DOCSLIB.ORG

Compendium of Global Environmental Constitutionalism: Selected Cases and Materials

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Compendium of Global Environmental Constitutionalism: Selected Cases and Materials Compendium of Global Environmental Constitutionalism: Selected Cases and Materials 2019 (Second Edition) Erin Daly & James R. May Widener University Delaware Law School Table of Contents Case Summaries .............................................................................................................................. 1 Section I: Judicial Opinions from Around the Globe ................................................................... 12 A. Asia Pacific .............................................................................................................. 12 1. Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario and Jose Alfonso Oposa & Others v. The Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., (Supreme Court of the Philippines, 1993) ................................. 12 2. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union Of India (Supreme Court of India, 1996) …………………………………………………………………………………19 3. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque and another v. Bangladesh (Supreme Court of Bangladesh, 1997)................................................................................................................. 26 4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others (Supreme Court of India 2004) ........ 40 5. Santosh Mittal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. (The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 2004) .................................................................................................................... 47 6. Advisory Opinion: Whether the Supervision of and Assistance to Public and Private Waste Cleanup and Disposal Organs is Unconstitutional? (Taiwan Constitutional Court 2006) …………………………………………………………………………………54 7. Naewonsa Temple v. Korea Rail Network Authority (Supreme Court of Korea 2006) …………………………………………………………………………………58 8. Arnold v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (High Court of Australia 2010)...................................................................................................................... 62 9. Mendaing v. Ramu Nico Management (National Court of Justice for Papua New Guinea, 2011) ........................................................................................................................ 67 10. Pro Public v Godavari Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others (Supreme Court of Nepal 2015) .......................................................................................................................... 78 11. Teitiota v Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (Supreme Court of New Zealand 2015) ............................................................................................................. 101 12. Raub Australian Gold Mining v. Hue Shieh Lee (Court of Appeal, Malaysia 2016) ………………………………………………………………………………..103 13. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand (High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital 2017) 107 14. Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand & others (High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital 2017) ………………………………………………………………………………..113 15. Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (Lahore High Court, 2018). ........... 122 B. Central and South America and the Caribbean ...................................................... 132 1. Pablo Miguel Fabián Martínez Y Otros (Tribunal Constitucional de Peru, 2006) (La Oroya) ………………………………………………………………………………..132 2. Beatriz Silvia Mendoza and others v. National State of Argentina (Supreme Court of Argentina 2008) .............................................................................................................. 150 3. Padilla Gutierrez, Clara Emilia y otros, todos en su condición de vecinos de lugares aledaños al Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas de Guanacaste c/ SETENA, Secretaria Técnica Nacional Ambiental (Corte Suprema de Justicia de Costa Rica, Sala Constitucional 2008) ………………………………………………………………………………..162 4. Domitila Rosario Piche Osorio, conocida por Domitila Rosario Piche Estrada, en contra del Ministro y de la Viceministra del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, (Sala de lo Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, El Salvador, 2010) ............................. 168 5. Expediente sobre permisos de mineras a cielo abierto en los sitos de la UNESCO (Superior Tribunal de Justicia de Argentina, 2010) ............................................................ 175 6. La Camaronera en la Reserva Ecológica (Corte Constitucional del Ecuador, 2015) ………………………………………………………………………………..188 C. Africa ...................................................................................................................... 195 1. Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited and Others (Federal High Court, Nigeria 2005) .................................................................................... 195 2. Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs (High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division 2017). .............................................................................. 200 D. Europe .................................................................................................................... 210 1. Lopez Ostra v. Spain (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber 1995) ... 210 2. Guerra and Others v Italy (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber 1998) ………………………………………………………………………………..217 3. In the case of Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber 2003). .............................................................................. 225 4. Kyrtatos v. Greece (European Court of Human Rights, First Section 2003) . 233 5. Fadeyeva v. Russia (European Court of Human Rights, First Section 2005). 237 6. Hamer v. Belgium (European Court of Human Rights, Second Section, 2007) ………………………………………………………………………………..250 7. Borysiewicz v. Poland (European Court of Human Rights, Fourth Section 2008) ………………………………………………………………………………..257 8. International Federation for Human Rights v. Greece (European Committee of Social Rights, 2013) ............................................................................................................ 260 9. Jugheli and Others v. Georgia (European Court of Human Rights Fifth Section, 2017) ………………………………………………………………………………..279 10. O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Ltd v. Ireland (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber 2018) .......................................................................................... 287 11. Bursa Barosu Başkanlığı and Others v. Turkey (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, 2018)................................................................................................................... 297 12. Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation, (The Hague Court of Appeal, 2018). ..... 300 E. North America ........................................................................................................ 316 1. Juliana v. United States (United States Federal District Court for the District of Oregon 2016) ...................................................................................................................... 316 2. Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 161 A.3d 911 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2017) ................................ 320 3. In Re Application of Maui Electric Company (Sierra Club v. Public Utility Commission of Hawai’i) (Supreme Court of Hawai‘i 2017) . Error! Bookmark not defined. Section II: Reports ...................................................................................................................... 336 A. United Nations: Report of the Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. 336 Section III: Sample Provisions of Environmental Constitutionalism ........................................ 360 A. Substantive Environmental Rights ......................................................................... 360 B. Procedural Environmental Rights .......................................................................... 362 Section IV: Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 364 A. Cases ...................................................................................................................... 364 B. Secondary Sources ................................................................................................. 376 "[A] judge today must be conscious and alive to the beauty and magnificence of nature, the interconnectedness of life systems on this planet and the interdependence of ecosystems. " Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, CJ Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, 2018 Case Summaries1 Asia Pacific * 1. Juan Antonio, Anna Rosario and Jose Alfonso Oposa & Others v. The Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., (Supreme Court of the Philippines, 1993). The court recognized the principle of intergenerational justice and granted standing to petitioners, who represented their generation and generations of unborn Filipinos in a petition opposing timber license agreements. Virender Gaur and Ors. v State of Haryama and Ors (Supreme Court of India, 1995). The appellant surrendered 25% of her land to her municipality, which was a condition for her to construct a building. The law required that the surrendered land be reserved for open space for better sanitation and environment. The government granted a 99-year lease and a building was constructed on the site. The court held that the environment had within its ambit hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance. The court found it was the duty of the State to shed its unbridled sovereign power and to forge an
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uttarakhand Lokayukta Bill, 2011 [Uttarakhand Bill No
    THE UTTARAKHAND LOKAYUKTA BILL, 2011 [UTTARAKHAND BILL NO. OF 2011] A Bill to establish an independent authority to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so as to detect corruption by expeditious investigation and to prosecute offenders and redressal of certain types of public grievances and to provide protection to whistleblowers. Be it enacted by Legislative Assembly of Uttarakhand in the Sixty-second year of the Republic of India as follows:- CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY Short title, 1. (1) This Act may be called the Uttarakhand Lokayukta Act, 2011. commencement (2) For the purpose of preparations, the provisions of the Act shall and extent come into force at once and the Act shall be operationalised within 180 days of its securing assent from the Governor of Uttarakhand. (3) It extends to the whole of the State of Uttarakhand. Definitions 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) “Board” means the Chairperson and the other members of the Lokayukta collectively. (b) “Complaint” means an allegation of corruption or a request by whistleblower for protection or a request for redressal of certain grievances covered under this Act. (c) “Lokayukta” means and includes, (i) The Board; (ii) Benches constituted under this Act and performing functions under this Act; (d) “Lokayukta Bench” means a Bench of two or more members of the 1 Lokayukta with or without the Chairperson acting together in respect of any matter in accordance with the regulations framed under the Act. Each bench shall have a member with
    [Show full text]
  • (PIL) No. 26 of 2020 Dr. Subramanian Swamy … Petitioner Versus St
    WWW.LIVELAW.IN RESERVED JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 26 of 2020 Dr. Subramanian Swamy … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents And Writ Petition (M/S) No. 700 of 2020 Sri 5 Mandir Samiti Gangotri Dham and another … Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Dr. Subramanian Swamy, petitioner, in-person in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 26 of 2020. Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 26 of 2020. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 700 of 2020. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for the third respondent in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 700 of 2020. Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the Intervener in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 26 of 2020. Judgment Reserved : 06.07.2020 Judgment Delivered : 21.07.2020 Chronological list of cases referred : 1. AIR 1959 Ori 5 2. AIR 1964 SC 1501 3. (1996) 9 SCC 548 4. AIR 1963 SC 1638 5. (1997) 4 SCC 606 6. AIR 1955 SC 540 7. AIR 1946 PC 127 8. AIR 1965 SC 745 9. (1982) 1 SCC 271 10. AIR 1958 SC 883 11. AIR 1958 SC 538 12. (2012) 6 SCC 312 13. (1996) 3 SCR 721 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Compendium.Pdf
    Press council cover job no 2032 date : 29-11-13 PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA Compendium of Adjudications (April 1, 2012- March 31, 2013) New Delhi Printed at : Chandu Press, D-97, Shakarpur, Delhi-110 092 Contents Preface Index of Adjudications of the Council for -- 1 the Period April 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013 Adjudications of the Council -- 16 PREFACE The Press Council of India is required under the statute not only to promote the standards of the press but also to protect it from any onslaught or threats to its freedom. Such threats normally emanate from the authorities of the governments. The Press Council of India enjoys adjudicatory jurisdiction over any decision/action of the government that may be, or may even perceived to be, an attempt to control the freedom of journalists. In its adjudicatory function it also considers the complaints made by public or governmental authorities against the Press for violating the ethics in journalism. I am happy to state that I have, in keeping with the mandate of the Press Council attempted to inculcate the ethos of ethics (rather than punishment) by attempting settlement between the parties or allowing the respondents to make amends for their lapses. This, I feel, is how the Council should function as mediation is, in my opinion, the democratic approach. Adjudications rendered by the Council, including those in which principles of far reaching importance to guide the conduct of the press and the authorities were laid down, during the period under review have been comprehensively covered in this Compendium which I hope and trust the readers will find useful and informative as the earlier ones.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Matters - Elections Relating to Gram Panchayats and Zila Parishad
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [ IT WILL BE APPRECIATED IF THE LEARNED ADVOCATES ON RECORD DO NOT SEEK ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTERS LISTED BEFORE ALL THE COURTS IN THE CAUSE LIST ] DAILY CAUSE LIST FOR DATED : 14-01-2020 CHIEF JUSTICE'S COURT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT (TIME : 10:30 AM) NOTE : Chronology is based on the date of initial filing. NOTE:- ALTERNATIVE BENCH [ IF THE CONSTITUTION BENCH DOES NOT SIT FOR ANY REASON OR THE MATTERS LISTED BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION BENCH IN THIS COURT ARE OVER, THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WILL BE TAKEN UP BY THIS BENCH ] [ "REQUEST FOR " NOT TO DELETE A MATTER" AND ALL CIRCULATIONS (IF THE MATTERS ARE NOT ON BOARD FOR THE DAY) NEED NOT BE MENTIONED BEFORE THE BENCH. SUCH REQUEST BE HANDED OVER TO THE CONCERNED COURT MASTERS IN ADVANCE BEFORE 10.30 A.M. " ] REGULAR HEARING Petitioner/Respondent SNo. Case No. Petitioner / Respondent Advocate Election Matters - Elections relating to Gram Panchayats and Zila Parishad 101 C.A. No. 2162/2009 POP SINGH PAWAR AND ANR. PRATIBHA JAIN IV-A Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. Indirect Taxes Matters - Interpretation of exemption notifications under Central Excise Act 102 C.A. No. 999/2007 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY B. KRISHNA PRASAD X Versus M/S. MOOL CHAND INDUS. ESTATE P.LTD. SANJAY JAIN THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI MOOL CHAND AGARWAL 102. Connected MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY B. KRISHNA PRASAD 1 C.A. No. 1000/2007 X Versus M/S BHAWANI PLASTICS ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI SANJAI KUMAR PATHAK SUDEEP AGARWAL 102.
    [Show full text]
  • (Gauteng Division: Pretoria) Case Number
    1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION: PRETORIA) CASE NUMBER: 21841/14 In the matter between: VINCENT DE PAUL ALBERT FIRST APPLICANT (l.D. .………) MARINA RADEVA NAYDENOVA SECOND APPLICANT (l.D. ………) and STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED RESPONDENT JUDGMENT TLHAPI J [1] This is an application for the rescission of a default judgement in the above matter which was granted on 22 May 2014. The applicants were ordered to pay the full outstanding amount of R 1 047 284.51 plus interest thereon and the immovable property situated at 15 Orlando Street, Kensington, Johannesburg, which was their primary residence, was declared immediately executable. [2] Summons was issued on 14 March 2014. The return of service recorded that service was effected on 20 March 2014 at about 11h00 by affixing to the principal door at the domiciLium citandi et executandi. The arrears amounted to R 69 510 and the monthly 2 instalment on the loan was RS 967.47. Default judgment was taken on 22 May 2014 and applicants learnt of it for the first time on 23 May 2014 on a follow up call to the respondent's attorneys. The applicants averred that a copy of the judgement in the form of a draft order was obtained from the respondent's attorneys on 5 June 2014. This application was launched within the stipulated time on 19 June 2014. [3] The defence raised by the applicants was that their failure to defend the action was not wilful or due to their gross negligence.
    [Show full text]
  • Ilr - Cut-1048
    2015 (II) ILR - CUT-1048 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ANIL R. DAVE , J & ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7217 OF 2013 (WITH BATCH) PRAKASH & ORS. .....…Appellants .Vrs. PHULAVATI & ORS. ……..Respondents (A) HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 – S.6 (As amended in 2005) Whether Hindu succession (Amendment) Act 2005 will have retrospective effect ? Held, No. The text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a daughter of a coparcener is on and from the commencement of Hindu succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – An amendment of a substantive provision is always prospective unless either expressly or by necessary intendment it is retrospective – In the present case there is neither any express provision for giving retrospective effect to the amended provision nor necessary intendment to that effect – In the other hand proviso to section 6 (I) and section 6 (5) clearly intend to exclude the transactions referred to therein which may have taken place prior to 20.12.2004 on which date the bill was introduced – Object of giving finality to transactions prior to 20.12.2004 is not to make the main provision retrospective – Held, the above amendment is prospective in nature – Rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 09.09.2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born – Disposition or alienation including partitions which may have taken place before 20.12.2004 as per law applicable prior to the said date will remain unaffected – Any transaction of partition effected thereafter will be governed by the explanation – The impugned order passed by the High court is set aside.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Court of South Africa Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg Daily Criminal Court Roll for the 2Nd Term Thursday 06 May 2021
    THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG DAILY CRIMINAL COURT ROLL FOR THE 2ND TERM THURSDAY 06 MAY 2021 JOHANNESBURG HIGH COURT 1 MABESELE, J COURT REF NUMBER ACCUSED CHARGES REASON ON STATE ADVOCATE DEFENCE STATUS EST 6A 10/2/11/1 THE ROLL COUNSEL DAYS 202/066 Mpanza, Sakhi Mpanza Murder x 2 Pre-Trial Adv Mashego New Case 1 SS 112/2020 Magubane, Sizwe Boksburg Sithole, Johan Khumbulani MNGQIBISA-THUSI, J COURT REF NUMBER ACCUSED CHARGES REASON ON STATE ADVOCATE DEFENCE STATUS EST 6B 10/2/11/1 THE ROLL COUNSEL DAYS 2017/114 Ncube, Buhlangene Housebreaking Trial Adv Kowlas Ph 18 SS 079/2018 Brighton Robbery with Roodepoort Phakathi, Mduduzi aggravating Khumalo, Vusumzi Blessing circumstances MAKAMU, AJ COURT REF NUMBER ACCUSED CHARGES DATE STATE ADVOCATE DEFENCE STATUS EST 2C 10/2/11/1 COUNSEL DAYS 2 MUDAU, J COURT REF NUMBER ACCUSED CHARGES REASON ON STATE ADVOCATE DEFENCE STATUS EST 6C 10/2/11/1 THE ROLL COUNSEL DAYS 2020/036 Jijane, Thokozane Fraud x 5 Argument Adv R Barnard Ph 3 SS 094/2020 Kidnapping x 4 Boksburg Rape x 17 Robbery with Aggravating circumstances x 10 Attempted Murder 2015/149 Mokoena, Bongani Murder Trial Adv Ngodwana Red Case 15 SS 152/2015 Zwane, Mashinini Robbery Sandton Mashiane, Steven Unlawful possession of Firearm Unlawful possession of Ammunition YACOOB, J COURT REF NUMBER ACCUSED CHARGES REASON ON STATE ADVOCATE DEFENCE STATUS EST 4A 10/2/11/1 THE ROLL COUNSEL DAYS 2019/101 Zitha, Kamal Murder Trial Adv Van Wyk Red Case 10 SS 095/2019 Attempted Murder x 3 Johannesburg Unlawful possession
    [Show full text]
  • Orders of Appointment of Shri Justice Ravi Vijaykumar Malimath , Senior
    (TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, PART 1 SECTION 2) No.K-11019/07/2020-US.II Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice) Jaisalmer House, 26, Man Singh Road, NEW DELHI-II0 011, dated 16th July, 2020. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 223 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Ravi Vijaykumar Malimath, senior-most Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, to perform the duties of the office of Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from zs" July, 2020 consequent upon the retirement of Shri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court. *,tl-W-W (Rajinder Kashyap) Joint Secretary to the Government of India Tele: 2338 3037 To The Manager, Government of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi 2 No. K. 1l019/07/2020-US.II Dated 16.07.2020 Copy to:- 1 Shri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital. 2 Shri Justice Ravi Vijaykumar Malimath, Judge, Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital. 3 The Secretary to the Governor, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 4 The Secretary to the Chief Minister, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 5 The Secretary to the Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital. 6 The Chief Secretary, Government ofUttarakhand, Dehradun. 7 The Registrar General, Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital. 8 The Accountant General, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 9 The President's Secretariat, (CA.lI Section), New Delhi 10 PS to Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, New Delhi. 11 Registrar (Conf.), 0/0 Chief Justice of India, 5 Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi. 12 PS to ML&J/PPS to Secretary (J)/JS(RKK)/SO(Desk) 13 Technical Director, NIC, Department of Justice, with a request to upload on the Website of the Department (www.doj.gov.in).
    [Show full text]
  • SUPERIOR COURTS ACT 10 of 2013 (Gazette No. 36743, Notice
    (28 February 2014 – to date) SUPERIOR COURTS ACT 10 OF 2013 (Gazette No. 36743, Notice No. 615 dated 12 August 2013. Commencement date: 23 August 2013 [Proc. No. R36, Gazette No. 36774]- with the exception of sections 29, 37 and 45 and Items No. 11 of Schedule 1 and No. 1.1 of Schedule 2) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE Directive: 3/2014 RENAMING OF COURTS IN TERMS OF SECTION 6 OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS ACT NO 10 OF 2013 Government Notice 148 in Government Gazette 37390 dated 28 February 2014. Commencement date: 28 February 2014. By virtue of the powers vested in me in terms of section 8 of the Superior Courts Act, 2013 (Act no 10 of 2013) (the Act) I, Mogoeng Mogoeng, the Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa, hereby issue the following directive: The Act created a single High Court, with various divisions constituted in terms of section 6 of the Act. In this regard all court processes in the High Court shall be headed in accordance with the Act; and all court processes shall be as headed as follows: (a) "IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA" EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN (b) "IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA" EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, BHISHO (c) "IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA" EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA (d) "IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA" EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH (e) "IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA" FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN (f) "IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA" GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Prepared by: Page 2 of 2 (g) "IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA" GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
    [Show full text]
  • (Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.) 1. Matter Is Taken in the Revised
    3 All] Dinesh Chand Pandey V. Shri Narain Pathak and others 1287 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION (Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.) CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 25.11.2010 1. Matter is taken in the revised cause list. BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J. 2. None appeared on behalf of the Civil Revision No. 52 of 2001 answering respondents. Dinesh Chand Pandey and others Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned ...Petitioner counsel for the revisionist and perused the Versus record. Shri Narain Pathak and others ...Respondent 3. Facts in brief as submitted by the Counsel for the Petitioner: learned counsel for the revisionist are that Sri U.S. Sahai initially a regular suit (Suit No. 107 of Sri D.C. Mukharji 1994) filed by plaintiff/O.P. Nos. 1 to 18 in the court of IVth Additional Chief Counsel for the Respondent: Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Sri D.C. Mukharjee Judge (Sr. Div.), Sultanpur in which the present revisionists are defendants. Code of Civil Procedure Order XIV Rule 2 as amended by Act No. 104 of 1976- 4. On the basis of pleadings, the Rule 2 (2)-Preliminary issue-regarding issues were framed by the trial court and bar of 22 of U.P. Intermediate Act 1921 and Section 14 of payment of issue No. 5 and 6 are as under:- salary Act-trial Court rejected the request for decision of preliminary (a) whether the present suit is barred issue as first-held-Trail Court not in view of the provisions as provided exercised its discretion properly-an under Section 22 of the U.P.
    [Show full text]
  • OFFICE of the CHIEF JUSTICE the Office of the Chief Justice Is an Equal Opportunity Employer
    ANNEXURE J OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE The Office of the Chief Justice is an equal opportunity employer. In the filling of vacant posts, the objectives of section 195(1)(i) of the Constitution of South Africa, 1996, the Employment Equity imperatives as defined by the Employment Equity Act, 1998 (Act55) of 1998) and the relevant Human Resources policies of the Department will be taken into consideration and preference will be given to Women and Persons with Disabilities. APPLICATIONS : National Office (Midrand)/ Constitutional Court: Braamfontein: Quoting the relevant reference number, direct your application to: The Director: Human Resources, Office of the Chief Justice, Private Bag X10, Marshalltown, 2107 or hand deliver applications to the Office of the Chief Justice, Human Resource Management, 188, 14th Road, Noordwyk, Midrand, 1685. Eastern Cape/ Port Elizabeth/ Grahamstown/ Bisho/ Umthatha/ East London: Quoting the relevant reference number, direct your application to: The Provincial Head, Office of the Chief Justice, Postal Address: Private Bag x 13012, Cambridge 5206, East London. Applications can also be hand delivered to 59 Western Avenue, Sanlam Park Building, 2nd Floor, Vincent 5242, East London Free State/ Supreme Court of Appeal: Bloemfontein: Quoting the relevant reference number, direct your application to: The Provincial Head, Office of the Chief Justice, Private Bag X20612, Bloemfontein, 9300 or hand deliver applications to the Free State High Court, Corner President Brand and Fontein Street, Bloemfontein, 9301 Gauteng (Provincial Centre) /Land Claims Court (Randburg)/ Johannesburg High Court/ Pretoria High Court/ Labour and Labour Appeals Court: Johannesburg: Quoting the relevant reference number, direct your application to: The Provincial Head, Office of the Chief Justice, Private Bag X7, Johannesburg, 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Matters - Elections Relating to Gram Panchayats and Zila Parishad
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [ IT WILL BE APPRECIATED IF THE LEARNED ADVOCATES ON RECORD DO NOT SEEK ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTERS LISTED BEFORE ALL THE COURTS IN THE CAUSE LIST ] DAILY CAUSE LIST FOR DATED : 15-01-2020 CHIEF JUSTICE'S COURT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT (TIME : 10:30 AM) NOTE : Chronology is based on the date of initial filing. REGULAR HEARING Petitioner/Respondent SNo. Case No. Petitioner / Respondent Advocate Election Matters - Elections relating to Gram Panchayats and Zila Parishad 101 C.A. No. 2162/2009 POP SINGH PAWAR AND ANR. PRATIBHA JAIN IV-A Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. Indirect Taxes Matters - Interpretation of exemption notifications under Central Excise Act 102 C.A. No. 999/2007 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY B. KRISHNA PRASAD X Versus M/S. MOOL CHAND INDUS. ESTATE P.LTD. THROUGH SANJAY JAIN ITS DIRECTOR SHRI MOOL CHAND AGARWAL 102. Connected MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY B. KRISHNA PRASAD 1 C.A. No. 1000/2007 X Versus M/S BHAWANI PLASTICS ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI SANJAI KUMAR PATHAK SUDEEP AGARWAL 102. Connected UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE JOINT B. KRISHNA PRASAD 2 C.A. No. 1003/2007 SECRETARY (TRU) X Versus INDO GERMAN BRAKES PVT. LTD. DIRECTOR SH. VIPUL DAWAL 102. Connected UNION OF INDIA .DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE B. KRISHNA PRASAD 3 C.A. No. 1002/2007 CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (CDEC) X JOINT SECRETARY AND ANR. Versus WHALE STATIONERY PRODUCTS LTD. C.E.O. SHRI MUKESH GUPTA 102.
    [Show full text]