Skip to content

Filter by :

Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:Supreme Page:100

Dec 11 2013

Bank of Baroda Vs. S.K. Kool (D) Thr Lrs and Anr.

  • Decided on : 11-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10956 OF2013(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.17054 OF2009 BANK OF BARODA . APPELLANT Versus S.K. KOOL(D)THROUGH LRS.AND ANR. . RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.S.K. Kool, respondent No.1 herein (since deceased), was working as a clerk with the petitioner, Bank of Baroda and while working as such after a departmental inquiry, as a measure of punishment, visited with the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise and without disqualification from future employment. S.K. Kool, hereinafter referred to as the employee, made a request for leave encashment, which was declined by the petitioner Bank of Baroda, hereinafter referred to as the employer, on the ground that where cessation of service takes place on account of employees resignation or his dismissal/termination/compulsory retirement from the Banks service, all leaves to his credit lapse. The employee laid claim for pensionary benefits but the same was also declined. However, the employer advised the employee to ask for sanction of compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him otherwise. A dispute was raised and the competent Government referred the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, reads as follows:Whether the ...

Dec 11 2013

Samta Aandolan Samiti & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

  • Decided on : 11-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.677 OF2013Samta Aandolan Samiti & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT A.K.SIKRI,J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with the grievance that while making admissions in the MBBS course, the respondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) is not strictly adhering to the reservation policy and have questioned the manner in which seats are allotted to the candidates belonging to reserved category. As per them, the AIIMS have far exceeded the quota prescribed for the reserved category candidates which has resulted in more than 50 % reservations of the seats, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The stand of the AIIMS, on the other hand, is that there is no violation of the law laid down by this Court in this behalf and the methodology adopted by the AIIMS for admission in MBBS course is perfectly valid and justified. The controversy has arisen in the following backdrop:2. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi issued Prospectus for admission in the MBBS course starting from August, 2013 along with admission in Six New AIIMS at Bhopal, Patna, Jodhpur, Rishikesh,Raipur and Bhubaneswar with an intake of 100 students in each new AIIMS. The reservation policy was notified to be 7.5.% ST, 15% SC, 27% OBC ...

Dec 11 2013

Manohar Prajapat Vs. State of M.P.

  • Decided on : 11-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2084 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.10045/2013) MANOHAR PRAJAPAT Appellant(s) :VERSUS: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s) ORDER Leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant is an accused in S.T. No.461 of 2010 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. He is facing charges under Sections 294 & 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant's case is that on the date of incident he was not in Indore. According to him, he was in Nimach District. He has pleaded alibi. In support of his plea the appellant wanted to examine nine witnesses from Nimach. He, therefore, moved an application for summoning those witnesses. It appears from the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the High Court that the High Court directed the Trial Court to issue notices to the concerned witnesses for their appearance before the Court within a period of one month from the date of the order i.e. 11.10.2013. The case of the appellant is that from 12.10.2013 to 17.10.2013 the Courts were closed because of public holidays. The appellant obtained the certified copy of the order dated 11.10.2013 on 18.10.2013 and moved the Trial Court on 30.10.2013. The Trial Court issued summons to the nine witnesses on 30.10.2013 for their appearance before it on 11.11.2013. It appears that on 11.11.2013 out of nine ...

Dec 11 2013

Park Regis Hospitality Management Sdn Bhd Vs. British Malayan Trustees ...

  • Decided on : 11-Dec-2013

Court : Singapore Supreme Court

George Wei JC: 1. These were appeals from the decision of the learned Assistant Registrar David Lee Yeow Wee ("the AR") to strike out the appellant's action against the respondents, and consequentially, dismiss the appellant's application to amend their statement of claim. I considered the arguments of the parties bearing fully in mind the principles of striking out, most importantly, that it must be plain and obvious that there was no merit in the claim before the claim was to be struck out. After considering the issues before me, I am of the view that the AR did not err in law and fact in striking out the action (apart from potentially one point of law pertaining to the "Release Rule") and therefore am dismissing both appeals. The Facts The Parties 2. The appellant, Park Regis Hospitality Management Sdn Bhd ("Park Regis"), is a hotel management company registered in Malaysia and is part of the Staywell Hospitality Group ("Staywell"). Staywell manages a network of 35 hotels in the Asia Pacific region under the brands, Leisure Inn and Park Regis. The appellant was the plaintiff in the hearing below. 3. British and Malaysian Trustees Limited ("BMT") is the trustee of Allco Property Return on Investment Fund ("the Fund"). BMT was the 1st defendant in the hearing below. The assets of the Fund are redeemable preference shares in Taragon Capital Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("Taragon"). Taragon is a company registered in Malaysia and is in the business of property development and investment. ...

Dec 11 2013

R (on the application of Hodkin and Another) Vs. Registrar General of ...

  • Decided on : 11-Dec-2013

Court : UK Supreme Court

LORD TOULSON (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke and Lord Reed agree) 1. Louisa Hodkin (the first appellant) and her fianc, Alessandro Calcioli, would like to be married in the church which they regularly attend at 146 Queen Victoria Street, London. The minister would be pleased to perform the ceremony, but there is a legal obstacle. The church to which they belong is part of the Church of Scientology. In R v Registrar General, Ex p Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697 the Court of Appeal held in a similar case that a different church within the Church of Scientology was not a "place of meeting for religious worship" within the meaning of section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 (18 and 19 Vict c 81) ("PWRA"), with the result that a valid ceremony of marriage could not be conducted there. The central question on this appeal is whether the decision in Segerdal should be upheld. 2. Miss Hodkin was born and brought up in a family of Scientologists. Her brother, David, was married at the Church of Scientology in Edinburgh. This was a valid marriage under Scots law because the Registrar General for Scotland authorises ministers of Scientology to perform marriages in Scotland, but the law in England is different from that in Scotland. The proceedings 3. The proprietor of the church at 146 Queen Victoria Street is the second appellant. On 31 May 2011 a trustee of the church applied on behalf of the congregation to the Superintendent Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages ...

Dec 11 2013

R (on the application of Edwards and Another Vs. Environment Agency an ...

  • Decided on : 11-Dec-2013

Court : UK Supreme Court

LORD CARNWATH (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Hope, Lord Mance and Lord Clarke agree) 1. The "Aarhus Convention" (more fully, the "Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters") requires that the procedures to which it refers should be "fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive" (article 9.4). Although the United Kingdom is a party to the Convention, it is not directly applicable in domestic law. However, the same requirements have been incorporated by amendments made in 2003 into directives, relating in particular to environmental impact assessment (EIA Directive 85/337/EEC) and integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive 96/61/EC); compliance was required by 25 June 2005 (Council Directive 2003/35/EC article 6) (The EIA Directive is now consolidated at 2011/92/EC). It has not been disputed that the present proceedings, though begun before that date, are at least at this level subject to what I will call the "Aarhus tests" under directly applicable European law. 2. For reasons explained in its judgment of December 2010 ([2010] UKSC 57; [2011] 1 WLR 79), the Supreme Court referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) certain questions relating to the expression "not prohibitively expensive". The reference followed the dismissal of the substantive appeal, and the making of an order for costs against the effective appellant, Mrs Pallikaropoulos (Edwards ...

Dec 10 2013

Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs

  • Decided on : 10-Dec-2013

Court : US Supreme Court

Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs NOTE:?Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. JACOBS etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 12815.?Argued November 5, 2013Decided December 10, 2013 Sprint Communications, Inc. (Sprint), a national telecommunications service provider, withheld payment of intercarrier access fees imposed by Windstream Iowa Communications, Inc. (Windstream), a local telecommunications carrier, for long distance Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls, after concluding that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempted intrastate regulation of VoIP traffic. Windstream responded by threatening to block all Sprint customer calls, which led Sprint to ask the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) to enjoin Windstream from discontinuing service to Sprint. Windstream retracted its threat, and Sprint moved to withdraw its complaint. Concerned that the dispute would recur, the IUB continued the proceedings in order to resolve the question whether VoIP calls are subject to intrastate regulation. Rejecting Sprints argument that this question was governed by ...

Dec 10 2013

Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall

  • Decided on : 10-Dec-2013

Court : US Supreme Court

Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall - 12-99 (2013) NOTICE:?This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports.?Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 1299 _________________ UNITE HERE LOCAL 355, PETITIONER v. MARTIN MULHALL etal. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit [December 10, 2013] Per Curiam. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. It is so ordered. Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall - 12-99 (2013) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 1299 _________________ UNITE HERE LOCAL 355, PETITIONER v. MARTIN MULHALL etal. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit [December 10, 2013] Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan join, dissenting. Section 302(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61Stat.157, as amended, an antibribery provision, makes it a crime for an employer to pay, lend, or deliver, or agree to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or other thing of value to a labor union that represents or seeks to represent its employees. 29 U.S.C. 186(a)(2). Section 302(b) makes it a crime for any person ...

Dec 10 2013

Chatterjee Petrochem Co. & Anr. Vs. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd.

  • Decided on : 10-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10932 OF2013(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19951 OF2013 CHATTERJEE PETROCHEM CO. & ANR APPELLANTS Vs. HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.& ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda J.On 21st March, 2012, the appellant Chatterjee Petrochem (Mauritius) Company (hereinafter referred to as CPMC) filed a request for arbitration in International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Paris in relation to an agreement of restructuring which was entered into between CPMC, Government of West Bengal, West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (in short WBIDC) and Haldia Petrochemical Limited (in short HPL) on 12th January, 2002. As per the Agreement, the Government of West Bengal was to cause WBIDC to transfer existing shareholding to CPMC to ensure that CPMC holds 51% of the total paid up capital of HPL. Clause 15 of the Agreement provides for reference of all disputes, in any way relating to the said Agreement or to the business of or affair of HPL to the Rules of the ICC, Paris.2. The respondent HPL on the other hand, claims that the Arbitration Agreement contained in clause 15 of the Agreement dated 12th January, 2002 is void and/ or unenforceable and/or has become inoperative and/or incapable of being performed.3. A dispute arose between the parties regarding the allotment of shares and the appellant filed Company Petition No.58 of 2009 before the Company Law Board (in short CLB)on the grounds of oppression and ...

Dec 10 2013

Abhay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

  • Decided on : 10-Dec-2013

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.(C) No.25237/2010 Abhay Singh ....PETITIONER versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENTS with SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No.23984/2010 Abhay Singh ....PETITIONER versus Union of India and another ....RESPONDENTS ORDER G.S. SINGHVI, J.One of the several questions of public and constitutional importance raised by Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel, who initially appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the special leave petitions filed against order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No.15440 of 1998 quashing the withdrawal of Z Grade Security provided to Respondent No.6-Pramod Tiwari, but later on assumed the role of an Amicus, is whether the Constitution contemplates categorization of citizens into two groups and whether the entitlement to use signs and symbols of authority, such as lights of different colours including red lights, insignia, and convoys/escorts by public servants and persons, who hold public offices under the States or the Union of India, is contrary to constitutional ethos and the basic feature of republicanism enshrined in the Constitution. Notice of the special leave petitions was issued on 25.8.2010. After an adjournment, the Court passed detailed order dated 14.10.2011, which reads as under:Although, the prayer made in this petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution is for setting ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //