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 : Jan-17-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.576 OF2016INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) & ANR. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.24 OF2017A N D WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.119 OF2017JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.This batch of three Writ Petitions was heard together and is being disposed of by this Common Judgment as similar issues and prayers are raised in all these petitions.2) The instant writ petitions have been preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging certain provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurant and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016 (hereinafter 2 referred to as the Act) and also the Rules framed there under being the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurant and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-07-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2530 OF2012Birla Institute of Technology .Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 02.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No.53 of 2007 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the LPA filed by the appellant herein and confirmed the order dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No.2572 of 2005. 1 2. The controversy involved in this appeal is a short one as would be clear from the facts stated infra.3. The appellant is a premier technical educational institute of repute in the country. It is known as Birla Institute of Technology (BIT).4. Respondent No.4 joined the appellantInstitute as Assistant Professor on 16.09.1971 and superannuated on 30.11.2001 after attaining the age of superannuation.5. Respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-10-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1223 OF2015RAKESH TIWARI, ADVOCATE APPELLANT VERSUS ALOK PANDEY, C.J.M. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The appellant, advocate, has been convicted for his undesirable conduct by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order under the Contempt of Courts Act and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. He has also been directed not to enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a period of six months w.e.f. 15.7.2015 and the contemnor shall remain under constant watch of the District Judge, Allahabad, for a period of two years; and in case of any objectionable conduct, causing interference in peaceful and smooth functioning of the court, the District Judge has been asked to report the matter to the High Court.2. The contemnor has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-10-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3934 OF2017RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3935 OF2017JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The appeal arises out of the judgment dated 31.5.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi, setting aside an order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the Company Law Board in Company Petition No.64/2005.2. The backdrop facts indicate that the Government of India took a policy decision on 5.7.2002 to disinvest its shares in the Indian Tourism Development Corporation (in short, the ITDC) which owns various hotel properties; one of them being Indraprastha Hotel, formerly known as Hotel Ashok Yatri Niwas, (hereinafter referred to as the hotel).3. In terms of an approved scheme of Arrangement of Demerger the hotel was transferred to the Respondent No.1 Hotel Queen Road Pvt. 2 Ltd. (in short, HQRL) which was created as a Special Purpose Vehicle to enable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-07-2019
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1123 OF2010ASHOKSINH JAYENDRASINH ..Appellant STATE OF GUJARAT ..Respondent VERSUS JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 05.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2001 in and by which the High Court affirmed the conviction of appellant-accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him. The High Court also affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. The High Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 1 2. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are:- On 23.11.1997 at about 09.00 PM, accused Nos.1 to 5 along wit...
Tag this Judgment!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 : May-03-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.129 OF2017Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (FOGSI) ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) (hereinafter referred to as the Society) highlighting the issues and problems affecting the practice of obstetricians and gynaecologists across the country under the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 23(1) and 23(2) of the Act and seeking direction in the nature of certiorari/mandamus for decriminalising anomalies in paperwork/record keeping/clerical errors in regard of the provisions of the Act for being violative of 2 Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-30-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3873 OF2010THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN .. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS NEMI CHAND MAHELA AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENT(S) W I T H (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.4562 OF2012 CIVIL APPEAL No.4491 OF2019JUDGMENT Sanjiv Khanna, J.Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4562 of 2012.2. Predicament of candidates consequent to conflicting opinions in different decisions of the High Court on true and correct interpretation of principle of prospective overruling as directed in Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.1 is the cause of this agonising and festering litigation since 1999. This scarecrow of a litigation, to use the words of Charles Dickens, in 1 (2002) 6 SCC562Civil Appeal No.3873 of 2010 & Anr. Page 1 of 15 course of time, [has]. become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. 3. Award of bonus marks to candidates seeking appointment to the post of Primary Schoo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-24-2019
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.714 OF2019(@ SLP(Criminal) No.5415 of 2017) DIPAKBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. This appeal by special leave granted by this Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissing the Special Criminal Application No.1230 of 2009 filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the 1 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.PC for short).2. The petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. was filed challenging the complaint and the Order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the request of the appellant to discharge him of the offences under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC for short).3. The contents of the FIR dated 10.04.1996 are as follows: The facts of my complaint are that today ie., on 10.04.199...
Tag this Judgment!