Back
(2010) 14 SCC 716
S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., AFTAB ALAM AND K.S.P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Petitioners;
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents.
IA No. 279 of 2010 in WP (C) No. 1022 of 1989
Decided On : July 19, 2010
ORDER
1. By order dated 12-7-20101 we had directed constitution of three committees, namely, District Committee, State Committee and Monitoring Committee.
2. As regards composition of the Monitoring Committee, we had directed that following shall be the members of the Monitoring Committee:
1. Additional Secretary, Department of Justice;
2. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi;
3. Joint Secretary, J-II;
4. Director/Deputy FinancialAdviser;
5. DDG, CPWD;
6. Director, HC & J (Member-Secretary).
3. It is now brought to our notice that, in the Central Government, there has been redesignation of some of the above posts. In order to bring out the correct position based on redesignation, we need to correct our order dated 12-7-20101 to a limited extent. Accordingly, the constitution of the Monitoring Committee shall now consist of the following members:
1. Secretary, Department of Justice;
2. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi;
3. Additional Secretary and F.A. (for Ministry of Law and Justice at Shastri Bhawan);
4. Joint Secretary, J-I, Department of Justice;
5. DDG, CPWD;
6. Director, HC & J (Member-Secretary);
7. Mr A.T.M. Sampath, Advocate (Invitee Member).
4. One more point needs to be highlighted. By our order dated 12-7-20101 we have called for status reports from the District Committees and State Committees. It is made clear that status reports should give information/input as on 31-3-2010.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
