Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3608 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1490 of 2015) State of Kerala & Ors. ..Appellants VERSUS M/s Kerala Rare Earth & Minerals Limited & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3609 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1840 of 2015) State of Kerala & Ors. ..Appellants VERSUS M/s. Kerala Rare Earths & Minerals Limited & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3610 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.1914 of 2015) State of Kerala & Ors. ..Appellants VERSUS M/s. Kerala Rare Earths & Minerals Limited & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, CJI.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 13th November, 2014 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, whereby, Writ Appeals Nos.1610, 1611 and 1621 of 2014 filed by the appellants-State of Kerala have been dismissed affirming thereby an order passed by a Single Bench of that Court, allowing the writ petitions filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4060 OF2009|MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND | | |RESEARCH CENTRE & ORS. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.4061 OF2009CIVIL APPEAL NO4062OF2009CIVIL APPEAL NO4063OF2009CIVIL APPEAL NO4064OF2009A N D CIVIL APPEAL NO4065OF2009JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.In all these appeals, validity and correctness of the common judgment dated May 15, 2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench at Jabalpur, has been questioned. The appellants in these appeals had filed writ petitions challenging the validity/vires of the provisions of the statute passed by the State Legislature, which is known as 'Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2007'). The appellants also challenged vires of Admissions Rules, 2008 (for short, 'Rules, 2008') and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8438 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.8463 of 2008) KEDAR NATH YADAV APPELLANT Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8440 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.10731/2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8441 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.11783/2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8444 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.11830/2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8446 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.12360/2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8447 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.12724/2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.8453 OF2016Arising out of SLP(C)NO.25580 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) .CC No.13645/2008 And CIVIL APPEAL NO.8449 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.22491/2008) JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.Delay condoned in SLP (C) CC No.13645 of 2008. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. The present appeals arise out of the impugned final common judgment and order dated 18.01.2008 in W.P. No.23836 (W) of 2006 and connected petitions, passed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3453/2002 JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.& ANR. Appellants VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondents WITH C.A. No.6383-6421/1997, C.A. No.6422-6435/1997, C.A. No.6436/1997, C.A. No.6437-6440/1997 , C.A. No.3381-3400/1998, C.A. No.4651/1998, C.A. No.918/1999, C.A. No.2769/2000, C.A. No.4471/2000, C.A. No.3314/2001, C.A. No.3454/2002, C.A. No.3455/2002, C.A. No.3456-3459/2002, C.A. No.3460/2002, C.A. No.3461/2002, C.A. No.3462-3463/2002, C.A. No.3464/2002, C.A. No.3465/2002, C.A. No.3466/2002, C.A. No.3467/2002, C.A. No.3468/2002, C.A. No.3469/2002, C.A. No.3470/2002, C.A. No.3471/2002, C.A. No.4008/2002, C.A. No.5385/2002, C.A. No.5740/2002, C.A. No.5858/2002, W.P.(C) No.512/2003, W.P.(C) No.574/2003, C.A. No.2608/2003, C.A. No.2633/2003, C.A. No.2637/2003, C.A. No.2638/2003, C.A. No.3720-3722/2003, C.A. No.6331/2003, C.A. No.8241/2003, C.A. No.8242/2003, C.A. No.8243/2003, C.A. No.8244/2003, C.A. No.8245/2003, C.A. No.8246/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5881-5882 OF2016ALL INDIA POWER ENGINEER FEDERATION & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS SASAN POWER LTD. & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5239-5240 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL NO.5246 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5342-5343 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL NO.5879 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL NO.5355 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL NO.5365 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL NO.5367 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL NO.5956 OF2016JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. These appeals have been argued over a number of days, but ultimately the points raised in them lie within a narrow compass.2. On 19.1.2005, the Central Government, in exercise of powers under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 issued guidelines for a tariff based competitive bid process to be initiated by distribution licensees /procurers for procurement of power from generating companies. The electricity to be procured by such procurers is for the purpose of distribution and retail supply to consumers generally. On 10....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 607-608 OF2017(arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 3119-3120 of 2014) Mukesh & Anr. Appellants Versus State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 609-610 OF2017(arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 5027-5028 of 2014) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.[for himself and Ashok Bhushan, J.]. The cold evening of Delhi on 16th December, 2012 could not have even remotely planted the feeling in the twenty-three year old lady, a para- medical student, who had gone with her friend to watch a film at PVR Select City Walk Mall, Saket, that in the next few hours, the shattering cold night that was gradually stepping in would bring with it the devastating hour of darkness when she, alongwith her friend, would get into a bus at Munirka bus stand to be dropped at a particular place; and possibly could not have imagined that she would be a prey to the savage lust of a gang of six, face brutal a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO494OF2012JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.), AND ANR. ..Petitioners VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..Respondents WITH T.C. (CIVIL) NO151OF2013T.C. (CIVIL) NO152OF2013W.P.(CIVIL) NO833OF2013W.P.(CIVIL) NO829OF2013W.P.(CIVIL) NO932OF2013CONMT. PET. (CIVIL) NO144OF2014IN W.P.(C) No.494/2012 T.P.(CIVIL) NO313OF2014T.P.(CIVIL) NO312OF2014S.L.P(CRL.) NO.2524/2014 W.P.(CIVIL) NO.37/2015 W.P.(CIVIL) NO.220/2015 1 CONMT. PET. (C)NO.674/2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.829/2013 T.P.(CIVIL)NO.921/2015 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.470/2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.444/2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.608/2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 W.P.(CIVIL) NO.797/2016 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.844/2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 W.P. (C) No.342/ 2017 AND WITH W.P.(C) NO.000372/2017 JUDGMENT Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are : A The reference B Decision in M P Sharma C D E F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.20982 OF2017INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...APPELLANT (S) SHAILENDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.& ORS. VERSUS WITH ...RESPONDENT (S) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10742 OF2008YOGESH KUMAR & ORS. ...PETITIONER (S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ...RESPONDENT (S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.20920 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)Nos.26574-26575 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.28993 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30198 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30192 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30142 OF20151 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30128 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30203 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL No.4835 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.25289 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)CC No.9842 OF2016SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22356 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.31678 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL NO.4836 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22527 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.4705 OF2016SPECI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.215 OF2005Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Versus Union of India and Another ...Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI [for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.]. I N D E X Heading S. No.A. Prologue B. Contentions in the Writ Petition Page No.3 10 C. Stand in the counter affidavit and the 14 applications for intervention D. Background of the Writ Petition D.1 P. Rathinams case The question of unconstitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code D.2 Gian Kaurs case The question of unconstitutionality of Section 306 of 18 19 22 2 the Indian Penal Code D.3 The approach in Aruna Shanbaug qua Passive Euthanasia vis--vis India D.4 The Reference E. Our analysis of Gian Kaur F. Our analysis of Aruna Shanbaug qua legislation 30 42 45 51 G. The Distinction between Active and Passive 52 Euthanasia H. Euthanasia : International Position H.1 U.K. Decisions: H.1.1 Airedale Case H.1.2 Late...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.416 OF2018(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.5661 of 2017) DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN Appellant VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. Respondents JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 5th May, 2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.1015 of 2016.2. this Court:- On 20th November, 2017 the following order was passed by Heard learned counsel for the parties. Certain adverse remarks were recorded against respondent No.2-Bhaskar Karbhari Gaidwad by the Principal and Head of the Department of the College of Pharmacy where respondent No.2 was employed. Respondent No.2 sought 1 sanction for his prosecution under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for certain other connected offences. The said matter was dealt with by the petitioner a...
Tag this Judgment!