Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs.2915-2917 OF2014[Arising out of SLP©Nos.26106-08 of 2011]. NISHA DEVI ..APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF H.P. & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS ORDER VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.1. Leave granted.2. Delay condoned.3. By means of these Appeals the Appellant/ Petitioner assails the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P.No.4169 of 2009, whereby her appointment as an Anganwadi Worker, on 11.04.2007, was set aside. The Appeals present a picture of protracted litigation. It appears that Respondent No.5 had successfully challenged the Appellants appointment before the Deputy Commissioner. The Appellants consequent Appeal had limited success before the Divisional Commissioner as he, by Order dated 13.05.2008, had remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, for fresh consideration. This time around the Appellant had succeeded upto the level of the Divisional Commissioner resulting in filing of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9154-9156 OF2003Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II Appellant Versus M/s. Super Synotex (India) Ltd. and others Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4621 OF2008CIVIL APPEAL No.2912 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16248 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2008-2009 OF2010CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 335-336 OF2005CIVIL APPEAL No.4003 OF2009CIVIL APPEAL No.4076 OF2007CIVIL APPEAL No.5987 OF2010CIVIL APPEAL No.6033 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 778-779 OF2009CIVIL APPEAL No.8095-8103 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.8105 OF2013JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No.16248 of 2009.2. This batch of appeals preferred under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, the Act) being inter-connected and inter-linked was heard together and is disposed of by a common judgment. It is necessary to clarify that the Revenue has preferred the appeals against the decisions rendered by the Customs, Excise & G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.116 OF2014IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9454/2013 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal ..Petitioner Versus Sumit Bose & Another .Respondents JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J.1. This contempt petition is filed complaining that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 22nd November, 2013 and, therefore, prayed that the respondents be punished for contempt and also direct the respondents to implement the judgment of this Court dated 22nd November, 2013 in Civil Appeal No.9454 of 2013.2. The brief factual background of the above Civil Appeal No.9454 of 2013 is as follows:- The applicant herein is an Officer of the Indian Revenue Service who was kept under suspension on certain allegations of misconduct on 28.12.1999. On the basis of the said allegations, criminal cases are also pending against the applicant. In view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the applicant's suspension cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2909/2014 (arising out of SLP(Civil) No.22047/2011) Jharkhand State Elect.Board & Ors. Appellants Vs. M/s. Laxmi Business & Cement Co.P. Ltd. & Anr. . Respondents WITH CA. No.2910/2014 @ SLP(Civil) No.22049/2011, C.A.No.2911/2014 @SLP(Civil) No.6350/2014 @ CC203072012 and CA. No.2913/2014 @ SLP(Civil) No.6351/2014 @ CC203602012 JUDGMENT A.K.SIKRI,J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The appellant in both the cases is Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB), which is aggrieved by the common judgment dated 5th July 2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in two appeals. These appeals were preferred by the appellant JSEB against the orders dated 17th February 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of that court in the two Writ Petitions which were filed by M/s. Laxmi Business & Cement Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Laxmi Ispat Udyog (arrayed as respondent No.1 in each appeal and herein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.78 OF2005State of Rajasthan Appellant Vs. Parmanand & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. The respondents were tried by the Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Chhabra, District Baran for offences under Section 8 read with Section 18 and under Section 8 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act).2. The case of the prosecution was that on 13/10/1997 during Kota Camp at Iklera, P.N. Meena, Sub-Inspector, Office of the Narcotics Commissioner, Kota received information at 1900 hours in the evening that the respondents were to handover about 10 Kg opium on 14/10/1997 in the morning between 4.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. at Nangdi-Tiraha, Iklera, Chhipabaraud Road to a smuggler. This information was entered by SI Meena in the diary and he forwarded it to the Investigating Officer J.S. Negi, Superintendent. J.S. Negi sent this informat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2918 OF2014[Arising out of SLP(C) No.15868 of 2010]. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI, THROUGH COMMISSIONER ..APPELLANT vs ANIL SHANTARAM KHOJE & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2919 OF2014[Arising out of SLP(C) No.12985 of 2011]. SHRI RAM B. DHUS ..APPELLANT vs SHRI ANIL SHANTARAM KHOJE & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.1. Leave granted in both these petitions.2. Although interim orders have not been granted in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.15868 of 2010, in the accompanying matter it had been ordered on 01.07.2011 that any promotion that may be made would be subject to the result of the petition.3. The writ petitioners before the High Court of Bombay were working in the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai as Assistant Municipal Commissioners and had prayed that their promotion to the vacant posts of Deputy Municipal Commissioner may be effected i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.517 OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.6138 OF2006 CBI, ACB, MUMBAI . ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS NARENDRA LAL JAIN & ORS. ... RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) ACB, Mumbai seeks to challenge an order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Bombay quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents Narendra Lal Jain, Jayantilal L. Shah and Ramanlal Lalchand Jain. The aforesaid respondents had moved the High Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) challenging the orders passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to discharge them and also questioning the continuance of the criminal proceedings registered against them. Of the three accused, Jayantilal L. Shah, the court is informed, has died during the pendency of the present appeal truncating the scope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 506-508 OF2014[Arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos.2421-2423 of 2013]. Daljit Singh Gujral & Ors. .. Appellants Versus Jagjit Singh Arora & Ors. .. Respondents JUDGMENT K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are of the considered view, after hearing the senior counsel appearing for the Appellant and the party-in-person, that the judgment is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, which goes to the very root of the matter in a case relating to medical negligence.3. The Appellants herein approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing complaint Case No.7506/09/11 dated 9.6.2008 and the summoning order 26.7.2011 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chandigarh.4. The Appellants herein are in the management of a hospital named, INSCOL Multispecialty Hospital, Chandigarh....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.511 OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.9028 OF2011 Sikander Mahto . ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS Tunna @ Tunnu Mian @ Tunna Mian @ ... RESPONDENT(S) @ Mobin Ansari & Anr. JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The first respondent Tunna @ Tunnu Mian @ Tunna Mian @ Mobin Ansari was committed to the Court of Sessions to face trial for offences under Sections 302/201 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The first respondent filed an application claiming to be a juvenile and in support thereof he had enclosed a certificate issued by the Government Primary Urdu School, Shekhawa, Basantpur, Block Mainatand wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 15.01.1991. The date of occurrence of the offences alleged in the present case is 16.11.2006.3. The learned Trial Court, for reasons not very clearly stated, recorded the finding that the certificate produced by the first respondent wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.509 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.371 of 2014]. Bharti ...Appellant Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Respondents ORDER1 Leave granted.2. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Faridabad in Sessions Case No.12 of 2001 for an offence punishable under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Punjab and Haryana High Court which came to be dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!