This tag is associated with 4 posts

right to receive pension as per the revised formula.= under the Statute 16 (which has been in force from 1982), it is specifically provided that any change in the rate of pension or relief therein into the service conditions of the State Government employees would be extended to the University. = Therefore, in our view, the Division Bench cannot be faulted for taking the view that the reading of Statute read with the resolution passed by the State Government, University employees will be entitled to include 50% of the D.A. into their basic pay for the purposes of calculating their pension.= It is interesting to note that the University was a party to the Writ Petition but the University did not challenge the decision rendered either by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench. 12. In view of this position, in our view, there is no reason to entertain this appeal. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40601 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2011 STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS SUDHIR CHANDRA KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH C.A.NO.205/2011, 206/2011, 207/2011, 208/2011, 209/2011, 210/2011, 202/2011, 203/2011, 201/2011 AND 204/2011. O R D E R 1. We have heard Mr.Manish Kumar, learned counsel … Continue reading

Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995 (Act No.37 of 1995) Apex court declared sec.4 (1) also as ultravires which was omitted by Division bench – partly allowed the appeal confirming other findings of Division bench,= the Division Bench allowed the writ petition in part. The challenge in the writ petition was to the amendment introduced to Sections 2, 4, 9 and 17, as well as insertion of Sections 31-A, 31-B, 31-C, 37-A, 37-B to the Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995 (Act No.37 of 1995), hereinafter referred to as “1995 Act”. The Division Bench upheld the amendment to Section 4(1) of 1995 Act. The Division Bench also held that the amendment to Sections 9(2), 31-A(1) and (2), 31-B, 31-C, 37-B(a), 37-B(b), 37- B(d) and 37-B (e) are intra-vires. The Division Bench further held that the proviso to Section 4 is intra-vires, as far as it provides that no Centres shall be established without prior approval of the State Government and no centre would mean no further Centres excluding the existing ones. The Division Bench further held that the said proviso as far as it stipulated that no courses should be conducted or run without the prior approval of the State Government is ultra-vires, as far as, it related to the present stream of courses and the existing Centres. Section 37-A was held to be ultra-vires in its entirety. Section 37-B (e) was held to be not ultra-vires.= We also hold that the said provision does not in any way offend Article 14 of the Constitution, nor does it affect the autonomy of the appellant University. Apart from the above challenges, no other submission relating to the other amended provisions were seriously argued before us. 114. In the light of our above conclusion, this appeal is partly allowed. We hold that the amended Section 4(1) under Act 5 of 2000 inclusive of the introduction of proviso to the said Section is ultra-vires of the Constitution and the same is liable to be set aside. In other respects, the judgment of the Division Bench stands confirmed. The application for intervention considered, no merits, the same is dismissed.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40500 Page 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6736 OF 2004 Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya …Appellan t – Versus – State of M.P. & Ors. …Respondents J U D G M E N T Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Division … Continue reading

Proliferation of arms and ammunition, whether licensed or not, in the country disrupts the social order and development, vitiates law and order situation, directly contributes towards lethality of violent acts which needs to be curbed. We are sorry to note the law enforcing agencies and to certain extent the courts in the country always treat the crimes lightly without noticing the havoc they can create – to the ordinary peace loving citizens of this country and to the national security and the integrity and the unity of this nation. We may indicate, the case in hand shows, how casually and lightly, these types of cases are being dealt with by the courts.- Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, he has necessarily to undergo the minimum mandatory sentence, prescribed under the Statute. 11. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has overlooked this vital fact and awarded only one year’s R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/-, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court. The High Court has made it worst by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, which was only seven days, in a case where the accused should have undergone a minimum sentence of three years and fine under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 12. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of sentence passed by the High Court as well as the courts below and order that the respondent-accused has to undergo a minimum period of three years sentence as prescribed under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and also with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, another three months simple imprisonment.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1324 OF 2012 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5389 of 2011   State of M.P. … Appellant Versus Ayub Khan … Respondent   J U D G M E N T   K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.   1. Leave granted.   2. Proliferation … Continue reading

By an originating process filed on 4 November 2010, the plaintiff (Cranney Farm), in its capacity as the trustee of the Cranney Family Trust, seeks an order under s 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for the setting aside of a statutory demand served on it by the defendant (Corowa Fertilizers) on 15 October 2010. While there is dispute as to whether the demand adequately identified the debt claimed as being due and payable, there is no doubt that it relates to an underlying debt owing by the former trustees of the Cranney Family Trust (Rohan and Geoffrey Cranney) for the supply of fertiliser for rural operations then being carried on by them in their capacity as trustees. 2 Cranney Farm concedes that it cannot, while it remains bound by a judgment given by Bryson AJ against it on 1 October 2010 ( Corowa Fertilizers Pty v Rohan and Geoffrey Cranney & ors , unreported 2009/291644), assert that there is a genuine dispute as to the existence of the claimed debt. Rather, it bases its application for the setting aside of the statutory demand on two grounds: first, pursuant to s 459J(1)(b) of the Corporations Act , that there is “some other reason why the demand should be set aside” (ie other than a defect in the demand, the existence of a genuine dispute or the existence of an offsetting claim) – Cranney Farm in fact submitting that there are two such (related but distinct) ‘other reasons’, those being the filing of a Notice of Appeal (said to have reasonable prospects of success) in relation to the judgment debt on which the statutory demand is based (which appeal, if successful, would mean that the judgment debt would be expunged) and, as a distinct but related reason, that Cranney Farm would be entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment debt; and secondly, pursuant to s 459J(1)(a) of the Act, that the demand is defective such that substantial injustice would be caused if the demand were not to be set aside, the defects identified being in relation to the amounts and descriptions of the debts contained in the schedule to the statutory demand. 3 I note that when the originating process which is now before me was filed (and indeed up until the hearing of the application before me had commenced), no Notice of Appeal from the decision of Bryson AJ had been filed (although a Notice of Intention to Appeal was filed on 29 October 2010, a copy of which was annexed to the affidavit sworn 1 November 2010 of Geoffrey Cranney as director of Cranney Farm and on its behalf on the current application). On 13 December 2010 a Notice of Appeal was filed, the appeal proceedings being listed for directions on 16 February 2011.

Cranney Farm Pty Ltd v Corowa Fertilizers Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 9 (2 February 2011) Last Updated: 14 March 2011 Supreme Court New South Wales Case Title: Cranney Farm Pty Ltd v Corowa Fertilizers Pty Ltd Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWSC 9 Hearing Date(s): 13 December 2010 Decision Date: 02 February 2011 Jurisdiction: Before: Ward … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,299 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com