06-03-2020 Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) Vs. Union Of India *Those organisations which have connection with active politics or take…
*Leave granted. 2. One of the issues raised in this appeal is whether an appeal against an order of a single judge of a High Court deciding a case related to an Armed Forces personnel pending before the High Court is required to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal or should be heard by the High Court.*
*This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 09th October 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 1284 of 1992 acquitting the Respondent (Orig. Accused) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.*
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal Nos. 4083-4092 of 2016 whereby the High Court has partly allowed the said first appeals preferred by the original claimants and has enhanced the amount of compensation for the lands acquired, the acquiring body – The Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project has preferred the present appeals.
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 21 st January, 2014 whereby the writ petition filed by M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. for short, ‘employer was allowed and the order passed by the Industrial Court on 6 th August, 2012 was set aside.
*The three Writ Petitions revolve around same set of facts and, therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment.*
These civil appeals emanate from the common judgment and order dated 8.8.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (for short, ‘the High Court’) in cross appeals being F.A.O. Nos. 1341 of 2016 (O&M) and 4023 of 2016 (O&M), questioning the correctness of the award dated 4.12.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.C.T. Case No. 205 of 2014. The former appeal (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No……/2020 @ Diary No. 47693/2018) has been preferred by the insurance company and the latter appeal (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No……./2020 @ Diary No. 17683/2019) by the claimants- respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The parties are referred to as per their status in the former appeal for the sake of convenience.
*1. The appeal is directed against the Order of the High Court setting aside the Order passed by the Magistrate allowing the application filed by the appellant to discharge him.*
The moot question involved in this appeal is: whether the order issued under the signatures of Vice¬Chancellor of the Central University of Kerala (respondent No. 1), dated 30.11.2017 is simplicitor termination or ex-facie stigmatic? The said order reads thus: ¬