Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-05-2021
..... examine the dispute regarding the boundaries of the central vista precincts at rajpath. h) the report of the heritage conservation committee would be then along with the records sent to the central government, which would then pass an order in accordance with law and in terms of section 11a of the development act ..... withdrawn to this court and be registered as transferred cases, to be heard along with the present special leave petition on 18.03.2020. letters patent appeal no.119 of 2020 before the high court stands disposed of in terms of this order. any steps taken by the authorities, in ..... a substantive challenge to the validity of a law on the ground that its substantive (as distinct from procedural) provisions violate the constitution. (emphasis supplied) 144. therefore, the trajectory of our jurisprudence in review of matters involving personal liberties has been one of strict approaches. it is, however, a ..... confidentiality it must demonstrate that the public harm arising from disclosure is greater than the public interest in transparency. in t.s.r. subramanian and ors. v. union of india and ors.309, a similar proposition could be traced in para 34 thus: 39. democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information. the right to information act, 2005 ( the rti act ) recognises ..... 372 u.s. 726 (1963) 205 air1963sc1295206 air1967sc1836207 338 u.s. 25 (1949) 208 (1970) 1 scc248209 air1978sc597210 (1980) 2 scc684211 (1996) 3 scc709212 (2014) 9 scc737213 (supra at100) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-19-2021
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(C) NO.26 OF2020MANISH KUMAR PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER RESPONDENT(S) WITH WRIT PETITION (C) No.53/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.28/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.47/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.27/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.73/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.328/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.210/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.191/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.164/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.163/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.166/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.173/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.182/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.176/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.177/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.257/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.341/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.267/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.333/2020 1 WRIT PETITION (C) No.337/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.388/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.402/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.390/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.393/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.783/2020 TRANSFERRED CASE(C) No.228/2020 WRIT PETITION (C) No.579/2020 WRIT PETITI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-28-2021
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.155 of 2021 Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital & Anr. .... Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Anr. . Respondent (s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.1. The Appellants requested the Medical Council of India for permission to admit 150 students in MBBS course for the academic year 2019-2020. The Board of Governors in supersession of Medical Council of India rejected the request on 21.05.2019. The Appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi questioning the correctness of the proceeding dated 21.05.2019. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by its judgment dated 09.12.2020. This Appeal is filed challenging the said judgment.2. The first Respondent granted letter of permission to the first Appellant-College on 30.06.2011 for intake of 150 students in the MBBS course for the academic year 2011- 1 | Pa ge 2012. As the inspections carried out by the assessors of the Medical Counci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-29-2021
-:1. :- R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE29H DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY WRIT APPEAL No.538/2020 (GM-RES) Connected with WRIT APPEAL No.545/2020 (GM-RES) IN W.A.No.538/2020 BETWEEN:1. SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO S/O. LATE U.M. KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT77YEARS, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, I G ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101.2. M/S. VIJAYADEVAN COFFEE ESTATE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT I G ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO.3. M/S. YELLIKUDIGE ESTATE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT YELLIKUDIGE VILLAGE ALDUR HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK 577 111 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS S.V., ADVOCATE) -:2. :- AND: UNION BANK OF INDIA (FORMERLY CORPORATION BANK) M.G. ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-29-2021
-:1. :- R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE29H DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY WRIT APPEAL No.538/2020 (GM-RES) Connected with WRIT APPEAL No.545/2020 (GM-RES) IN W.A.No.538/2020 BETWEEN:1. SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO S/O. LATE U.M. KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT77YEARS, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, I G ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101.2. M/S. VIJAYADEVAN COFFEE ESTATE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT I G ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO.3. M/S. YELLIKUDIGE ESTATE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT YELLIKUDIGE VILLAGE ALDUR HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK 577 111 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS S.V., ADVOCATE) -:2. :- AND: UNION BANK OF INDIA (FORMERLY CORPORATION BANK) M.G. ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-11-2021
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4028 OF2020CHINTELS INDIA LTD. Appellant Versus BHAYANA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. Respondent JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a certificate issued under Article 133 read with Article 134A of the Constitution of India by the High Court of Delhi in the impugned judgment dated 04.12.2020. The question raised in this appeal is whether a learned single Judges order refusing to condone the Appellants delay in filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act, 1996) is an appealable order under section 37(1)(c) of the said Act. After considering, in particular, two judgments of this Court, the High Court held: 18. We have considered the rival contentions. Though, as observed by us in the hearing on 5th November, 2020, in view of BGS SGS Soma JV supra having referred to the grounds 1 under Section 34 in entirety and not confined to Section 34(2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-12-2021
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.2219/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.1431/2019 THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (INDIA GROUP) APPLICANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGEMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. This judgement will dispose of an application by which directions are sought that till a new chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereafter referred to as the board or IPAB), is appointed, the incumbent (whose tenure had been extended by interim orders of this court, up to 31.12.2020) should continue to function as Chairperson.2. The applicant (the International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property [India Group].) had preferred a Writ Petition (WP(C) 1431/2019), which was disposed of by this court by a judgement along with a batch of other petitions and applications on 27th November 2020, in the judgement reported as Madras Bar Association v Union of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-17-2021
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.317 of 2021 Arising out of SLP (C) No.9019 of 2019 UNITECH Limited & Ors. .... Appellants Versus Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure .... Respondents Corporation (TSIIC) & Ors. With Civil Appeal No.318 of 2021 Arising out of SLP (C) No.10135 of 2019 And With Civil Appeal No.319 of 2021 Arising out of SLP (C) No.17529 of 2019 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J A. Background B. Proceedings before this Court C. Salient features of the transaction documents D. Submissions of the parties E. Analysis E.1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 E.2. Contractual right to compensatory payment E.3. Apportionment of the liabilities between the instrumentalities of the state of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana F. Summation 2 PART A A. Background 1 The appeals arise from a judgment dated 1 April 2019 of a Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana. Three appeals will form ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-18-2021
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 429-430 of 2021 Anmol Kumar Tiwari & Ors. .... Appellant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. . Respondent (s) WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 431-434 of 2021 Civil Appeal No.435 of 2021 Civil Appeal Nos.436-477 of 2021 Civil Appeal No.478 of 2021 JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.1. An advertisement was issued calling for applications for appointment to 384 posts of Police Sub-Inspectors, Attendants (Sergeant) and Company Commanders by the Home Department of the Government of Jharkhand on 01.03.2008. 1217 candidates were declared successful in the written examination and were called for interview. The 1 | Pa ge final result was published and 382 candidates were selected against 384 vacancies as candidates belonging to SC Quota for the two posts of Sergeant were not available. A High- Level Committee was constituted by the State Government to examine the irregularities in the selection process. A report wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-22-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.47002/2015 (L TER) BETWEEN M/S BATA INDIA LIMITED NO.474, 475/476, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU 560 058. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-MANUFACTURING SRI KUHARAN MUKHOPADHYAY. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRADEEP S. SAWKAR (PHYSICAL HEARING)) AND1 STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.2. PRESIDENT BATA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, No.813, NELE MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, DEVANNA COLONY, T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 057. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI K.S.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING)) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF REFERENCE DTD.31.3.2015 [ANNEX-J]. PASSED BY R-1. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BE...
Tag this Judgment!