Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC173IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024[Arising out of SLP (C) No.17973 of 2015]. DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PNDT ACT AND CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER ..APPELLANT VERSUS JASHMINA DILIP DEVDA & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT J.K. Maheshwari J.1. Leave Granted 2. In the present appeal, the issue concerns the interpretation of power of Section 20(1) & (2) and Section 20(3) of the Pre conception and PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as the PC&PNDT Act) for cancellation, suspension or suspension in public interest respectively by the appropriate authority specified in Section 17 of the PC&PNDT Act. 13. The brief facts are that the respondent no.1 is running a hospital at Ahmedabad by the name of Dev Hospital which is a type of polyclinic having doctors from multiple branches like gynecology, general physician and general surgeon treating patien...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC129IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 2874 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 2998 of 2024 Kuldeep Kumar Appellant Versus U.T. Chandigarh and Others Respondents JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI1 Leave granted.2. The present appeal arises from an interim order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana1 dated 31 January 2024. The order impugned originates in a writ petition alleging electoral malpractices by the presiding officer who conducted the election to the post of Mayor at the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation. The High Court issued notice and listed the petition after three weeks, but it declined to stay the result of the election or 1 High Court Page 1 of 19 grant any other interim relief. The appellant approached this Court assailing the Order and raised serious allegations about the sanctity of the election. With the course the proceedings have taken, this judgment will result in a fina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC110IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.OF2024(@Petition for Special Leave Appeal (Crl.) No.256 OF2022 PALANI APPELANT(S) VERSUS THE TAMIL NADU STATE RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 6th September 2021 in CRLRC No.413 of 2019, by which interference in the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur1 dated 16th April, 2019 has been refused. The lower Appellate Court had modified the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate2 dated 23rd November 2018 in as much as it set aside the appellants conviction under Section 18 (c) read with Section 27 (b)(ii) of 1 The lower Appellate Court 2 The Trial Court 1|SLP(Crl)No.256 of 2022 the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 19403 while confirming the conviction and sentence in regard to Section 18(A) read with Section 28, of the said Act.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R Reserved on :31. 01.2024 Pronounced on :08. 02.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE08H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.55797 OF2017(GM-SLUM) BETWEEN: CENTRAL RELIEF COMMITTEE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING BEGGARS REHABILITATION CENTRE MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560 091. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CENTRAL RELIEF COMMITTEE BENGALURU 560 091. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.KANTHARAJA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W., SRI. RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE) AND:1. . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009. 2 . THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD SHESHADRIPURAM2BENGALURU 560 020. 3 . LATE DEVARAJURS COLONY SLUM DWELLERS BY GANESH S KOLAGERI SLUM JANARAKRIYAVEDIKE , KSDB COMPLEX, KANTEERAVA STUDIO MAIN ROAD BENGALURU56009 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M.P.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.CLIFTON DROZARIO, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - CRL.P.NO.7533/2023 WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024, CRL.P.NO.12650/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE6H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT CRL.P.NO.7533/2023 C/W WP NO.29380/2023(GM-RES), WP NO.430/2024 (GM-RES), CRL.P.NO.12650/2023 IN CRL.P.NO.7533/2023: BETWEEN: SRI.SIDDARAMAIAH, S/O SIDDARAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT76YEARS, R/AT SIDDARAMANA HUNDI, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, KARNATAKA 570 010. PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHATHABISH SHIVANNA.,ADVOCATE) AND:1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560 001.2. KUMARI JAHIDA WPSI, D/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT30YEARS, POLICE OFFICER, O/A HIGH GROUNDS PS, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA 560 001. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADEESH., ADDL SPP) - 2 - CRL.P.NO.7533/2023 WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024, CRL.P.NO.12650/2023 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF THE CRIMINAL P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - CRL.P.NO.7533/2023 WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024, CRL.P.NO.12650/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE6H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT CRL.P.NO.7533/2023 C/W WP NO.29380/2023(GM-RES), WP NO.430/2024 (GM-RES), CRL.P.NO.12650/2023 IN CRL.P.NO.7533/2023: BETWEEN: SRI.SIDDARAMAIAH, S/O SIDDARAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT76YEARS, R/AT SIDDARAMANA HUNDI, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, KARNATAKA 570 010. PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHATHABISH SHIVANNA.,ADVOCATE) AND:1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560 001.2. KUMARI JAHIDA WPSI, D/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT30YEARS, POLICE OFFICER, O/A HIGH GROUNDS PS, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA 560 001. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADEESH., ADDL SPP) - 2 - CRL.P.NO.7533/2023 WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024, CRL.P.NO.12650/2023 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF THE CRIMINAL P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - CRL.P.NO.7533/2023 WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024, CRL.P.NO.12650/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE6H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT CRL.P.NO.7533/2023 C/W WP NO.29380/2023(GM-RES), WP NO.430/2024 (GM-RES), CRL.P.NO.12650/2023 IN CRL.P.NO.7533/2023: BETWEEN: SRI.SIDDARAMAIAH, S/O SIDDARAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT76YEARS, R/AT SIDDARAMANA HUNDI, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, KARNATAKA 570 010. PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHATHABISH SHIVANNA.,ADVOCATE) AND:1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560 001.2. KUMARI JAHIDA WPSI, D/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT30YEARS, POLICE OFFICER, O/A HIGH GROUNDS PS, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA 560 001. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADEESH., ADDL SPP) - 2 - CRL.P.NO.7533/2023 WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024, CRL.P.NO.12650/2023 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF THE CRIMINAL P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - CRL.P.NO.7533/2023 WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024, CRL.P.NO.12650/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE6H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT CRL.P.NO.7533/2023 C/W WP NO.29380/2023(GM-RES), WP NO.430/2024 (GM-RES), CRL.P.NO.12650/2023 IN CRL.P.NO.7533/2023: BETWEEN: SRI.SIDDARAMAIAH, S/O SIDDARAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT76YEARS, R/AT SIDDARAMANA HUNDI, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, KARNATAKA 570 010. PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHATHABISH SHIVANNA.,ADVOCATE) AND:1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560 001.2. KUMARI JAHIDA WPSI, D/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT30YEARS, POLICE OFFICER, O/A HIGH GROUNDS PS, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA 560 001. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADEESH., ADDL SPP) - 2 - CRL.P.NO.7533/2023 WP NO.29380/2023, WP NO.430/2024, CRL.P.NO.12650/2023 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF THE CRIMINAL P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2024INSC167CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.666/2012 DATTATRAYA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S) ORDER This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.06/2009 whereby the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) was upheld and the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 and 10 years of R.I. under Section 316 of IPC, and was directed to pay fine amount of Rs.5000 and Rs.2000/-, respectively.2. The facts of this case are that the appellant (32 years of age in the year 2007), was married to one, Meenabai Dattatraya Gawali, (who was 30 years of age on the date of the incident). The wife Meenabai (deceased) was having a pregnancy of nine months at that time. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant came home at ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC36IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9695 OF2013ASMA LATEEF & ANR. APPELLANTS VS. SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.The Challenge 1. Respondents 1 to 3 had filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC, hereafter) in an execution application filed before the Executing Court by the appellants. It was urged, based on the case pleaded therein, that the decree put to execution was inexecutable. The Executing Court, on 19th March, 2008, allowed the objections of the respondents 1 to 3, resulting in dismissal of the execution application. 12. A revision was carried by the appellants from the order dated 19th March, 2008 before the Revisional Court which, vide its order dated 21st February, 2009, dismissed the objection filed by the respondents 1 to 3 and directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution of the decree whilst treating such objection as non-maintainable.3...
Tag this Judgment!