Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-07-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4666 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.13571 of 2012) Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil .Appellant(s) VERSUS Tamilarasi (Dead) By LRs. .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No.365 of 2009 whereby the High Court allowed the said second appeal filed by the original respondent 1 herein and set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2008 of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam in A.S. No.30/2008 and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant herein.3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short question.4. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff, who succeeded in the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court but lost in second appeal filed by the defendant (original respondent herein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-12-2019
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1890 OF2011PRATAP SINGH @ PIKKI ..Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ..Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. The appellant(accused No.1) along with three others tried for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter being referred to as IPC). The appellant and one Vikas Kirola were convicted under Section 304 Part II/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and other two persons Manoj Singh Rautela and 1 Deepak Pathak were acquitted vide judgment dated 12th January, 1998.2. Both the unsuccessful convicted persons preferred criminal appeal against the judgment dated 12th January, 1998 before the High Court of Uttarakhand. In the case of appellant, the High Court observed that according to his marksheet of Secondary School Certificate Examination 1993, his date of birth is 13th June, 1977 while the incident was o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-14-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10194 OF2013STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS Respondent(s) S.K. SINGH & ORS. IA No.88765/2018 WITH C.A. No.1317 of 2015 C.A. No.11307 of 2013 IA No.7/2016 JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.Civil Appeal No.10194/2013 1. The dispute pertains to the Irrigation Department cadre of the Uttarakhand State, for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer (for short JE) to the post of Assistant Engineer (for short AE), with two groups of these JEs arrayed on opposite sides one having the 1 qualification of Diploma and the other having the qualification of Degree in Engineering. The promotion quota (the promotion quota is for AEs - they are also being directly recruited) has carved out a provision for accelerated promotion to the extent of 7.33% for the JEs holding a more advanced qualification, of a Degree in Civil Engineering, with which the JEs holding a qualification of Diploma are aggrieved. F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-17-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9828 OF2013D.A.V. COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 98449845 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 98469857 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.9860 OF2013JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.Whether nongovernmental organisations substantially financed by the appropriate government fall within the ambit of public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is the issue for consideration in this case.2. The Right to Information Act (for short the Act) was enacted by Parliament in the year 2005, for the purpose of setting out a practical 1 regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information. The relevant portion of the Objects & Reasons of the Act reads as follows: AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-05-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1464 OF2019ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) No.12812 of 2015 Employees' State Insurance Corporation Appellant(s) VS. Venus Alloy Pvt. Ltd. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari., J Leave granted.2. The short question calling for determination in this appeal by special leave against the judgment dated 17.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Miscellaneous Appeal No.1213 of 2006 is as to whether the Directors of respondent-Company, who are receiving remuneration, come within the purview of employee under sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the ESI Act')?.3. Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the respondent-Company had been covered under the ESI Act and had been 1 depositing the amount of contribution with reference to the wages paid to some of its employees. However, in an inspection carried out by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-18-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4763-4764 OF2013TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8773-8774 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9542-9543 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.5782 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1552-1554 OF2019CIVIL APPEAL No.23 OF2019CIVIL APPEAL No.1582 OF2019JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.1. The present appeals arise out of orders that have been passed by the National Green Tribunal [NGT]. dated 31.05.2013, 08.08.2013, 1 and 15.12.2018. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy raised in the present case are as follows.2. The respondent, Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. / Vedanta Ltd., was operating a copper smelter plant at the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT) Industrial Complex at Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu. On 01.08.1994, the respondent received a No-Objection Certificate [NOC]. from the Tamil Nadu Pollution C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-11-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No 306 of 2019 Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd & Ors ...Petitioners Versus Govt of West Bengal & Ors ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1Motivated by a mission to support meaningful Bengali cinema, the petitioners produced a film titled Bhobishyoter Bhoot. Their grievance, while invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is that the State of West Bengal, its Department of Home and the Kolkata Police have caused an utterly unlawful obstruction of the public exhibition of their Bengali feature film. Simply put, their grievance is summarized in the extract which we reproduce from the first paragraph of the petition: The State of West Bengal is misusing police power and acting as a super-censor sitting atop the CBFC and is violating the Petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution thro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-13-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1388-1389 OF2019(DIARY No.9218 OF2016 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S) SANDEEP KUMAR ETC. VERSUS W I T H .....RESPONDENT(S) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1390 OF2019(DIARY No.7204 OF2016 A N D CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1391 OF2019(DIARY No.7205 OF2016 JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1)2) Delay condoned. Appeals admitted. Criminal appeals arising out of Diary No.9218 of 2016 are filed by the Union of India whereas; criminal appeals arising out of Diary Nos. 7204 of 2016 and 7205 of 2016 are filed by accused - Neeraj Kumar Dhaka and Sandeep Kumar respectively.3) The challenge in the appeals filed by the Union of India under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 20071 is to an order passed on December 12, 2013 by the Armed Forces Tribunal2 setting aside the order of conviction & sentence and of dismissal 1 2 Act Tribunal 14) consequent to District Court Martial3 proceedings conducted against the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-03-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos 4605 - 4606 of 2019 (D No 27372/2015) Amit Kumar Roy ..Appellant VERSUS Union of India & Ors ..Respondents With Civil Appeal No 4607 of 2019 (D No 27196/2015) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Civil Appeal Nos 4605-4606 of 2019 (D No 27372/2015):1. These appeals arise from a decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal 1 dated 11 April 2012 together with its order dated 25 May 2012, declining to review the initial decision. 1 AFT22 The appellant was enrolled on 12 January 2004 as an Airman in the Indian Air Force2. His regular engagement was to come to an end on 11 January, 2024. An advertisement was issued by the Bank of India on 7 August 2010 inviting applications for filling up 2,000 posts of Probationary Officers. While posted at the Three Base Repair Depot, the appellant responded to the advertisement and applied for the post of General Banking Officer in the pay scale of Rs 14,500- 25,700 in A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-30-2019
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE Civil Appeal No(s). 5943-5945 of 2019 (@SLP(C) Nos. 28719-28721 of 2015) Indsil Hydro Power & Manganese Ltd Appellant(s) Versus State of Kerala & Ors Etc Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J12 Leave granted. These appeals arise from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala dated 21 August 2015. The High Court has dismissed the writ proceedings instituted by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3 On 7 December 1990, the State of Kerala issued G.O (Ms) No.23/90/PD by which private entities were permitted to construct and operate Hydel Power Projects for the generation of power, subject to certain conditions. These conditions, broadly speaking were: The Private Agencies would be allowed to set up sanctioned hydel schemes at their own cost. Where the power scheme is located in an area owned by the 2 Respondents, the land would be leased for a period of 30...
Tag this Judgment!