Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7362 OF2013STATE OF ORISSA APPELLANT(S) Versus DASARATHI MEHER RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.10066 OF2018(@SLP (C) No.13172 OF2015 CIVIL APPEAL No.10061 OF2018(@SLP (C) No.13169 OF2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.7363 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.10065 OF2018(@SLP (C) No.13171 OF2015 JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.Leave granted in SLP (C) No.13172 of 2015, SLP (C) No.13169 of 2015 and SLP (C) No.13171 of 2015. 2 2. Whether the tribe mentioned as Kulis in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 in Schedule II in Part XII at Item No.42 includes persons belonging to the Kuli community, is the issue which needs to be decided in the present group of cases.3. Article 342 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: 342. Scheduled Tribes. (1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10002/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) No(s).19092/2011) AMBALA BUS SYNDICATE PVT. LTD. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) KURIAN, J.JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.04.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeal No.1098 of 2010, whereby the Division Bench overturned the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and held that the appellant cannot operate its stage carriages beyond the territory of Punjab in view of the 1998 Scheme, as amended in 2001. The relevant consideration in the impugned order reads:- The 1998 Scheme and the modified Scheme of 2001 does not permit non-air conditioned buses of the private operators (persons/agencies) to operate in the U.T., Chandigarh. Section 66 of the 1988 Act prohi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) AND ANOTHER .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.151 OF2013TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.152 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.833 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1797 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.932 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1796 OF2013CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.144 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012IN TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.313 OF2014TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.312 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.2524 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.37 OF2015Writ Petition (Civil) No.494 of 2012 & c onnected matters Page 1 of 567 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.220 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.674 OF2015WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.921 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.470 OF2015WRIT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9912 OF2010State of Kerala & Anr. .Appellant(s) VERSUS Joseph & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 03.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in M.F.A. No.137 of 1989 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein. 12) In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out few facts hereinbelow.3) The appellant is the State of Kerala. It was the appellant before the High Court whereas the respondents herein were the respondents in the appeal out of which this civil appeal arises.4) The respondents herein are the owners of 14 acres of land situated in Thenkara Village of Mannarghat Taluk in Kerala. This 14 acres land was part of 47.35 acres of total land, which was purchased jointly by the family members of the respondents in the name of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION [C]. NO.231 OF2018MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION [C]. NO.178 OF2018JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The question involved in the writ petition/s is, whether the State of Kerala is competent to promulgate the Kerala Professional Colleges (Regularisation of Admission in Medical Colleges) Ordinance, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) notified on 20.10.2017, which is intended to nullify judgments and orders of this Court and encroaches upon the power of the judiciary.2. The State of Kerala has promulgated the impugned Ordinance for regularising the admission of 180 students who were illegally admitted in the Kannur Medical College and Karuna Medical College 2 run by Prestige Educational Trust and Safe Development Alms Trust respectively. The students were admitted to the said medical colleges in the academic year 201617. After enqui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013REPORTABLE BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J1 Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose 1 (2010) 12 SCC7941 for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!