Law Notes

  Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209  Picture just for representation Table Of Contents संक्षेप में तथ्य( FACTS IN BRIEF) :-  भारतीय रेलवे ने 28 फरवरी, 1997 को इस आशय का एक परिपत्र जारी किया कि रोस्टर बिंदुओं पर पदोन्नत आरक्षित उम्मीदवार बाद में पदोन्नत किए गए वरिष्ठ सामान्य उम्मीदवारों पर वरिष्ठता का दावा नहीं कर सकते। यह सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्धारित कानून का पालन करते हुए किया गया था - कि यह "अनुमति" था कि रोस्टर बिंदुओं पर पदोन्नति पाने वाले आरक्षित उम्मीदवार पदोन्नति स्तर पर वरिष्ठता का दावा करने के हकदार नहीं होंगे, जबकि वरिष्ठ सामान्य उम्मीदवारों को पदोन्नत किया गया था। बाद में उसी स्तर पर और यह कि "यह राज्य के लिए खुला होगा" यह प्रदान करने के लिए कि जब और जब वरिष्ठ सामान्य उम्मीदवार को उस स्तर पर पदोन्नत किया जाता है जिस पर आरक्षित उम्मीदवार को पहले पदोन्नत किया गया था, तो सामान्य उम्मीदवार के पास होगा पदोन्नति के स्तर पर भी आरक्षित उम्मीदवार से वरिष्ठ के रूप में माना जाएगा, जब तक कि निश्चित रूप से, आरक्षित उम्मीदवार...

  Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209  Table Of Contents FACTS IN BRIEF :-  The Indian Railways issued a circular on February 28th, 1997 to the effect that the reserved candidates promoted at roster points could not claim seniority over the senior general candidates promoted later. This was done following the law laid down by the Supreme Court - that it was "permissible" to follow that reserved candidates who get promotion at the roster points would not be entitled to claim seniority at the promotional level as against senior general candidates who got promoted at a later point of time to the same level and that "it would be open" to the State to provide that as and when the senior general candidate got promoted to the level to which the reserved candidate was promoted earlier, the general candidate would have to be treated as senior to the reserved candidate at the promotional level as well, unless, of course, the reserve...

A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (The Habeas Corpus Case), (1976) 2 SCC 521  Picture Just for representation Table Of Contents Case Name- Additional District Magistrate Jabalpur vs ShivKant Shukla CITATION- 1976 AIR 1207, 1976 SCR 172   DECIDED ON-  28 th  Apr. 1976 BENCH- A.N. (Cj.), Khanna, Hans Raj, Beg, M. Hameedullah, Channdrachd, Y.V., Bhagwanti, P.N.  FACTS IN BRIEF   On June 25th, 1975 the President in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Articles 352 (Proclamation of Emergency) of the Constitution declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbances. On June 27th, 1975 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Articles 359 the President declared that the right of any person including a foreigner to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending i...

 NUISANCE  Table Of Contents  The meaning of the term nuisance has taken many different forms over the years and is often very vague in its definition. In general, the term is characterized by a simple annoyance or hurt caused by some person or thing. Historically, nuisance referred to the denial of someone’s rights to use land. In the thirteenth century, the writ of nuisance was available to plaintiffs to take action against those injuries which were committed wholly on the land of the defendant, but interfered with the rights of the plaintiff. This was the beginnings of the modern day private nuisance. An extension of private nuisance eventually gave rise to public nuisance as well. Any interference on the rights of the public, or the rights of the crown, was considered to be a crime. These crimes first developed from wrongdoings on the property of a public highway, or other public property. Because of the similarity between crimes against priv...