a Maruti car on way from Delhi to Jaipur. At about 9.30 in the morning, near village Assalwas on Highway No. 8, a truck going ahead of the car suddenly took a right turn without giving any indication and as a result the car had a head-on collision with the larger vehicle. In the accident, Ram Karan and the other occupants of the car (that included his brother, a third person and a fourth person who was driving the car) received grievous injuries. Ram Karan received injuries mainly in his legs and head. He also got a number of teeth broken that had to be extracted. He remained under treatment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KarLJ496; 2012(1)KantLJ496
1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for both the parties that similar matters are disposed of holding that as long as lawful recreational activities are carried on by the association such as the petitioner, there would by no requirement in law for taking permission from the police department either under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 or under any other licensing order. Therefore, this matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.3. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the internal activities of the petitioner in the matter of carrying on the recreational activities and that the respondent-authorities be directed not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain licence either under the Police Act or under the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusement Act to run the recreation club permitting ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KarLJ216; 2012(1)KantLJ216
1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for both the parties that similar matters are disposed of holding that as long as lawful recreational activities are carried on by the association such as the petitioner, there would be no requirement in law for taking permission from the police department either under Section 31 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 or under any other licensing order. Therefore, this matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent for both the parties.3. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the internal activities of the petitioner in the matter of carrying on the recreational activities and that the respondent-authorities be directed not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain licence either under the Police Act or under the Licensing and controlling of Places of Public Amusement (Bangalore City) order, 2002 to run the r...
Tag this Judgment!