119/2007 was registered u/s 147, 148, 341, 324, 323 and 307 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The same view has been ,expressed in Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. The learned Judicial Magistrate on intimation to the informant accepted the final report. It is true that where it is a case of discretion of an authority, this Court will only quash the order and ask the authority to reconsider the matter if the discretion has not been properly exercised. The effect of failure to seek leave or bring on record the person upon whom the interest has devolved during the pendency of the suit was the subject-matter of consideration before this lawyers Supreme Court of India in various decisions.
, Manikandan, Jegan, Murugan, Vijayan, Sunil and some others attacked him with ˜Vettu Kathi, knife and iron rod and in the said attack he sustained multiple injuries. In the case of Saila Bala Dassi v. The Appellants herein are being denied just and fair compensation for their land in proceedings which commenced in 1987, despite the directions of the High lawyer Supreme Court of India passed as early as in 1988 to pass an award within four months.
The first ground on which the validity of the reference and the award is challenged is based on the assumption that the reference involved the determination of the title to immoveable properties situated in Burma and/or that the award has actually determined the said question of title. The defendant raised various pleas, both technical and substantive to non-suit the plaintiff. 250, 160 It is therefore upon to us to issue a direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the Authority to follow the law as laid down by this Court in respect to the order of renewal granted by it in accordance with S.
We can make an order or issue a writ in the nature of certiorari in all appropriate cases, and in, appropriate manner, so long as we keep to the broad and fundamental principles that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting such writs in English law. In view of the express provision in our Constitution we need not now look back to the early history or the procedural technicalities of these writs in English law, nor feel oppressed by any difference or change of opinion expressed in particular cases by English Judges.
This section does not confer any power on the tribunal ‘to adjudicate upon any other dispute or to impose conditions as a prerequisite for granting the permission asked for by the employer. But in this case, the discretion is not absolute; it is circumscribed by the provision of s. The Inspector of Police, Kulasekaram Police Station conducted the initial investigation and subsequently the case was transferred to the District Crime Branch Police, Kanyakumari and thereafter, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram stating that the case was a mistake of fact.
” The language used in articles 32 and 226 of our Constitution is very wide and the powers of the Supreme Court of India advocates Court as well as of all the High Courts in India extend to issuing of orders, writs or directions including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition and certiorari as may be considered necessary for enforcement of the fundamental rights and in the case of the High Courts, for other purposes as well. If Satendra Prasad Jain is interpreted to mean that Section 11A will not apply to any acquisition under the urgency provisions, landowners such as the Appellants before us will have no protection, even if they are not paid full compensation for their land for decades.
” (1) [1954] INSC 57; [1955] 1 S. The motive behind the assault, as per the FIR, was due to business rivalry that existed between the appellant and Manikandan, as both are contractors. The informant had alleged that on 05. Furthermore, keeping empirical evidence in sight, we make bold to opine that circumstances require this Court to reconsider its view that even if the stated public interest or cause has ceased to exist, any other cause can substitute it, especially where the urgency provisions have been invoked.
80,000; in the result, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 828 required to do is to grant or withhold the permission, that is to say, either- to lift or to maintain the ban. The raison detre behind the introduction of Section 11A was for the landowners to have a remedy in the event of an award not being passed expeditiously. The learned Subordinate Judge raised as many as 15 issues on the pleadings and held that the suit was within time, that the notice issued complied with the provisions of the relevant statutes, that the respondent had locus stand to file the suit and that the respondent had made out his claim only to the extent of Rs.
80,000 with proportionate costs. 24 The scenario before us depicts the carelessness and the callousness of the State, quite different from the situation in Satendra Prasad Jain and Avinash Sharma. Nirmala Sundari Dassi T. Nachiyappa Chettiar and his four sons, appellants 1 to 5 respectively, in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, and they have been brought to this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court of Madras under Art.
, speaking for himself and on behalf of S. This cannot be in keeping with the legislative intent behind this Section.