Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10972 OF2013(Arising out of SLP (C) No.15436 of 2009) Suresh Kumar Koushal and another ... Appellants versus NAZ Foundation and others ... Respondents with CIVIL APPEAL NO.10974 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) No.37703 of 2013 @ CC NO.13105 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.10986 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) No.37708 of 2013 @ CC NO.14042 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.10981 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) No.37705 of 2013 @ CC NO.19478 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.10983 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.20913 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.10984 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.20914 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.10975 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.22267 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.10973 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.24334 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.10985 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.25346 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.10976 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.34187 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.10980 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.36216 of 2009) CI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.677 OF2013Samta Aandolan Samiti & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT A.K.SIKRI,J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with the grievance that while making admissions in the MBBS course, the respondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) is not strictly adhering to the reservation policy and have questioned the manner in which seats are allotted to the candidates belonging to reserved category. As per them, the AIIMS have far exceeded the quota prescribed for the reserved category candidates which has resulted in more than 50 % reservations of the seats, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The stand of the AIIMS, on the other hand, is that there is no violation of the law laid down by this Court in this behalf and the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10957/2013 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.14572/2012 B.S.N.L. .Appellant Vs. Bhurumal .Respondent JUDGMENT A.K.SIKRI,J.1. Leave granted.2. For deciding this appeal, the seminal facts, which are required a mention are recapitulated below:3. The respondent herein raised an industrial dispute alleging his wrongful termination, by approaching the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Faridabad in the year 2000. He claimed that he was working as a Lineman on daily wages with the Sonipat Telephone Department, BSNL at Saidpur Exchange and was not paid his wages for the period from October 2001 till April 2002. He further stated that while working he got an electrical shock and because of this accident he was hospitalized. However, he was not allowed to resume his duty which amounted to wrongful termination. Conciliation Proceedings commenced after notice was sent to the appellant. Defence of the appellant was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT O F INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2083/2013 (arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.10056 of 2012) Kamlesh Kumar ..Appellant Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. .Respondents JUDGMENT A.K.SIKRI,J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant herein is facing trial in the complaint filed by respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act for short). According to the appellant, criminal complaint is not maintainable and no such proceedings could be launched against him. He, therefore, approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the form of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 28.10.2009 whereby the Court of Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 issued summons to the appellant. This petition, however, has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 1.11.2012. The solitary reason given by the High Court while dismissing t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2084 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.10045/2013) MANOHAR PRAJAPAT Appellant(s) :VERSUS: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s) ORDER Leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant is an accused in S.T. No.461 of 2010 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. He is facing charges under Sections 294 & 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant's case is that on the date of incident he was not in Indore. According to him, he was in Nimach District. He has pleaded alibi. In support of his plea the appellant wanted to examine nine witnesses from Nimach. He, therefore, moved an application for summoning those witnesses. It appears from the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the High Court that the High Court directed the Trial Court to issue notices to the concerned witnesses for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.(C) No.25237/2010 Abhay Singh ....PETITIONER versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENTS with SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No.23984/2010 Abhay Singh ....PETITIONER versus Union of India and another ....RESPONDENTS ORDER G.S. SINGHVI, J.One of the several questions of public and constitutional importance raised by Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel, who initially appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the special leave petitions filed against order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No.15440 of 1998 quashing the withdrawal of Z Grade Security provided to Respondent No.6-Pramod Tiwari, but later on assumed the role of an Amicus, is whether the Constitution contemplates categorization of citizens into two groups and whether the entitlement to use signs and symbols of authority, such as lights of different colours including red l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10932 OF2013(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19951 OF2013 CHATTERJEE PETROCHEM CO. & ANR APPELLANTS Vs. HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.& ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda J.On 21st March, 2012, the appellant Chatterjee Petrochem (Mauritius) Company (hereinafter referred to as CPMC) filed a request for arbitration in International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Paris in relation to an agreement of restructuring which was entered into between CPMC, Government of West Bengal, West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (in short WBIDC) and Haldia Petrochemical Limited (in short HPL) on 12th January, 2002. As per the Agreement, the Government of West Bengal was to cause WBIDC to transfer existing shareholding to CPMC to ensure that CPMC holds 51% of the total paid up capital of HPL. Clause 15 of the Agreement provides for reference of all disputes, in any way relating to the said Agreement or to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10933 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) No.14202 of 2012) Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. ... Appellant versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others ... Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL No.10934 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30858 of 2012) JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against order dated 12.4.2012 by which the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) and quashed the sanction accorded by the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, the Corporation) for change of user and construction of residential and commercial complex on land bearing CTS Nos. 381 and 381/1 to 22, Village Anik, Taluk Chembur, MSD, Mumbai and directed the Municipal Commissioner to reconsider the application made by Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. (hereinafter described as the appellant) ke...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).256-257 OF2009Veer Singh & Ors. .. Appellant(s) versus State of U.P. .. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT C. NAGAPPAN, J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.749 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal No.761 of 1996 dated 1.10.2007.2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.749 of 1996 are accused Nos. 1 to 4 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.761 of 1996 is the accused No.5, in the Sessions Case No.72 of 1985, on the file of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Muzafarnagar, and they were tried along with three other accused for the alleged offences under Sections 147,148, 307 read with Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 452 of Indian Penal Code. Sessions Court found accused Nos. 6 to 8 not guilty of the charges and acquitted them and at the same time convicted accused Nos.1 to 5 for the charge under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10930 OF2013(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34275 of 2009) DLF Limited .. Appellant Versus Manmohan Lowe and others ..Respondents WITH Contempt Petition (Civil) No.of 2013 (D.No.29500/12) IN CIVIL APPEAL No.10930 OF2013(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34275 of 2009) DLF Limited .. Petitioner Versus B. Jaishankar & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of a writ petition filed by the Apartment owners of Silver Oaks Apartments, DLF Qutub Enclave, Phase-1, Gurgaon, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the declaration dated 19.04.2001 filed by the Appellant, on the ground that the same is not in conformity with Section 3(f) of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 (for short the Apartment Act) since the appellant failed to include certain areas of the complex as common areas and facilities within the declaration, thereby effectively dep...
Tag this Judgment!