Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION© No.4495 OF2013STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. ...PETITIONERS Versus KANHAYA LAL ..RESPONDENT JUDGMENT VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.1 By means of this Special Leave Petition the endeavour of the petitioner, State of Uttarakhand, is to dislodge and reverse the findings of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No.1478 of 2003, which Order has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No.146 of 2008. After going into the factual matrix of the case, the learned Single Judge had directed by Order dated 10.3.2008 that the case of the Respondent before us, (namely, Kanhaya Lal, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1478 of 2003) be considered within three months for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade, if there is no other impediment in his selection (emphasis added). Dissatisfied with this direction, the Special ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3880 OF2003RAJASTHAN R.S.S. & GINNING MILLS FED. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR. ....RESPONDENT1JUDGMENT1ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered on 19th September, 2002 in Income Tax Appeal No.19 of 2001 by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, this appeal has been filed by the assessee, which is a co-operative society. When the appeal was called out for hearing, none had appeared for the appellant co-operative society. Upon perusal of the record, we found that the learned advocate who had appeared earlier had become a senior counsel. In the circumstances, we had requested his colleague to appear in the matter but he had shown his reluctance to appear for the appellant society, especially in view of the fact that though more than two letters had been addressed to the appellant society for sending vakalatnama or for making approp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4947-4951 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.36274-36278 of 2010) K. Madhava Reddy & Ors. Appellants Versus Govt. of A.P. & Ors. Respondents WITH Contempt Petitions (C) No.445-449 of 2013 JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 9th March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the High Court has set aside the order passed by the State Administrate Tribunal in OA No.6334 of 1997 to the extent the same holds the judgment of this Court in V. Jagannadha Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC401 to be prospective in its application. An order dated 3rd November, 2010 passed by the High Court dismissing a review petition filed by the appellants against the said order has also been assailed. The facts in the backdrop are as under:3. In V. Jagannadha Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4919 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.3353 of 2009) TARSEM LAL & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS RAM SARUP & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2nd May, 2008 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in R.S.A. No.126 of 1996. By the impugned judgment and decree High Court reversed the concurrent finding of the Courts below and held that Section 36 (wrongly mentioned as Rule 36 in the impugned judgment) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is applicable to tenancy land and not to the ownership land owned by a person, and therefore, not applicable to the appellants herein. The judgment and decree dated 21st November, 1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1) Dharamshala Camp at Una in Civil Appeal No.39/92, RBT No.206/9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4915-4918 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 25950-25953 of 2011) KARAM KAUR APPELLANT VERSUS JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 8th July, 2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Misc. Nos.11669-C to 11672-C of 2010 in R.S.A. No.1908 of 1995. By the impugned judgment, the High Court rejected the following Petitions: (i) Civil Misc. Application under Section 151 C.P.C. for setting aside order dated 14th May, 2010 dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution; (ii) Civil Misc. Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in bringing LRs on record and for setting aside order dismissing appeal in default; and (iii) Civil Misc. Application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. for bringing LRs. of deceased appellant on record. Howe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5479 of 2013 M/s. Sesa Sterlite Ltd. .Appellant(s) Vs. Orissa Electricity Regulatory Comm. & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.1. Instant is a statutory Appeal which is filed by the Appellant under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2013 passed by Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.2. By the aforesaid judgment, the Appellate Tribunal has affirmed the orders of the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission). The essence of these orders is that even when the Appellant is a Deemed Distribution Licensee for the purpose of Electricity Act, it is still liable to pay Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) to the Respondent No.8 viz. WESCO which is a Distribution Licensee for the area in question.3. To put it in nutshell, the case of the Appellant is th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4891 OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14965 of 2013) Surendra Mohan Arora Appellant :Versus: HDFC Bank Ltd. and Others ...Respondents JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated January 7, 2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.64 of 2013 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, questioning the vires of Regulation 15 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).3. The facts of the case briefly are as follows : (3.1) The appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum under the said Act. The foundation of the filing of such complaint was an allegation made against respondent No.1 HDFC Bank Ltd. for indulging in unfair trade practice on the ground of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6041 OF2013Securities and Exchange Board of India Appellant VERSUS M/s. Akshya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.1. This appeal under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the SEBI Act) is directed against the judgment and final order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (SAT) dated 19th June, 2013 rendered in Appeal No.3 of 2013, by which the appeal filed by M/s. Akshya Infrastructure Private Limited the respondent herein against the directions issued by SEBI on 30th November, 2012 has been allowed.2. The fundamental issue which arises in this appeal is whether an open offer voluntarily made through a Public Announcement for purchase of shares of the target company can be permitted to be withdrawn at a time when the voluntary open offer has become uneconomical to be performed.3. In this case, the respondent herein, M/s Aksh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.5073/2011 State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police ..Petitioner Versus Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna ..Respondent ORDER1 Vide order dated 30.08.2013, we had proposed to consider this matter on merit after service of notice to the accused-respondent as we felt acutely concerned as to why the Union of India should not take initiative and steps to evolve a procedure for fast track justice to be adopted by the Investigating Agencies and the Fast Tract Courts by proposing amendments into the Cr.P.C. for speedy justice to the victim.2. We had noted that the Fast Tract Courts no doubt are being constituted for expeditious disposal of cases involving the charge of rape at the trial stage, but we are perturbed and anguished to notice that although there are Fast Tract Courts for disposal of such cases, we do not yet have a fast track procedure for dealing with cases of rape and gang rape lod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NOT-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1958 OF2003Vikram Singh & Anr. Appellants Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ-petitioners with liberty to the writ- petitioners to raise the defence before the Collector which was available to them.2. The issue raised before the High Court on the question is whether in view of the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1973), the Collector has any jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings for making reference to the Board of Revenue in respect of an order passed on June 30, 1970 for determining the ceiling area of the land that could be held by the petitioners (appellants) under Chapter...
Tag this Judgment!