Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.Delay condoned.1. Leave granted.2. We are in these cases called upon to decide whether a minimum continuous service in an academic year is a pre-requisite for raising a claim for re-appointment under Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for short ‘ the KER’) in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 7A of the same chapter of the KER.3. In the State of Kerala, the power for appointment of teachers in aided schools is conferred on Managers of such schools under Section 11 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’) while the salary and other benefits are to be borne by the State Government under Section 9 of the Act. Qualified teachers who are so appointed when relieved as per Rule 49 or 52 or on account of termination of vacancies shall have preference for appointment to future vacancies as per Rule 51A of Chapter XIV A of the KER. Therefore, when vacancy arises, the Manager is bound to comply with the procedure u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1772 OF 200.Som Raj @ Soma Appellant Versus State of H.P. Respondent JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. Consequent upon an intimation to the police, by Dr. B.M. Gupta (PW5), Senior Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Indora (hereinafter referred to as the CHC, Indora); the statement of Nek Ram, (PW1) was recorded at the CHC, Indora, on 29.7.2000; leading to the registration of First Information Report bearing no.123 of 2000 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station, Indora. The aforesaid statement was recorded by ASI Shiv Kanya (PW12). In his statement, Nek Ram (PW1) asserted that there was a bhandara (feast for devotees, during a Hindu ceremonial congregation) following a yagya (Hindu ritual ceremony) at the residence of Kishan Singh (PW2) at village Khanda Saniyal on 29.7.2000. Nek Ram (PW1) disclosed, that he along with his brother Sardari Lal (since decease...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1642 OF 201.[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.9098 of 2009]. State of Kerala and Others .. Appellants Versus Kandath Distilleries .. Respondent JUDGMENT K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the question whether the High Court can issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the State to part with its exclusive privilege, in the matter of granting licence for establishing distilleries under the Foreign Liquor (Compounding, Blending and Bottling) Rules, 1975 (for short197. Rules) read with Section 14 of the Abkari Act (for short the Act).3. M/s Kandath Distilleries, respondent herein, claimed to have submitted an application dated 12.1.1987 before the Commissioner of Excise for a licence to establish a compounding, blending and bottling unit in the Palakkad District. Few others had also filed similar applications for licence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.334 OF 201.2 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No 3334 of 2012) Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar .... Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) WITH 3 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.335 OF 201.4 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.4026 of 2012) AND 5 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.336 OF 201.6 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No 4027 of 2012) 7 JUDGMENT P.Sathasivam,J.1) Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 2) Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar has preferred appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3334 of 2012 before this Court against the final judgment and order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.1281 of 2012 whereby the High Court dismissed his application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) seeking regular bail in C.R. No.252 of 2009 registered with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punish...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the question whether the High Court can issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the State to part with its exclusive privilege, in the matter of granting licence for establishing distilleries under the Foreign Liquor (Compounding, Blending and Bottling) Rules, 1975 (for short “1975 Rules”) read with Section 14 of the Abkari Act (for short “the Act”).3. M/s Kandath Distilleries, respondent herein, claimed to have submitted an application dated 12.1.1987 before the Commissioner of Excise for a licence to establish a compounding, blending and bottling unit in the Palakkad District. Few others had also filed similar applications for licence for setting up distillery units in the State of Kerala. All of them were directed to first obtain the approval of the Government of India for the setting up of new blending and bottling units and, thereafter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 CIVIL APPEAL No.1787 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.35268 of 2011) M/s Bagai Construction Thr. Its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Bagai .... Appellant(s) Versus M/s Gupta Building Material Store .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M.(M) No.707 of 2010 (Civil Revision No.707 of 2010) whereby the learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 25.02.2010 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi. 3) Brief facts: (a) The appellant is a proprietorship concern dealing in interior decoration and construction work and Mr. Lalit Bagai is the sole proprietor of the said concern. The respondent is a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firms vide Registration No.1237/93 dated 07.06.1993 and is engaged in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1794 OF 201.(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4782 of 2007) K. SRINIVAS RAO APPELLANT Versus D.A. DEEPA RESPONDENT JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the appellant- husband, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8/11/2006 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.797/03, setting aside the decree of divorce granted in his favour.3. The appellant-husband is working as Assistant Registrar in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. Unfortunately, on the very next day disputes arose between the elders on both sides which resulted in their abusing each other and hurling chappals at each other. As a consequence, on 27/4/1999, the newly married couple got separa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the appellant-husband, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8/11/2006 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.797/03, setting aside the decree of divorce granted in his favour.3. The appellant-husband is working as Assistant Registrar in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. Unfortunately, on the very next day disputes arose between the elders on both sides which resulted in their abusing each other and hurling chappals at each other. As a consequence, on 27/4/1999, the newly married couple got separated without consummation of the marriage and started living separately. On 4/10/1999, the respondent-wife lodged a criminal complaint against the appellant-husband before the Women Protection Cell alleging inter alia that the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2) Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar has preferred appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3334 of 2012 before this Court against the final judgment and order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1281 of 2012 whereby the High Court dismissed his application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) seeking regular bail in C.R. No. 252 of 2009 registered with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 328, 272, 273, 201, 109, 114, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and Sections 65(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), 66(1)(b), 67-1A, 72, 75, 81 and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.3) The State of Gujarat, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.09.2011, passed by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 12384 and 12385 of 2011 whereby the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) Leave granted.2) This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M.(M) No. 707 of 2010 (Civil Revision No. 707 of 2010) whereby the learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 25.02.2010 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi.3) Brief facts:(a) The appellant is a proprietorship concern dealing in interior decoration and construction work and Mr. Lalit Bagai is the sole proprietor of the said concern. The respondent is a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firms vide Registration No. 1237/93 dated 07.06.1993 and is engaged in the business of sale and supply of building materials.(b) Admittedly, the appellant and respondent have often transacted with each other. According to the respondent, the appellant made various purchases on credit from them for which payments were made in parts and the same were credited to hi...
Tag this Judgment!