Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC554IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 4056-4064 of 1999 Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. Appellants Versus M/S Steel Authority of India & Anr Etc. Respondents With Civil Appeal No.7937 of 2019 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.512 of 2018 With Civil Appeal No.7938 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.7936 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.6221 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.5250 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.729 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1029 of 2019 With Special Leave Petition (C) No.16028 of 2021 With Civil Appeal No.4286 of 2023 1 With Civil Appeal No.5682 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No.1295 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.874 of 2013 With Civil Appeal Nos. 8269-8271 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8268 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8267 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.6135 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8272 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.9458 of 2013 With Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18600 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD PHILLIPS Introduction "A feature of the trial is that in the public interest all those directly taking part are given civil immunity for their participationThus the court, judge and jury, and the witnesses including expert witnesses are granted civil immunity. This is not just privilege for the purposes of the law of defamation but is a true immunity" - Arthur JS Hall and Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615, 740, per Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. In Stanton v Callaghan 2000] QB 75 the Court of Appeal held that the immunity of an expert witness extended to protect him from liability for negligence in preparing a joint statement for use in legal proceedings pursuant to RSC, Ord 38, r 38. The claim in this case relates precisely to such negligence and was, for that reason, struck out by Blake J on 22 January 2010. He certified, however, that the case involved a point of law of general public importance and granted a "leapfrog certificate" under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.2732 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C)No.11295 of 2011) etc. Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. LRs. & Anr. vs. State of Kerala and ors. 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/CIVIL ORIGINAL/INHERENT JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2732 OF2020[Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11295 of 2011]. SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRs. & ANR. Appellants STATE OF KERALA & ORS. VERSUS WITH Respondents CIVIL APPEAL No.2733 OF2020[Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12361 of 2011]. AND WRIT PETITION(C) No.518 OF2011AND CONMT. PET.(C) No.493 OF2019IN SLP(C) No.12361 OF2011Civil Appeal No.2732 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C)No.11295 of 2011) etc. Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. LRs. & Anr. vs. State of Kerala and ors. 2 JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11295 of 2011 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12361 of 2011.2. Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma who as Ruler of Covenanting State of Travancore had ente...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC161; (1971)IIMLJ75(SC); (1970)3SCC894; [1971]2SCR790
Hegde, J.1. In this batch of appeals, the validity of the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Madras Act 26 of 1963); the Madras Lease-Holds. (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Madras Act 27 of 1963) and the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Madras Act 30 of 1963) is challenged on the ground that the material provisions in those Acts are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. The provisions in these Acts reducing the tenants' liability to pay the arrears of rent are also challenged on the ground that the legislature had no competence to enact 'those provisions. A few other minor contentions are also raised in these appeals to which reference will be made in the course of the judgment. All these contentions had been unsuccessfully urged before the High Court. Dealing with the allegation of infringement of Articles 14, 19 and 31, the High Court in addition to holding that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3297; JT1997(6)SC449; 1997(4)SCALE746; (1997)8SCC191; [1997]Supp2SCR305
K. RAMASWAMY, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed to resolve mutually inconsistent law adumbrated by two Division Benches of Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appeals arising from SLP (C) No.17080-81/95 are filed against the judgement passed on April 28, 1995 in Writ Petition Nos.9513/93 and 7725/94 in which the Division Bench has held that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation (1 of 1959), as amended by Regulation II of 1970 (for short, the 'Regulation') and the Mining Act (67 of 1957) do not prohibit grant of mining leases of Government land in the scheduled area to the non-tribals. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short, the 'FC Act') does not apply to the renewals. The Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 also does not apply to the renewal of the leases. It, accordingly, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant challenging the power of the Government to transfer the Government land si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC79; (1986)88BOMLR24; 1985(2)SCALE819; (1986)1SCC366; [1985]Supp3SCR169
A.N. Sen, J.1. This is an unfortunate litigation between near relations and this litigation between the parties is now going on for over four decades.2. These two appeals have been filed with the certificate granted by the High Court against the judgment of the High Court by the plaintiff in the suit instituted by him for partition of joint family properties, for accounts and other reliefs mentioned in the plaint.3. By a common judgment delivered by the High Court in two separate appeals filed by the defendants in the suit against the judgment of the Trial Court., the High Court has substantially reversed the judgment of Trial Court.4. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the judgment of the Trial Court and also in the judgment of the High Court. We shall briefly indicate the facts material for the purpose of disposal of these two appeals. As the High Court disposed of both the appeals by one common judgment and the two appeals which have been preferred against the same jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC477; [1992]Supp2SCR454; 1992DGLS(soft)768:1992Supp(3)SCC217
ORDER1. Judgment of The Chief Justice, M.N. Venkatachallah, A.M. Ahmadi and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ. Delivered by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.Forty and three years ago was founded this republic with the fourfold objective of securing to its citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. Statesmen of the highest order the like of which this country has not seen since - belonging to the fields of law, politics and public life came together to fashion the instrument of change - the Constitution of India. They did not rest content with evolving the framework of the State; they also pointed out the goal-and the methodology for reaching that goal. In the preamble, they spelt out the goal and in parts III and IV, they elaborated the methodology to be followed for reaching that goal.2. The Constituent Assembly, though elected on the basis of a limited franchise, was yet representative of all sections of society. Above all, it was composed of men of vision, conscious of the his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD MANCE (with whom Lord Hope, Lord Hughes and Lord Kerr agree) Summary 1. Two appeals are before the Court by prisoners who were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In the case of the appellant Peter Chester, the tariff period fixed by the sentencing judge expired on 29 October 1997, but he has not yet satisfied the Parole Board that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that he should be confined. In the case of the appellant George McGeoch, the sentencing judge fixed a punishment part of 13 years which expired on 7 October 2011, but he has committed various intervening offences including violently escaping from lawful custody in 2008 for which he received a seven and a half year consecutive sentence. The result is that the earliest date on which McGeoch could be considered for parole is July 2015. 2. Both the appellants claim that their rights have been and are being infringed by reason of their disenfranchisement from voting. Chester's cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(6)SC273; 1993LabIC129; 1992Supp(3)SCC212; [1992]6SCR321
ORDER1. 'Equality of status and of opportunity...' the rubric chiselled in the luminous preamble of our vibrating and pulsating Constitution radiates one of the avowed objectives in our Sovereign, Socialist and Secular Democratic Republic. In every free country which has adopted a system of governance through democratic principles, the people have their fundamental inalienable rights and enjoy the recognition of inherent dignity and of equality analogous to the rights proclaimed in the 'Bill of Rights' in U.S.A., the 'Rights of Man' in the French Constitution of 1971 and 'Declaration of Human Rights' etc. Our Constitution is unquestionably unique in its character and assimilation having its notable aspirations contained in 'Fundamental Rights' (in part III) through which the illumination of Constitutional rights comes to us not through an artless window glass but refracted with the enhanced intensity and beauty by prismatic interpretation of the Constitutional provisions dealing with e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water Dist. - 410 U.S. 719 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973) Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District No. 71-1456 Argued January 8, 1973 Decided March 20, 1973 410 U.S. 719 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Appellee district exists for the purpose of acquiring, storing, and distributing water for farming in the Tulare Lake Basin. Only landowners are qualified to elect the district's board of directors, votes being apportioned according to the assessed valuation of the lands. A three-judge District Court, against challenge by appellants, held that the limitation of the franchise to landowners comported with equal protection requirements. Held: 1. Restricting the voters to landowners who may or may not be residents does not violate the principle enunciated in such cases as Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 , and Kramer ...
Tag this Judgment!