Check out the whole information on Kerala High Court Judgment On UGC Net June 2012
To know more UGC NET Exam Notifications visit: https://www.anujjindal.in/ugc-net-jrf-complete-info/
This document is an urgent whistleblower application filed in an Indian court. It seeks to bring important information on record related to the administration of justice in judicial institutions. It references several pending applications filed by the whistleblower dating back to 2011 that remain undecided. These applications contain evidence of criminal conspiracy and involvement of public servants and judicial officers that the whistleblower seeks to present. The document requests that if the whistleblower's locus standi (standing) is questioned, the pending probate case determining this issue must be decided first before the applications can be heard. It urges the court to decide the various pending applications in sequence to allow the whistleblower to present pre-charge evidence in the matter.
This document is a template for a Personal Medical Attendant's Report (PMAR) from an insurance company. It requests medical information about a life proposed for insurance. It asks the medical attendant questions about their history with the patient, past illnesses and treatments, investigation results like blood pressure readings and tests, and other relevant medical details. The completed PMAR must be returned to the insurance company in a sealed envelope.
Additional document against Second Appeal D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Additional documents against Second Appeal vide D.No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 being filed vide D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017 before CIC New Delhi along with FAA, District & Session Judge's reply.
This document is a second appeal filed with the Central Information Commission regarding information requested under the Right to Information Act. The appellant had previously filed requests for information from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Begusarai regarding two court cases there. In the second appeal, the appellant argues that the responses received contained false or incomplete information, and requests that true and complete information be provided regarding details of the two court cases.
1. The document summarizes a court judgment from the High Court of Gujarat regarding criminal appeal case R/CR.A/1089/2021.
2. The appellant, Ashwinbhai @ Raj Ranchhodhbhai Poyala, had been convicted by a lower court for rape and offenses related to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for his relationship with the victim.
3. However, the High Court overturned the conviction after finding that the appellant and victim were in a consenting relationship, lived as husband and wife, and had two children together, so the case was more accurately an offense under the Child Marriage Act.
The High Court of Bombay heard a suo moto petition regarding under-trial prisoners in Maharashtra correctional homes. The Court directed the State to provide crime rate data after a recent lockdown order and to consider suggestions from an intervenor group on prisoner transfers. The State was given time to respond and submit a plan to decongest overcrowded prisons by shifting prisoners based on valid reasons, with any applications to be decided within 48 hours. The matter was adjourned to a future date for the State's responses.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Gujarat regarding three petitions filed by individuals (the petitioners) apprehending detention under the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act (PASA) in connection with complaints filed against them by the State Tax Department. The court notes that while the investigation is complete and charges filed, the sword of PASA detention remains hanging over the petitioners. The court issues directions that the state authorities cannot resort to PASA detention against the petitioners in these cases and restrains the state from doing so.
This document is an urgent whistleblower application filed in an Indian court. It seeks to bring important information on record related to the administration of justice in judicial institutions. It references several pending applications filed by the whistleblower dating back to 2011 that remain undecided. These applications contain evidence of criminal conspiracy and involvement of public servants and judicial officers that the whistleblower seeks to present. The document requests that if the whistleblower's locus standi (standing) is questioned, the pending probate case determining this issue must be decided first before the applications can be heard. It urges the court to decide the various pending applications in sequence to allow the whistleblower to present pre-charge evidence in the matter.
This document is a template for a Personal Medical Attendant's Report (PMAR) from an insurance company. It requests medical information about a life proposed for insurance. It asks the medical attendant questions about their history with the patient, past illnesses and treatments, investigation results like blood pressure readings and tests, and other relevant medical details. The completed PMAR must be returned to the insurance company in a sealed envelope.
Additional document against Second Appeal D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Additional documents against Second Appeal vide D.No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 being filed vide D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017 before CIC New Delhi along with FAA, District & Session Judge's reply.
This document is a second appeal filed with the Central Information Commission regarding information requested under the Right to Information Act. The appellant had previously filed requests for information from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Begusarai regarding two court cases there. In the second appeal, the appellant argues that the responses received contained false or incomplete information, and requests that true and complete information be provided regarding details of the two court cases.
1. The document summarizes a court judgment from the High Court of Gujarat regarding criminal appeal case R/CR.A/1089/2021.
2. The appellant, Ashwinbhai @ Raj Ranchhodhbhai Poyala, had been convicted by a lower court for rape and offenses related to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for his relationship with the victim.
3. However, the High Court overturned the conviction after finding that the appellant and victim were in a consenting relationship, lived as husband and wife, and had two children together, so the case was more accurately an offense under the Child Marriage Act.
The High Court of Bombay heard a suo moto petition regarding under-trial prisoners in Maharashtra correctional homes. The Court directed the State to provide crime rate data after a recent lockdown order and to consider suggestions from an intervenor group on prisoner transfers. The State was given time to respond and submit a plan to decongest overcrowded prisons by shifting prisoners based on valid reasons, with any applications to be decided within 48 hours. The matter was adjourned to a future date for the State's responses.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Gujarat regarding three petitions filed by individuals (the petitioners) apprehending detention under the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act (PASA) in connection with complaints filed against them by the State Tax Department. The court notes that while the investigation is complete and charges filed, the sword of PASA detention remains hanging over the petitioners. The court issues directions that the state authorities cannot resort to PASA detention against the petitioners in these cases and restrains the state from doing so.
1) The appellant Karansinh Vaghela was detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act for offenses related to alcohol prohibition.
2) The High Court quashed the detention order, finding that a single offense was not sufficient to classify the appellant as a "bootlegger" under the law or show that his activities affected public order.
3) The Court held that detention requires more than a mere disturbance of law and order - it must be shown that the activities would affect the community or public interest more broadly. This was not established based on a single offense.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6770 / 2013 (SLP. 1427 of 2009)- India- Pending disciplinary action should not be a barrier for an employee for availing Pension and Gratuity. Uploaded by T James joseph Adhikarathil, Kottayam -ക്രിമിനൽ -വകുപ്പു തല നടപടികൾ നേരിടുന്ന കാരണത്താൽ ഒരു വ്യക്തിയുടെ പെൻഷനും ഗ്രാറ്റുവിറ്റിയും തടയാൻ പറ്റില്ലെന്നുള്ള state of Jharkhand vs jitendrakumar കേസിലെ വളരെ പ്രധാനപ്പെട്ട സുപ്രീം കോടതി വിധി
The Ohio Department of Education filed a motion to dismiss Cerena Mackey's claim for permanent total disability benefits. Mackey claimed she retired due to an injury, but the commission found her retirement was voluntary based on a lack of medical records from 2001-2005. The commission has discretion to reconsider cases where there was a mistake of law, which occurred here because the initial decision did not address whether Mackey's retirement was voluntary. The commission properly denied benefits because a voluntary retirement bars eligibility for benefits. As the commission acted within its authority, Mackey's complaint fails to state a valid claim and should be dismissed.
1. The petitioner filed this application to prevent his detention under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (PASA) in connection with a criminal case registered against him for offenses related to wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, and assault.
2. The court noted that the dispute appeared to be private in nature rather than dangerous, and seemed to be an attempt to use threats under PASA to settle a financial dispute.
3. The court therefore allowed the petition and directed that any detention order against the petitioner related to this case cannot be executed for one month, to prevent his detention under PASA which did not appear justified based on the nature of the allegations.
1. The document discusses the time limits for filing liens under California law, both before and after 2013 reforms.
2. Prior to 2013, lien claimants had 6 months after learning of an industrial injury to file a lien. The reforms in 2013 changed this to 12 months and removed healthcare providers from those able to file liens.
3. For services provided for future medical treatment or where the case was settled prior to 2013, the lien filing deadlines and rules in effect at that time would apply rather than the current laws.
The Supreme Court of India heard a suo moto writ petition regarding problems faced by migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court noted submissions from petitioners regarding inadequate distribution of dry rations, cooked food and cash transfers to migrant workers. States provided details of steps taken to help migrant workers, including transportation, food and registration processes.
The Court emphasized the need to complete registration of unorganized workers under new social security laws to help workers access welfare schemes. It directed the central government to file an affidavit with details on developing a national database for registration of all unorganized workers across states. The Court also stressed the need to effectively monitor welfare schemes to ensure benefits reach beneficiaries.
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding whether an individual was an employee or independent contractor for purposes of contributing to an employee provident fund. The key points are:
1) The Assistant Commissioner of Labour held that the individual was an employee and ordered contributions to be made to the fund, but did not provide reasons for the decision.
2) The court examined whether reasons must be provided for non-appealable decisions like this one. While not strictly required, there is a trend that reasons should be provided to ensure transparency and prevent arbitrary decisions.
3) Since no reasons were provided, the court could not determine if the decision that the individual was an employee was lawful or not. The
LETTER PETITION IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 19TH AUGUST 2016Om Prakash Poddar
1. Rina Kumari filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of India against the CJM Court in Begusarai, Bihar and others alleging criminal conspiracy and abuse of process of law.
2. She claims the CJM Court and a women protection officer colluded to file frivolous cases against her over 6 years to restrict her movement and ruin her family life.
3. She requests the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the criminal conspiracy against her, ensure her personal liberty and freedom of movement, and pass appropriate orders against the CJM Court and women protection officer.
Delhi sessions court umar khalid handcuffs orderZahidManiyar
This document summarizes the court proceedings regarding applications to produce two accused persons, Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi, in handcuffs. The court notes replies from jail superintendents, the DCP of Special Cell, and the DCP of the 3rd Battalion that suggest the applications lack merit as the prison rules do not mention handcuffing prisoners. As the accused are not convicted criminals or gangsters, the applications appear to have been filed without proper consideration. However, given new COVID protocols, the accused are no longer being produced in person in court, making the applications unnecessary at this stage. The court therefore dismisses the applications as not required.
1. This document provides a provisional seniority-cum-establishment list of Draughtsman Grade II as of 1-1-2013 for various zones in Andhra Pradesh.
2. It includes details of 107 individuals such as name, caste, date of birth, educational qualifications, date of first appointment, date of regularization, native place, details of current working office and any remarks.
3. The individuals are from various districts under 5 zones and details are provided zone-wise for easy reference in recruitment and administration.
1) The appellant Maj. Ravindran had filed an RTI application with the Delhi High Court seeking information related to a petition filed by DCM Financial Services Ltd.
2) He was asked to pay a fee of Rs. 490 for the application which he refused as his initial application was filed before new fees were notified.
3) The Central Information Commission heard the appeal and determined that the information should be provided free of cost as the High Court had agreed to respond free of charge for applications filed before the new notification. However, a copy of the petition could not be provided as the matter was still ongoing in court.
Pension fixation with additional increment retired on 30 Jun fell due on 1st July.
Read More
https://virendersinghkadian.com/retired-on-30th-june-is-eligible-for-increment-benefit/
Dear Sir/Madam
Further to my letter dated 25th Feb 14.
The issuing of the amended judgment constitutes an error in law.
The basis is: please refer to the attached judgment CSIB 331 2009.doc
and The rules of procedure “Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007” below
Part 10 Review of decision of Upper Tribunal
(1) The Upper Tribunal may review a decision made by it on a matter in a case, other than a decision that is an excluded decision for the purposes of section 13(1) (but see subsection (7)).
(2) The Upper Tribunal's power under subsection (1) in relation to a decision is exercisable—
(a) of its own initiative, or
(b) on application by a person who for the purposes of section 13(2) has a right of appeal in respect of the decision.
(4) Where the Upper Tribunal has under subsection (1) reviewed a decision, the Upper Tribunal may in the light of the review do any of the following—
(a) correct accidental errors in the decision or in a record of the decision;
(b) amend reasons given for the decision;
(c) set the decision aside.
Under rule 10 (4) correction may only be made after a review of the decision the amended judgment is therefore invalid.
Yours Faithfully
Douglas
1. A writ petition was filed challenging a Cabinet decision to withdraw prosecution in 61 cases, some involving elected state representatives.
2. The court cited prior rulings establishing that public prosecutors must independently assess withdrawal requests and are not obligated to follow government directives.
3. The court cannot be bound by executive decisions to withdraw cases and must determine if a prima facie case exists to reject withdrawal applications.
This document summarizes proceedings in the Bombay High Court regarding the COVID-19 situation in Maharashtra correctional homes. It notes the rising case numbers among inmates and staff. It allows an intervention by the People's Union for Civil Liberties to assist the court. The court issues directions around identifying eligible inmates for bail/parole to decongest facilities, processing pending parole applications, utilizing additional educational buildings as temporary prisons, and testing accused persons for COVID-19 before remanding them to judicial custody.
The document is a 3-page court order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a bail application filed by Maqbool Alam, who was charged with several offenses including praising a terrorist organization on Facebook. The court heard arguments from Alam's lawyer and the public prosecutor. Upon reviewing the Facebook posts and finding that they did not require further custodial interrogation, the court granted bail to Alam subject to furnishing a bond and ensuring he does not interfere with the investigation.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines decision regarding whether a basketball referee, Jose Mel Bernarte, was an employee or independent contractor of the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA). The Court of Appeals had ruled that Bernarte was an independent contractor, overturning decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission and Labor Arbiter that held he was an employee. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, finding that while the PBA engaged Bernarte's services through contracts and paid him fees, it did not exercise control over the means and methods by which he performed his refereeing work, which is the most important factor in determining an employment relationship.
The appellant appealed against an order rejecting his application for temporary bail to attend the last rites of his deceased mother. The court heard the appeal and considered additional information provided in an affidavit. While the original reason for seeking temporary bail no longer applied due to time passed, the court found humanitarian grounds to grant temporary bail for the appellant to attend rituals and a condolence meeting for his mother scheduled on the anniversary of her death. The court ordered the appellant's release on temporary bail from August 13-21, 2021 subject to furnishing a bond and sureties, and reporting to police.
Second Appeal against Department of Legal Affairs dated 3_11_ 2016Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a second appeal filed with the Central Information Commission in India regarding information sought through Right to Information requests but not received. It summarizes previous requests and appeals filed with the Department of Legal Affairs in the Government of India and the Law Department of the Government of Bihar regarding frivolous legal cases filed against the appellant in 2010 and 2011. The appellant is seeking replies to 9 questions regarding the cases from the respondent departments.
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding a petitioner who was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in 2020, but remained in custody due to failures in compliance and interpretation of the order by lower courts. While explanations were provided, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the "sorry state of affairs" and directed all High Courts to submit details of uncomplied bail orders and detained persons. The Supreme Court also issued general directions for corrective mechanisms, including maintaining registers of non-compliance and listing delayed bail matters. The petitioner was ultimately released after over 11 years of custody.
1. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir heard appeals against an order rejecting bail applications for appellants arrested in connection with a case under unlawful activities laws.
2. The Court found that the trial court misdirected itself by extending detention periods based on investigating officer applications instead of reports from the public prosecutor as required by law.
3. As the charge sheet was filed beyond the mandatory 90 day period, the appellants had an indefeasible right to default bail that the trial court failed to consider. The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the trial court order, granting the appellants bail.
The High Court of Kerala recalled three previous orders granting petitions to quash criminal cases relating to offenses of rape and under the POCSO Act. In recalling the orders, the Court noted it had failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents holding that cases involving offenses like rape cannot be quashed solely due to settlements between the parties. While the petitioners argued the Court could not recall signed orders, the Court held this was not a review but rather pointing out a legal omission. The cases will be reheard in detail after the summer vacation.
1) The appellant Karansinh Vaghela was detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act for offenses related to alcohol prohibition.
2) The High Court quashed the detention order, finding that a single offense was not sufficient to classify the appellant as a "bootlegger" under the law or show that his activities affected public order.
3) The Court held that detention requires more than a mere disturbance of law and order - it must be shown that the activities would affect the community or public interest more broadly. This was not established based on a single offense.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6770 / 2013 (SLP. 1427 of 2009)- India- Pending disciplinary action should not be a barrier for an employee for availing Pension and Gratuity. Uploaded by T James joseph Adhikarathil, Kottayam -ക്രിമിനൽ -വകുപ്പു തല നടപടികൾ നേരിടുന്ന കാരണത്താൽ ഒരു വ്യക്തിയുടെ പെൻഷനും ഗ്രാറ്റുവിറ്റിയും തടയാൻ പറ്റില്ലെന്നുള്ള state of Jharkhand vs jitendrakumar കേസിലെ വളരെ പ്രധാനപ്പെട്ട സുപ്രീം കോടതി വിധി
The Ohio Department of Education filed a motion to dismiss Cerena Mackey's claim for permanent total disability benefits. Mackey claimed she retired due to an injury, but the commission found her retirement was voluntary based on a lack of medical records from 2001-2005. The commission has discretion to reconsider cases where there was a mistake of law, which occurred here because the initial decision did not address whether Mackey's retirement was voluntary. The commission properly denied benefits because a voluntary retirement bars eligibility for benefits. As the commission acted within its authority, Mackey's complaint fails to state a valid claim and should be dismissed.
1. The petitioner filed this application to prevent his detention under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (PASA) in connection with a criminal case registered against him for offenses related to wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, and assault.
2. The court noted that the dispute appeared to be private in nature rather than dangerous, and seemed to be an attempt to use threats under PASA to settle a financial dispute.
3. The court therefore allowed the petition and directed that any detention order against the petitioner related to this case cannot be executed for one month, to prevent his detention under PASA which did not appear justified based on the nature of the allegations.
1. The document discusses the time limits for filing liens under California law, both before and after 2013 reforms.
2. Prior to 2013, lien claimants had 6 months after learning of an industrial injury to file a lien. The reforms in 2013 changed this to 12 months and removed healthcare providers from those able to file liens.
3. For services provided for future medical treatment or where the case was settled prior to 2013, the lien filing deadlines and rules in effect at that time would apply rather than the current laws.
The Supreme Court of India heard a suo moto writ petition regarding problems faced by migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court noted submissions from petitioners regarding inadequate distribution of dry rations, cooked food and cash transfers to migrant workers. States provided details of steps taken to help migrant workers, including transportation, food and registration processes.
The Court emphasized the need to complete registration of unorganized workers under new social security laws to help workers access welfare schemes. It directed the central government to file an affidavit with details on developing a national database for registration of all unorganized workers across states. The Court also stressed the need to effectively monitor welfare schemes to ensure benefits reach beneficiaries.
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding whether an individual was an employee or independent contractor for purposes of contributing to an employee provident fund. The key points are:
1) The Assistant Commissioner of Labour held that the individual was an employee and ordered contributions to be made to the fund, but did not provide reasons for the decision.
2) The court examined whether reasons must be provided for non-appealable decisions like this one. While not strictly required, there is a trend that reasons should be provided to ensure transparency and prevent arbitrary decisions.
3) Since no reasons were provided, the court could not determine if the decision that the individual was an employee was lawful or not. The
LETTER PETITION IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 19TH AUGUST 2016Om Prakash Poddar
1. Rina Kumari filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of India against the CJM Court in Begusarai, Bihar and others alleging criminal conspiracy and abuse of process of law.
2. She claims the CJM Court and a women protection officer colluded to file frivolous cases against her over 6 years to restrict her movement and ruin her family life.
3. She requests the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the criminal conspiracy against her, ensure her personal liberty and freedom of movement, and pass appropriate orders against the CJM Court and women protection officer.
Delhi sessions court umar khalid handcuffs orderZahidManiyar
This document summarizes the court proceedings regarding applications to produce two accused persons, Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi, in handcuffs. The court notes replies from jail superintendents, the DCP of Special Cell, and the DCP of the 3rd Battalion that suggest the applications lack merit as the prison rules do not mention handcuffing prisoners. As the accused are not convicted criminals or gangsters, the applications appear to have been filed without proper consideration. However, given new COVID protocols, the accused are no longer being produced in person in court, making the applications unnecessary at this stage. The court therefore dismisses the applications as not required.
1. This document provides a provisional seniority-cum-establishment list of Draughtsman Grade II as of 1-1-2013 for various zones in Andhra Pradesh.
2. It includes details of 107 individuals such as name, caste, date of birth, educational qualifications, date of first appointment, date of regularization, native place, details of current working office and any remarks.
3. The individuals are from various districts under 5 zones and details are provided zone-wise for easy reference in recruitment and administration.
1) The appellant Maj. Ravindran had filed an RTI application with the Delhi High Court seeking information related to a petition filed by DCM Financial Services Ltd.
2) He was asked to pay a fee of Rs. 490 for the application which he refused as his initial application was filed before new fees were notified.
3) The Central Information Commission heard the appeal and determined that the information should be provided free of cost as the High Court had agreed to respond free of charge for applications filed before the new notification. However, a copy of the petition could not be provided as the matter was still ongoing in court.
Pension fixation with additional increment retired on 30 Jun fell due on 1st July.
Read More
https://virendersinghkadian.com/retired-on-30th-june-is-eligible-for-increment-benefit/
Dear Sir/Madam
Further to my letter dated 25th Feb 14.
The issuing of the amended judgment constitutes an error in law.
The basis is: please refer to the attached judgment CSIB 331 2009.doc
and The rules of procedure “Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007” below
Part 10 Review of decision of Upper Tribunal
(1) The Upper Tribunal may review a decision made by it on a matter in a case, other than a decision that is an excluded decision for the purposes of section 13(1) (but see subsection (7)).
(2) The Upper Tribunal's power under subsection (1) in relation to a decision is exercisable—
(a) of its own initiative, or
(b) on application by a person who for the purposes of section 13(2) has a right of appeal in respect of the decision.
(4) Where the Upper Tribunal has under subsection (1) reviewed a decision, the Upper Tribunal may in the light of the review do any of the following—
(a) correct accidental errors in the decision or in a record of the decision;
(b) amend reasons given for the decision;
(c) set the decision aside.
Under rule 10 (4) correction may only be made after a review of the decision the amended judgment is therefore invalid.
Yours Faithfully
Douglas
1. A writ petition was filed challenging a Cabinet decision to withdraw prosecution in 61 cases, some involving elected state representatives.
2. The court cited prior rulings establishing that public prosecutors must independently assess withdrawal requests and are not obligated to follow government directives.
3. The court cannot be bound by executive decisions to withdraw cases and must determine if a prima facie case exists to reject withdrawal applications.
This document summarizes proceedings in the Bombay High Court regarding the COVID-19 situation in Maharashtra correctional homes. It notes the rising case numbers among inmates and staff. It allows an intervention by the People's Union for Civil Liberties to assist the court. The court issues directions around identifying eligible inmates for bail/parole to decongest facilities, processing pending parole applications, utilizing additional educational buildings as temporary prisons, and testing accused persons for COVID-19 before remanding them to judicial custody.
The document is a 3-page court order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a bail application filed by Maqbool Alam, who was charged with several offenses including praising a terrorist organization on Facebook. The court heard arguments from Alam's lawyer and the public prosecutor. Upon reviewing the Facebook posts and finding that they did not require further custodial interrogation, the court granted bail to Alam subject to furnishing a bond and ensuring he does not interfere with the investigation.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines decision regarding whether a basketball referee, Jose Mel Bernarte, was an employee or independent contractor of the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA). The Court of Appeals had ruled that Bernarte was an independent contractor, overturning decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission and Labor Arbiter that held he was an employee. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, finding that while the PBA engaged Bernarte's services through contracts and paid him fees, it did not exercise control over the means and methods by which he performed his refereeing work, which is the most important factor in determining an employment relationship.
The appellant appealed against an order rejecting his application for temporary bail to attend the last rites of his deceased mother. The court heard the appeal and considered additional information provided in an affidavit. While the original reason for seeking temporary bail no longer applied due to time passed, the court found humanitarian grounds to grant temporary bail for the appellant to attend rituals and a condolence meeting for his mother scheduled on the anniversary of her death. The court ordered the appellant's release on temporary bail from August 13-21, 2021 subject to furnishing a bond and sureties, and reporting to police.
Second Appeal against Department of Legal Affairs dated 3_11_ 2016Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a second appeal filed with the Central Information Commission in India regarding information sought through Right to Information requests but not received. It summarizes previous requests and appeals filed with the Department of Legal Affairs in the Government of India and the Law Department of the Government of Bihar regarding frivolous legal cases filed against the appellant in 2010 and 2011. The appellant is seeking replies to 9 questions regarding the cases from the respondent departments.
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding a petitioner who was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in 2020, but remained in custody due to failures in compliance and interpretation of the order by lower courts. While explanations were provided, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the "sorry state of affairs" and directed all High Courts to submit details of uncomplied bail orders and detained persons. The Supreme Court also issued general directions for corrective mechanisms, including maintaining registers of non-compliance and listing delayed bail matters. The petitioner was ultimately released after over 11 years of custody.
1. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir heard appeals against an order rejecting bail applications for appellants arrested in connection with a case under unlawful activities laws.
2. The Court found that the trial court misdirected itself by extending detention periods based on investigating officer applications instead of reports from the public prosecutor as required by law.
3. As the charge sheet was filed beyond the mandatory 90 day period, the appellants had an indefeasible right to default bail that the trial court failed to consider. The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the trial court order, granting the appellants bail.
The High Court of Kerala recalled three previous orders granting petitions to quash criminal cases relating to offenses of rape and under the POCSO Act. In recalling the orders, the Court noted it had failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents holding that cases involving offenses like rape cannot be quashed solely due to settlements between the parties. While the petitioners argued the Court could not recall signed orders, the Court held this was not a review but rather pointing out a legal omission. The cases will be reheard in detail after the summer vacation.
This case summary analyzes a case law regarding a passing off action between Nirapara Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. and K.K.R. Mills. The lower courts granted an interim injunction in favor of K.K.R. Mills. However, the appellate court set aside the lower court's judgment and remanded the case. The appellate court directed the lower court to reconsider issues such as whether K.K.R. Mills established prior use of the trademark and whether they acquiesced to Nirapara Mills' use by delaying the suit. The lower court was told to provide findings on these issues and permit further evidence from both parties.
This document is a summary of a court case involving the petitioner Akhilesh Kumar, who is visually impaired, seeking to quash the decision of the University Grants Commission (UGC) to withdraw an exemption granted to him from taking the National Eligibility Test (NET). The petitioner was initially selected for a position as Lecturer at a college, but was working on an ad hoc basis pending qualification exemptions. The UGC initially granted an exemption but later withdrew it, resulting in the petitioner losing his permanent position. The key events and arguments of both sides are presented.
The court allowed the appellant's appeal to execute a judgment obtained in 1999 against the respondents. The court found that the appellant provided sufficient reasons for the delay in execution, including the respondents' appeals up to the Federal Court and a related suit filed by one respondent. The court also found that the respondents' actions induced the appellant's delay and they could not rely on limitation statutes. Finally, the appellant did not seek additional interest for the delay so there was no prejudice to the respondents. The court upheld the equitable maxim that "equity assists the diligent, not the tardy."
This document is a court judgment from the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka regarding a land dispute case. In 3 sentences:
The Court of Appeal was hearing an appeal against a High Court judgment that had reversed a Magistrate's determination in a land possession dispute case. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court was wrong to reverse the Magistrate based on an argument about non-compliance with a section of the law, as that argument should have been raised earlier. The Court of Appeal then allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and directed that the original Magistrate's determination be given effect.
The document summarizes an appeal case regarding the suspension of an employee, Ajay Kumar Choudhary. Some key points:
- Choudhary was suspended in 2011 for issuing factually incorrect land clearance certificates. His suspension has been repeatedly extended since then.
- The court discusses the right to a speedy trial and how prolonged suspension can be punitive. Suspension should not be for an indefinite period and reasons must be provided for extensions.
- While the government provided reasons for extensions, the court notes the suspension has now lasted over 3 years. The right to speedy trial applies to departmental inquiries as well.
- The court ultimately finds the suspension has lasted an unreason
1. The assessee had two factories manufacturing goods eligible for exemption under two different notifications (No. 5/99 and No. 8/99). When filing for exemption under Notification No. 8/99 for one factory, the assessee disclosed details of the other factory but only provided clearance details for goods covered under Notification No. 8/99, not Notification No. 5/99.
2. The department argued this was an intentional omission to evade duty. The assessee argued it was a lack of understanding of the notification provisions. The tribunal found no evidence of an intention to evade, seeing it as a difference in interpretation.
3. The tribunal upheld the normal period
1. The assessee had two factories manufacturing goods eligible for exemption under two different notifications (No. 5/99 and No. 8/99). When filing for exemption under Notification No. 8/99 for one factory, the assessee disclosed details of the other factory but only provided clearance details for goods covered under Notification No. 8/99, not Notification No. 5/99.
2. The department argued this was an intentional omission to evade duty. The assessee argued it was a lack of understanding of the notification provisions. The tribunal found no evidence of an intention to evade, seeing it as a difference in interpretation.
3. The tribunal upheld the normal period
The petitioner's son went missing on February 25, 2020. A burnt body was found on February 27, 2020 that was suspected to be the petitioner's son. DNA samples were taken from the body and petitioner's family on March 3, 2020 but the petitioner had not received any results. The court directed the respondents to start the DNA matching test immediately and complete it within 15 days, communicating the results to the petitioner. The respondents admitted there was no legal requirement to wait for a court order for DNA testing. The court said respondents cannot delay testing by waiting for court orders and must prioritize urgent cases.
This judgment concerns an application by the United States of America for judicial review of a District Court decision granting disclosure orders against the US in extradition proceedings involving Megaupload and its founders. The US seeks interim orders to suspend the disclosure order pending its judicial review application. A preliminary issue is whether the proper procedure is judicial review or appeal. The judge must determine the appropriate procedure and whether to grant interim relief to the US before addressing the substantive issues in the judicial review application.
Madras Hgh Court RSS rally order Nov 4.pdfsabrangsabrang
The document summarizes contempt petitions filed against respondents for disobeying a court order directing permission be granted for processions and public meetings. It discusses arguments from petitioners and respondents. The court found intelligence reports referenced old cases and was not sufficient grounds for rejection. However, 6 sensitive areas were recently impacted so permission was rightly rejected there for now. For other areas, the court found no reason to reject requests so contempt petitions will proceed. The court upheld the importance of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly in a democracy.
Ramadhan is seeking to invoke Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012 to remedy irregularities in his application against Syawal. Order 1A allows courts to consider justice over technical non-compliance. However, the document analyzes several cases that have found Order 1A cannot be used to override mandatory rules or cure intentional non-compliance. As Ramadhan failed to comply with the mandatory prerequisites in Order 6 Rule 7(2A) for renewing his writ, it is unlikely the court would allow him to invoke Order 1A in this case.
The Supreme Court of India heard a special leave petition filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging a High Court order discharging several accused in a criminal case. The High Court had discharged the accused on grounds related to irregular sanction orders or lack of sanction. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had convicted the accused in a detailed judgment after considering evidence, but the High Court did not examine the case on its merits. The Supreme Court identified important legal questions for determination and suspended the High Court's order, noting the seriousness of the offenses and that the accused's convictions require detailed scrutiny. Notices were issued and the matter was listed for further hearing.
The document summarizes a court case regarding an appeal by a school management committee against an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax related to registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act. Key points:
- The committee had applied for registration in 2006 but the Commissioner only registered them starting in 2005, not from the original 1985 date as requested.
- The committee appealed arguing the Commissioner's order was invalid as it was passed more than 6 months after their application, and they should be registered from 1985.
- There was significant delay in the committee filing their appeal to the tribunal. They argued this was due to ignorance of the law and wrong advice.
- The tribunal considered precedents supporting con
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition challenging a High Court order granting anticipatory bail related to a Covid situation. The Supreme Court issued a notice to the respondent to appear in the first week of July. It also stayed the general observations and directions in the High Court order regarding bail and appointed a senior counsel as an amicus curiae to assist the Court.
The document summarizes the internship diary of Ronak Karanpuria during their internship at the Supreme Court of India under Justice Dipak Misra. Over the course of 6 days, the intern observed court proceedings, conducted legal research, and worked on case studies. Some of the key cases discussed include appeals related to land disputes, criminal convictions, and employee benefits. The intern gained experience in legal research, analyzing facts and issues in cases, and summarizing judicial decisions.
The document is an internship diary from a law student interning under Justice Dipak Misra at the Supreme Court of India. Over the course of 6 days, the student summarized cases heard by Justice Misra, observed court proceedings, conducted legal research, and submitted a report. The diary provides concise high-level summaries of the cases heard and legal issues discussed during the internship.
The document summarizes a court case regarding two plaintiffs' failed attempt to recover funds from an insurer under section 601AG of the Corporations Act. The plaintiffs had transferred money to a company (Q1) for short-term loans but never recovered the funds. The court found that Q1 was liable to the plaintiffs for breach of contract and misleading conduct. However, the insurer (Vero) was not liable to indemnify Q1 as the insurance policy did not cover the specific liability based on the policy terms and exclusions. In particular, the fraud exclusion and assumption of liability exclusion applied to preclude coverage for Q1's liability to the plaintiffs.
Similar to Kerala High Court Judgment on UGC NET June 2012 (20)
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
it describes the bony anatomy including the femoral head , acetabulum, labrum . also discusses the capsule , ligaments . muscle that act on the hip joint and the range of motion are outlined. factors affecting hip joint stability and weight transmission through the joint are summarized.
Assessment and Planning in Educational technology.pptxKavitha Krishnan
In an education system, it is understood that assessment is only for the students, but on the other hand, the Assessment of teachers is also an important aspect of the education system that ensures teachers are providing high-quality instruction to students. The assessment process can be used to provide feedback and support for professional development, to inform decisions about teacher retention or promotion, or to evaluate teacher effectiveness for accountability purposes.
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty, In...Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
Exploiting Artificial Intelligence for Empowering Researchers and Faculty,
International FDP on Fundamentals of Research in Social Sciences
at Integral University, Lucknow, 06.06.2024
By Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17Celine George
An import error occurs when a program fails to import a module or library, disrupting its execution. In languages like Python, this issue arises when the specified module cannot be found or accessed, hindering the program's functionality. Resolving import errors is crucial for maintaining smooth software operation and uninterrupted development processes.
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/11TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 31443 of 2012 (E)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
RAJANI.M.P.,
W/O.SREEJITH AND D/O.HARIDASAN.P.,
NOW RESIDING AT MAMBRAKKATTIL HOUSE,
WEST CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADV.SMT.P.R.REENA
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC),
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. COORDINATOR,
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (NET),
OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI-110 002.
BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01-01-2013,ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.31408/2012 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)NO.31443/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD OF THE PETITIONER ,ROLL NO.13083743
P2 COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
3. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------
W.P.(c) Nos.31443, 31444, 31464, 31467, 31473, 31474,
31477, 31440, 31456, 31479, 31492, 31428, 31430, 31420,
31435, 31425, 31416, 31442, 31441, 31437, 31463, 31472,
31438, 31408, 31412, 31421, 31432, 31449, 31450, 31453,
31454, 31461, 31488, 31491, 31494, 31501, 31508, 31509,
31510, 31515, 31516, 31517, 31518, 31525, 31527, 31528,
31529, 31534, 31535, 31538, 31543, 31554, 31556, 31557,
31561, 31562, 31563, 31575, 31576, 31577, 31589, 31598,
31603, 31604, 31605, 31606, 31608, 31616, 31617, 31618,
31619, 31623, 31628, 31629, 31634, 31636, 31637, 31638,
31639, 31640, 31641, 31643, 31650, 31652, 31653, 31654,
31662, 31666 OF 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of January, 2013
JUDGMENT
Whether 'Rules of the game' could be changed during the middle
of the game, is the issue involved in all these cases.
2. The matter relates to acquisition of the requisite qualification for appointment as 'Lecturer'
by clearing the 'National Eligibility Test' ( NET for short). The test was notified to be conducted
by the UGC, stipulating the norms as to the particulars of the papers, the minimum marks to be
obtained and such other details.The examination was scheduled to be conducted on 24.06.2012.
3. The petitioners participated in the examination and according to them they have crossed
the hurdle, with regard to the minimum marks prescribed and notified. But the UGC, just a few
4. days before the declaration of the result, sought to change the norms, whereby some modification
was made with regard to the minimum qualifying marks and mode of reckoning the same;
introducing the 'total/ aggregate minimum' as well, apart from the minimum marks to be secured for
each paper. This was quite to the disadvantage of persons like the petitioners, who were never told
of such a course earlier, as a result of which, they could not get the clearance. It was in the said
circumstance, that similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing several writ petitions,
which were considered together and a common judgment was passed by a learned Single Judge of
this Court on 17/12/2012 ( W.P.(C)No.22187/2012 & connected cases).
4. As per the said judgment, the course pursued by the UGC was held as not correct or
sustainable and accordingly, the impugned proceeding stipulating the category-wise qualifying
criteria for lectureship was set aside. It was declared by this Court, that all the petitioners, who had
obtained the separate minimum prescribed in the notification for Papers I, II and III, had cleared the
'NET' and appropriate follow up action was directed to be taken, to issue certificates to them, within
'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioners in these writ
petitions seek for similar benefit, as given by this Court in the aforesaid judgment.
5. Sri.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, entered appearance on
behalf of the respondents and made a submission that the respondents are very much aggrieved of
the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge and that steps are being taken to file writ appeal. It is
pointed out that, if the relief sought for is granted, it will cause severe hardship to the UGC. It is
also brought to the notice of this Court that in most of these cases, interim orders have been passed,
in terms of the final verdict as mentioned hereinbefore.
6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the judgment already passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.22187/2012 and connected cases is purely based on the
question of law, as there is no dispute with regard to the facts and figures. The question of law has
been considered and answered in favour of the petitioners concerned and a declaration of law has
been made by thisCourt. The Court also considered the scope and applicability of
judicial precedents cited from both the sides particularly, the law declared by the Apex Court in
K.Manjusree v. State of Andra Pradesh and another ( 2008(3) SCC 512) , the Full Bench of this
Court in Dr.Cyril Johnson v. State of Kerala and others ( 2009(4) KHC 404( FB) and a Division
Bench of this Court in Jayachandran v.
High Court of Kerala ( 2010 (4) KLT 49) (to which I was also a member), in support of the case
5. projected by the petitioners, to the effect that the rules of selection could not be changed after
commencement of the process of selection. The reliance sought to be placed from the part of the
UGC with reference to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4959 and 4962
of 2011 with regard to the question of minimum qualifying marks for 'viva voce', introduced just
two or three days before the commencement of the oral tests, though it was not stipulated in the
advertisement issued by the PSC, was also considered therein and it was distinguished for the
reason that, such stipulation was very much incorporated in the relevant rules, but omitted to be
incorporated in the advertisement and hence held as not applicable. It was after considering the rival
contention and also the binding judicial precedents, that a finding was rendered,leading to the
judgment as aforesaid.
7. As mentioned hereinbefore, the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge is rather
declaratory in nature. It has been held by the Apex Court that, if the verdict is of declaratory
character, it shall be made applicable to all who are similarly situated; irrespective of the fact
whether they are parties to the verdict or not. This is reported in Ashwani Kumar and others v. State
of Bihar and others (1997(2) SCC 1). Since the petitioners seek for the benefit of such declaratory
judgment, this Court does not find any reason to take a different course.
8. In the above circumstances, all these writ petitions are allowed, holding that the petitioners
are entitled to have the benefit of the judgment passed in W.P.(C)No.22187/2012 & connected
cases.
The petitioners, who have obtained the separate minimum marks prescribed in the notification for
Papers I, II and III, are declared as cleared the 'NET'. Appropriate follow up action shall be taken
by the concerned respondent to issue certificates to them at the earliest, at any rate within 'one
month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, subject to curing the defects if any
pointed out, from the part
of the respondents..
9. Considering the fact that petitioners are being given the benefit of the above declaratory
judgment, it is also necessary to put the petitioners on alert, as to the steps stated as being taken by
the UGC to challenge the basic judgment, by way of Writ Appeal.
10. In the above circumstances, it is made clear that, if the writ appeal being filed by the UGC
comes to be allowed in favour of the UGC, naturally the law declared by the Division Bench will be
6. made applicable to all the petitioners herein, as the benefit of declaration will stand equally
applicable to both the sides.
Taking note of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, the
petitioners in all these cases are directed to furnish an additional set of the concerned writ petition to
the learned Standing Counsel forthwith, to save time in respect of the procedural formalities to be
completed.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
W.P.(C)No.31443/2012