Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2012)1SCC333
Respondents 1 to 3 claimed that they belonged to `Dhobi' caste, a scheduled caste in Bhopal district of Madhya Pradesh, and secured appointment to posts reserved for Schedule Castes. The appellant, who was the President of the Schedule Caste Employees Association, made a complaint to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that respondents 1 to 3 did not belong to any scheduled caste and had produced false caste certificates. The Collector enquired into the matter and gave a report dated 20.1.2000 2holding that the caste certificates produced by respondents 1 to 3 were false. Consequently, the appointments of respondents 1 to 3 were cancelled on 20.4.2000. Respondents 1 to 3 challenged the report of the Collector and their consequential termination in WP No. 2666/2000. The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed that the caste certificates of respondents 1 to 3 be verified by the State Level Screening Committee in accordance with the decision of this court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2178; JT1993(1)SC474; 1992(2)SCALE703; (1993)1SCC645; [1993]1SCR594
ORDER1. We have had the benefit of going through the two judgments of our learned Brothers B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S. Mohan, JJ. We are in agreement with the judgment of Brother B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. except to the extent indicated below.2. The question which arose in the case of Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka: : [1992]3SCR658 , as also in the present cases before us, is whether a citizen has a Fundamental Right to education for a medical, engineering or other professional degree. The question whether the right to primary education, as mentioned in Article 45 of the Constitution of India, is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 did not arise in Mohini Jain's case and no finding or observation on that question was called for. It was contended before us that since a positive finding on that question was recorded in Mohini Join's case it becomes necessary to consider its correctness on merits. We do not think so.3. Learned arguments were addressed in support of and against the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.684 OF2021MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED ...APPELLANT (S) VERSUS ADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LIMITED & ORS. ...RESPONDENT (S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.6927 OF2021INDEX I. INTRODUCTION.. Paras 1 and 2 II. FACTS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.684 OF2021. Paras 3 to 29 III. FACTS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6927 OF2021. Paras 30 to 39 IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DISCOMS Paras 43 V. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE GENERATING Paras 44 and 45 COMPANIES .. V. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. Paras 46 to 83 VI. JUDGMENTS CITED.. Paras 84 to 93 VII. STATUTORY PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO Paras 94 to 104 REGULATORY MECHANISM. VIII. CONSIDERATIONS. Para 105 onwards 1 List of abbreviations:1. ACQ - Annual Contracted Quantity 2. APML - Adani Power Maharashtra Limited 3. APTEL - Appellate Tribunal for Electricity 4. C&AG - Comptroller and Auditor General of India 5. CCEA - Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs 6. CERC - Central...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.2.2005 of the Guwahati High Court allowing Arbitration Appeal No.1/2004 filed by the respondents and setting aside the judgment dated 12.12.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati (by which the District court had dismissed the petition filed by respondents filed under section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and affirmed the Award passed by the Arbitrator dated 5.9.2001, with clerical corrections made on 22.9.2001). 2. On 26.3.1993 the respondents awarded the work of "extension of terminal building" at Guwahati airport to the appellant. As per the contract, the date of commencement of work was 10.4.1993 and the period of completion of the work was 21 months, to be completed in different stages. As the appellant (also referred to as the `contractor') did not complete the first phase of the work within the stipulated time, the respondents terminated the contract by order dated 29.8.1994. The termination ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL No./2022 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.23207 OF2019 M/s Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit - II Respondent ORDER S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. Leave granted. The appellant (hereinafter, Apex) is aggrieved by a judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madras1, wherein the Division Bench upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 (hereinafter, ITAT), which in turn upheld an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)3 (hereinafter, CIT(A)). The CIT(A) had partly allowed an appeal from an order of the respondent Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax4, which partially allowed amounts claimed by Apex as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, IT Act).2. The facts in brief are as follows: On 01.08.2012, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter, CBDT) issued a circular5, which c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1682-1683 OF2022M.K. RAJAGOPALAN ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DR. PERIASAMY PALANI GOUNDER . RESPONDENT(S) & ANR. WITH C.A. No.1756/2022 C.A. No.1759/2022 C.A. No.1757/2022 C.A. No.1807/2022 C.A. No.1810/2022 C.A. No.1827/2022 JUDGMENT DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.Preliminary and brief outline .............................................................................. 2 Particulars of the proceedings and the parties .................................................. 7 The relevant factual and background aspects ................................................ 13 Initiation of CIRP ................................................................................................... 14 CoC Meetings and ancillary proceedings .............................................................. 16 Resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) .................... 26 Disapproval of the Appellate Tribunal (N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC613IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SMW (Crl) No 2 of 2024 IN RE: ALLEGED RAPE AND MURDER INCIDENT OF A TRAINEE DOCTOR IN R.G. KAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KOLKATA AND RELATED ISSUES Versus Page 1 of 16 ORDER1 On 9 August, 2024, a thirty-one year old postgraduate doctor at RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata who was on a thirty six hour duty shift was murdered and allegedly raped inside the seminar room of the hospital. As horrific details have emerged in the course of media reportage, the brutality of the sexual assault and the nature of the crime have shocked the conscience of the Nation. The name and graphic images of the deceased have been widely circulated on social media without regard to her privacy or dignity.2. Writ petitions were instituted before the Calcutta High Court seeking among other things, a court-monitored investigation of the crime and the conduct of the hospital authorities, including the role of the Princi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC104; JT1989(3)SC148; 1989(2)SCALE28; (1989)3SCC537
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. These appeals, by certificate, preferred against the common order dated 17-6-1987 of the High Court of Calcutta in Full' Bench Reference 1 of 1983 (reported in : (1987)1CALLT354(HC) ) raise a short and interesting question, of some general importance, whether the choice of the forum for the cognizance of suits envisaged in Section 80 of the Railways Act, 1890 (As substituted by Section 14 of the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act 39 of 1961)) is limited by Section 80 itself or whether provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, 1908 and Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as the cases may be, in regard to places of suing, are also applicable to the suits referred to in the said Section 80.The question, in other words, is whether the said Section 80 is a complete, self-contained, exhaustive Code in regard to the place of suing respecting suits constituting a special law for such suits excluding, by necessary implication, the operation of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC104a; (1990)1CALLT25(SC); [1989]3SCR440; 1989(2)LC382(SC)
ORDERM.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. These appeals, by certificate, preferred against the common order dated 17.6.1987 of the High Court of Calcutta in Full Bench Reference 1 of 1983 raise a short and interesting question, of some general importance, whether the choice of the forum for the cognizance of suits envisaged in Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (As substituted by Section 14 of the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act 39 of 1961) is limited by Section 80 itself or whether provisions of Section 20 of the CPC, 1908 and Section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as the cases may be, in regard to places of suing, are also applicable to the suits referred to in the said Section 80.The question, in other words, is whether the said Section 80 is a complete, self-contained, exhaustive Code in regard to the place of suing respecting suits constituting a special law for such suits excluding, by necessary implication, the operation of provisions of Section 20 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2941; 2000(71)ECC684; JT2000(10)SC166; 2000(6)SCALE304; (2000)7SCC348; [2000]Supp3SCR185; [2001]124STC285(SC)
R.P. Sethi, J.1. Leave granted.2. What is the ambit and scope of the words 'unable to pay the whole of the amount of tax assessed' used in proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 39 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, is the question of law requiring our interpretation in this appeal by special leave. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the inability mentioned in the proviso refers to the financial position of the assessee, whereas the respondents contend that the words 'unable' used in the Section is of wider amplitude being not restricted to only financial position of the assess.3. In order to determine the rival contention it is necessary to have a resume of the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal. The respondent, M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited a public limited company (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), having its factory at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various types of cars, namely, Maruti ...
Tag this Judgment!