Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC330IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO..OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.242 of 2016) JYOTI DEVI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SUKET HOSPITAL & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.Leave granted.2. In ordinary circumstances, a procedure concerning appendicitis is considered to be routine. It did not turn out to be so for Jyoti Devi1. She was admitted to Suket Hospital, Sundernagar, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh on 28th June 2005 and had her appendicitis removed by Dr. Anil Chauhan, Senior Surgeon, Suket Hospital. Post surgery, she was discharged on 30th June 2005. However, her ordeal did not end there. She suffered continuous pains near the surgical site, as such she was admitted again on 26th July 2005 but was discharged the next day with the assurance that no further pain would be suffered by her. She was further 1 Hereafter, claimant-appellant 1| CA ______ OF2024@ SLP(C) 242 OF2016treated by one Dr. L.D. Vaidya of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC327REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5062-5099 of 2024 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Nos. 26571-26608 of 2017 PERNOD RICARD INDIA (P) LTD. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.1. Leave Granted.2. The short question for our consideration is the applicability of the relevant rule for imposition of penalty; whether it is the rule that existed when the violation occurred during the license period of 2009-10 or the rule that was substituted in 2011 when proceedings for penalty were initiated. As the substituted rule reduced the quantum of penalty, the appellant insists on its application but the statutory authorities as well as the Division 1 Bench of the High Court rejected his case and imposed higher penalty under the old rule. 2.1 For the reasons to follow, we have accepted the contention of the appellant and, in allowing the appeal, determined that the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC292Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION Curative Petition (C) Nos.108-109 of 2022 In Review Petition (C) Nos.1158-1159 of 2021 In Civil Appeal Nos 5627-5628 of 2021 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Petitioner Versus Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Respondent Page 1 of 39 PART A JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Factual Background ................................................................................................... 3 B. DMRCs claim and the Tribunals findings ............................................................. 7 C. Decisions of the High Court .................................................................................... 10 D. Judgment of this Court in appeal ........................................................................... 11 E. Issues in the Curative Petition. .............................................................................. 12 F. Submissions .........................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC294REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.328 OF2012SUBHASH @ SUBANNA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS Respondent(s). JUDGMENT PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.1. By way of present appeal, the appellants challenged the judgment and order dated 20th April, 2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.3601/2010, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.213/2009 which had convicted appellants (accused Nos. 1, 2 and4) under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced 1 them to life imprisonment. Additionally the High Court also upheld the conviction and sentence of appellant Nos.1 and 3 (accused Nos 2 &4) under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC as awarded by Trial Court.2. The First Information Report No.18/2009 was lodged at Kamalpur Police Station, Gulbarga against the accused persons for commission of offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC296REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3821 OF2024MAHAKALI SUJATHA APPELLANT VERSUS THE BRANCH MANAGER, FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J.1. The present civil appeal has been filed by the complainant, who is the daughter of the insured-deceased Sri Siriveri Venkateswarlu, who is also the nominee under the subject life insurance policies of her late father. The appellant is assailing the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as NCDRC) in Revision Petition No.1268 of 2019. Civil Appeal No.3821 of 2024 Page 1 of 482. By the impugned order, the NCDRC has allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent-opposite party, thereby setting aside the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum and the State Consumer Forum and sustaining the repudiation of the complainants claim by the opp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.of 2024 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.29227 OF2019 AABID KHAN APPELLANT VERSUS DINESH AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar, J.1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the records.3. Challenge is laid in this appeal to the order dated 21.01.2019 passed in MA No.1614 of 2018 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore whereunder the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as tribunal) by award dated 04.12.2017 in a sum of Rs.87,700/- with interest @ 7% p.a. came to 1 be enhanced to Rs.1,27,700/- with same interest contending inter-alia that compensation so awarded by the High Court is on the lower side and same has to be enhanced.4. The occurrence of the accident, injuries sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the road accident that took place on 23.04.2013, consequential disability...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC289Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4615 OF2023Karikho Kri Appellant Versus Nuney Tayang and another Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL No.4716 OF2023JUDGMENT SANJAY KUMAR, J1 In the year 2019, Karikho Kri, an independent candidate, Dr. Mohesh Chai, candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party, and Nuney Tayang, candidate of the Indian National Congress, contested the election to the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly Constituency. The election was held on 11.04.2019 and Karikho Kri emerged victorious with 7538 votes, while Dr. Mohesh Chai secured 7383 votes and Nuney Tayang secured 1088 votes. 12. Nuney Tayang filed Election Petition No.01(AP) of 2019 before the Itanagar Bench of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, seeking a declaration that the election of Karikho Kri was void on the grounds mentioned in Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Represent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2024INSC266CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 27412743 OF2024Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles ..Appellant @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana VERSUS State of Maharashtra and Others. ..Respondents JUDGMENT J.K. Maheshwari J.1. The present appeals arise out of impugned common judgment and final order dated 08.06.2021 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in three Writ Petitions. Out of the said three petitions, Writ Petition No.3370 of 2018 and Writ Petition No.2675 of 2019 were preferred by Anandra Vithoba Adsul and Raju Shamrao Mankar (Respondents herein), interalia seeking identical reliefs, i.e., issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside order dated 03.11.2017 passed by District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Suburban (hereinafter referred to as Scrutiny Committee) which validated the caste claim of Appellant herein as Mochi 1 Scheduled Caste in Maharashtra. Conversely, Writ Petition (Lodging...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC252IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4806 OF2011KRISHNADATT AWASTHY ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4807 OF2011SUMER SINGH ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL No.4808 OF2011SMT. RAMRANI SINGH ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL No.4809 OF2011SMT. SHYAMA DEWEDI & ORS. ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS1STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT J.K. MAHESHWARI J.1. After perusal of the judgment and view expressed by esteemed brother Justice K.V. Viswanathan, in the facts of this case, I am not in a position to agree with the reasoning and conclusions as drawn by him, for which detailed reasons supporting my view is in succeeding paragraphs.2. As per the facts of the case, the controversy in the present case revolves around selection and appointment for the post of Shiksha Karmi GradeIII in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC262IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.21096 of 2019) UNION OF INDIA & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY RESPONDENT(S) (D) THROUGH HIS LR JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: Leave granted.2. This appeal arises from an order passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 09.07.2019 in Civil Application No.1494 of 2019 filed in Writ Petition No.2307 of 1993 by which the High Court declined to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the application for 1 restoration of the Writ Petition No.2307 of 1993 referred to above which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 10.10.2006.3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under.4. The suit property bearing S. No.402, Bungalow No.15A, situated at Staveley Road, Pune Cantonment, Pune1 was leased by the respondent in favour of the appellants on 09.03.1951.5...
Tag this Judgment!