Court : Supreme Court of India
1 reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.5016 of2016mantri techzone pvt. ltd. appellants versus forward foundation and ors. respondents with civil appeal nos.8002-8003 of2016civil appeal no.12326 of2016civil appeal no.9227 of2016civil appeal no.1343 of2017civil appeal no.10995 of2016civil appeal no.10993 of2016civil appeal no.10994 of2016civil appeal no.2246 of2018civil appeal no.10992 of2016civil appeal no.12157 of2016civil appeal no.12152 of2016civil appeal no.12156 of2016civil appeal no.12158 of2016civil appeal no.12160 of2016civil appeal no.12159 of2016civil appeal nos.4923-4924 of2017civil appeal no.14966 of20172 judgment s.abdul nazeer, j.1. these appeals have been preferred under section 22 of the national green tribunal act, 2010 (for brevity 'ngt act') challenging the judgment and order dated 07.05.2015 and 04.05.2016 respectively passed by the principal bench of the national green tribunal, new delhi (for short 'the tribunal').2. the appellants in civil appeal nos. 5016 of 2016 and 8002-8003 of 2016 are respondent nos. 9 and 10 in the original application no.222 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent nos. 9 and 10'). the said application was filed by respondent nos.1 to 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicants'). respondent nos. 4 to 7 in these appeals are the state of karnataka and other authorities. they were arrayed as respondent nos. 1 to 4 in the application. respondent nos. 12 and 13 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
reportable supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction83988399 civil appeal nos. of2019(arising out of slp(c) nos.21375 21376 of2017 tata housing development company ltd. ..appellant(s) aalok jagga and others ..respondent(s) versus judgment arun mishra, j.1. the appellant has questioned the judgment and order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the high court of delhi, concerning the housing project, on the ground that the area in question falls within the catchment area of sukhna lake and is 123 meters away from the boundary of sukhna wildlife sanctuary. the survey map of india dated 21.09.2004, demarcating the area of sukhna lake, is binding on the state of punjab. the permission dated 05.07.2013, granted by the nagar panchayat, naya gaon to tata housing development company ltd. (tata hdcl), is invalid. the environment clearance dated 17.09.2013, granted by state level environment impact assessment authority (seiaa) for development of the project is not in conformity with the notification dated 14.09.2006 of ministry of environment and forest (moef), has also been set aside. it has also been ordered that if the permission is granted by the state of punjab in favour of the appellant if it so desires, it may apply to central government for environmental clearance treating project category 'a.' 2. the tata hdcl proposed to develop a project, namely, camelot in the revenue estate of village kansal, tehsil kharar, district mohali, state of punjab. the total project area is 52.66 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
reportable in the supreme court of india criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal no.200 of2020(@ s.l.p.(criminal)no.4178 of 2019) union of india ... appellant(s) versus ashok kumar sharma and others ... respondent(s) judgment k.m. joseph, j.1. what is the interplay between the provisions of the code of criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as crpc for short) and the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the act for short)?. whether in respect of offences falling under chapter iv of the act, 1 a fir can be registered under section 154 of the crpc and the case investigated or whether section 32 of the act supplants the procedure for investigation of offences under crpc and the taking of cognizance of an offence under section 190 of the crpc?. still further, can the inspector under the act, arrest a person in connection with an offence under chapter iv of the act.2. one naushad khan made an online complaint on 22.2.2018. the commissioner (food protection and drugs) directed enquiry and the drug inspector, mau, u.p. along with two others conducted an inspection at the sharda narayan clinic and pharmacy and the respondent no.1 was directed to show papers in respect of medicines stored in the shop. the first respondent according to the appellant stated that he did not have any license though he was the owner of the medical store and that he had stored the medicines without proper license. thereby, he has committed offence under section 18 and 27 of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
reportable in the supreme court of india criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal nos.824 825 of2020(arising from slp(criminal) nos.2640 2641/2020) jayant etc. appellants versus the state of madhya pradesh respondent with criminal appeal no.826 of2020(arising from slp(criminal) no.4549/2020) state of madhya pradesh appellant versus jayant respondent judgment m.r. shah, j.leave granted.2. feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 11.05.2020 passed by the 1 high court of madhya pradesh, bench at indore in m.cr.c no.49338/2019 and m.cr.c. no.49972/2019, the original petitioner as well as the state of madhya pradesh have preferred the present appeals. by the impugned common judgment and order, the high court has dismissed the aforesaid applications filed under section 482 cr.p.c. to quash the respective firs for the offences under sections 379 and 414, ipc, sections 4/21 of the mines & minerals (development & regulation) act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the mmdr act ) and under rule 18 of the m.p. minerals (prevention of illegal mining, transportation and storage) rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 2006 rules ).3. the facts in nutshell are as under: on a surprise inspection, the respective mining inspectors checked the tractor/trolleys of the private appellants along with the minor mineral (sand/storage/yellow soil etc.) loaded in them. they handed over the tractor/trolleys to the concerned police stations to keep .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.5132 of2019 the oriental insurance co. ltd. ...appellant(s) versus malana power company ltd. ...respondent(s) judgment r.subhash reddy, j.1. this civil appeal is filed by the appellant/the oriental insurance company limited, aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2019 passed in o.p. no.53 of 2005, by the national consumer disputes redressal commission, new delhi. by the aforesaid order, the national commission has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant company and directed the appellant to pay a sum of rs.4,68,33,840/- towards the loss suffered by the respondent, in terms of insurance policy along with interest @ 6% 1 per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment.2. the respondent is a company which runs a hydro power project around malana nalah. the respondent was interested in securing an indemnity in respect of any shortfall that may take place in aggregate annual power generation at its hydro power plant due to failure of hydrology which depends upon vagaries of nature.3. for the year 2001-02, the respondent has obtained policies from m/s. iffco-tokio general insurance company. m/s.iffco-tokio general insurance company provided a package deal of the two insurance policies to the respondent. first one was industrial all risk insurance policy which covered material, damages due to fire and special perils, machinery breakdown, loss of profit etc., .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.11826 of2018haryana power purchase centre appellant(s) versus sasan power ltd & ors. respondent(s) with civil appeal no.11927 of2018civil appeal no.12190 of2018civil appeal no.1670 of2019civil appeal no.12232 of2018civil appeal no.1742 of2019judgment k. m. joseph, j.(1) the six appeals with which we are concerned have been filed under section 125 of the electricity act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as act for 1 civil appeal no.11826 of2018etc. brevity). the appeals are directed against the order passed by the appellate tribunal for electricity (hereinafter referred to as tribunal for brevity) in an appeal carried by the first respondent under section 111 of the act. (2) the appeal before the tribunal, in turn, was lodged against the order passed by the central electricity regulatory commission (hereinafter referred to as commission for brevity). the commission passed the order purporting to be one under section 79(b) inter alia of the act in a petition filed by the first respondent. f a c t s (3) it was decided to set up an ultra mega power project. towards this end, the power finance corporation limited of india was to be the nodal agency. it incorporated a special purpose vehicle, which is the first respondent. the idea was to set up the ultra mega power project which would be operated by the successful bidder selected through 2 civil appeal no.11826 of2018etc. an international .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... . opposite of that is a heterological word, i.e ..... an example of a heterological word is the word "long". ..... . the word is - is both autological and heterological ..... heterological words as indicated above are those which do not describe themselves or have the potential of developing into several forms or supporting multiple interpretations. ..... the word 'is'- is both autological and heterological. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
elizabeth v. pavement company - 97 u.s. 126 (1877) u.s. supreme court elizabeth v. pavement company, 97 u.s. 126 (1877) elizabeth v. pavement company 97 u.s. 126 appeal from the circuit court of the united states for the district of new jersey syllabus 1. a foreign patent or publication describing an invention, unless published anterior to the making of the invention or discovery secured by letters patent issued by the united states, is no defense to a suit upon them. 2. the presumption arising from the oath of the applicant that he believes himself to be the first inventor or discoverer of the thing for which he seeks letters patent remains until the contrary is proved. 3. the use of an invention by the inventor or by persons under his direction, if made in good faith, solely in order to test its qualities, remedy its defects, and bring it to perfection, is not, although others thereby derive a knowledge of it, a public use of it within the meaning of the patent law, and does not preclude him from obtaining letter patent therefor. 4. samuel nicholson having, in 1847, invented a new and useful improvement in wooden pavements and filed in the patent office a caveat of his invention, put down in 1854, as an experiment, his wooden pavement on a street in boston, where it was exposed to public view and traveled over for several years, and it proving successful, he, aug. 7, 1854, obtained letters patent therefor. held: 1. that there having been no public use or sale of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
jennison v. kirk - 98 u.s. 453 (1878) u.s. supreme court jennison v. kirk, 98 u.s. 453 (1878) jennison v. kirk 98 u.s. 453 error to the supreme court of california syllabus 1. the ninth section of the act of congress of july 26, 1866, "granting the right of way to ditch and canal owners over the public lands, and for other purposes," enacted "that whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same, and the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes aforesaid is hereby acknowledged and confirmed, provided however that whenever, after the passage of this act, any person or persons shall, in the construction of any ditch or canal, injure or damage the possession of any settler on the public domain, the party committing such injury or damage shall be liable to the party injured for such injury or damage." held: 1. that this section only confirmed to the owners of water rights and of ditches and canals on the public lands of the united states the same rights which they held under the local customs, laws, and decisions of the courts, prior to its passage; 2. that the proviso conferred no additional rights upon the owners of ditches subsequently constructed, but .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
kennedy v. indianapolis - 103 u.s. 599 (1880) u.s. supreme court kennedy v. indianapolis, 103 u.s. 599 (1880) kennedy v. indianapolis 103 u.s. 599 appeal from the circuit court of the united states for the district of indiana syllabus 1. sec. 7, art. 1, of the constitution of indiana, adopted in 1816, provides "that no man's particular services shall be demanded, or property taken or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives or without" a just compensation being made therefor. under an act of the general assembly, "to provide for a general system of internal improvements" approved jan. 27, 1836, the board thereby created was authorized to enter upon, take possession of, and use lands. held that the right to enter and use them was complete as soon as they were actually appropriated under the authority of that act, but that the title to them did not, without the consent of the owner, vest in the state until just compensation was made to him therefor. 2. the decisions of the supreme court of indiana upon the point cited and examined. 3. in this case, nothing was paid, it being considered that the benefits resulting from the construction of the contemplated work would furnish the owner just compensation for the land taken. the work was never constructed, and the state sold the property. held that no title passed to the purchaser. the facts are stated in the opinion of the court. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. this is a suit in .....
Tag this Judgment!