Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC1058IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL WRIT / APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1099 of 2019 IN RE: ARTICLE370OF THE CONSTITUTION With Writ Petition (C) No.871 of 2015 With Writ Petition (C) No.722 of 2014 With SLP (C) No.19618 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.1013 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1082 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1068 of 2019 1 With Writ Petition (C) No.1037 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1062 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1070 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1104 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1165 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1210 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1222 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.396 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.756 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.398 pf 2018 With 2 Writ Petition (C) No.924 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1092 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1162 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1048 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1268 of 2019 And With Writ Petition (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC36IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9695 OF2013ASMA LATEEF & ANR. APPELLANTS VS. SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.The Challenge 1. Respondents 1 to 3 had filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC, hereafter) in an execution application filed before the Executing Court by the appellants. It was urged, based on the case pleaded therein, that the decree put to execution was inexecutable. The Executing Court, on 19th March, 2008, allowed the objections of the respondents 1 to 3, resulting in dismissal of the execution application. 12. A revision was carried by the appellants from the order dated 19th March, 2008 before the Revisional Court which, vide its order dated 21st February, 2009, dismissed the objection filed by the respondents 1 to 3 and directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution of the decree whilst treating such objection as non-maintainable.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. On 7/12/2009, one Prashant Kapil, In-charge, Electronics Cell, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur lodged a First Information Report alleging that one Dhoom Singh in connivance with the appellant was collecting money from people on the pretext that he would get them recruited in the police department. After his arrest, one mobile phone was seized from Dhoom Singh. As the police wanted to verify whether the recorded conversation, which is in their possession, is between accused Dhoom Singh and the appellant, they needed voice sample of the appellant. The police, therefore, filed an application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janpad Saharanpur, praying that the appellant be summoned to the court for recording the sample of his voice. On 8/1/2010, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur issued summons to the appellant to appear before the investigating officer and give his voice sample. The appellant approached the Alla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2009 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1041 of 2007 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31st January, 2007 in Special Civil Application No.2115 of 1997. On 11th May, 2010, this Court issued notice limited to the question of award of punishment. In the High Court, before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant made only one submission that looking to the allegations and the charges proved against the appellant and the penalty of removal imposed upon the appellant is disproportionate to the misconduct. However, in the Letters Patent Appeal, a draft amendment was moved by the appellant seeking to challenge the order of removal from service on the ground that the acts committed by the appellant did not constitute misconduct. The application for amendment was rej...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.. OF 201.[Arising out of SLP (C) NO.9126 OF 2010]. Manot H. Mishra . ..Appellant VERSUS Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2009 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1041 of 2007 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31st January, 2007 in Special Civil Application No.2115 of 1997. On 11th May, 2010, this Court issued notice limited to the question of award of punishment. In the High Court, before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant made only one submission that looking to the allegations and the charges proved against the appellant and the penalty of removal imposed upon the appellant is disproportionate to the misconduct. However, in the Letters Patent Appeal, a d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC), a State of Orissa Undertaking, has approached this Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) dated 24.8.2010 rejecting the Stage-II forest clearance for diversion of 660.749 hectares of forest land for mining of bauxite ore in Lanjigarh Bauxite Mines in Kalahandi and Rayagada Districts of Orissa and also for other consequential reliefs. 2. OMC urged that the above order passed by the MOEF has the effect of neutralizing two orders of this Court passed in I.A. Nos. 1324 and 1474 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 with I.A. Nos. 2081-2082 (arising out of Writ Petition No. 549 of 2007) dated 23.11.2007 reported in (2008) 2 SCC 222 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Vedanta case’] and the order passed by this Court in I.A. No. 2134 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995 on 08.08.2008 reported in (2008) 9 SCC 711 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ster...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.180 OF 201.Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Ministry of Environment & Forest & Others .. Respondents JUDGMENT K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC), a State of Orissa Undertaking, has approached this Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) dated 24.8.2010 rejecting the Stage-II forest clearance for diversion of 660.749 hectares of forest land for mining of bauxite ore in Lanjigarh Bauxite Mines in Kalahandi and Rayagada Districts of Orissa and also for other consequential reliefs.2. OMC urged that the above order passed by the MOEF has the effect of neutralizing two orders of this Court passed in I.A. Nos. 1324 and 1474 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995 with I.A. Nos. 2081-2082 (arising out of Writ Petition No.549 of 2007) dated 23.11.2007 reported in (2008) 2 SCC 22.[hereina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We are in these appeals concerned with an issue of considerable national and international importance, pertaining to the setting up of a nuclear power plant in the South-Eastern tip of India, at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. The incidents occurred in Three Miles Island Power Plant USA, Chernobyl, Ukraine, USSR, Fukoshima, Japan, Union Carbide, Bhopal might be haunting the memory of the people living in and around Kudankulam, leading to large-scale agitation and emotional reaction to the setting up of the Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) and its commissioning. The nature of potential adverse effect of ionizing radiation, adds to fears and unrest which might not have even thought of by Enrico Fermi a noble laureate in physics in 1938, who was responsible for the setting up of the first Nuclear reactor in a Doubles quash Court at Slagg Field, at the Chicago University, USA. Since then, it is history, India has now 20 Nuclear Reactors, in place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4440 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27335 of 2012) G. Sundarrajan . Appellant Versus Union of India and others Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4441 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27813 of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4442 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.29121 of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4443 OF 200.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32013 of 2012) JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are in these appeals concerned with an issue of considerable national and international importance, pertaining to the setting up of a nuclear power plant in the South-Eastern tip of India, at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. The incidents occurred in Three Miles Island Power Plant USA, Chernobyl, Ukraine, USSR, Fukoshima, Japan, Union Carbide, Bhopal might be haunting the memory of the people living in and around Kudankulam, leading to large-scale agitation and emotional reaction to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1333 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7002 of 2012) Sunil Dutt Sharma ... Appellant(s) Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. The accused-appellant was tried for offences under Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short the Penal Code) for causing the death of his wife in the night intervening 16/17.05.92. He has been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code on the benefit of doubt though found guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code following which the sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed. The conviction and sentence has been affirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant had moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.2. Limited notice on the question of sentence imposed on the accused- appellant having been issued by this Court the scope of the present ...
Tag this Judgment!