Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1563 OF2007CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 22nd December, 2006 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Appeal No.2 of 2006 (with M.A. No.58 of 2006). By the impugned order, the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal disposed of the M.A.No.58 of 2006 with certain observations.2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: Appellant Nos.2 to 10 are private GSM cellular operators and the first appellant is their Association. They have been issued licences by the Central Government, Department of Telecommunication (hereinafter referred to as 'DoT') under Section 4 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to establish, maintain an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1322 OF2015[Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.10183 of 2012]. Charulata Behera .....Appellant Versus Pravati Parida & Ors. .....Respondents JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.Heard the parties. Leave granted. The appellant as well as respondent no.1 applied in response to an advertisement dated 02.02.2009 for engagement as Anganwadi Worker for Urumukhi-3 Anganwadi Center, Bhushandpur, Tangi, Odisha. She is aggrieved by the judgment under appeal dated 18.07.2011 whereby the Division Bench of Orissa High Court set aside the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 09.08.2010. The effect of the impugned order/judgment is to allow the writ petition preferred by respondent no.1 and as a result selection and appointment of the appellant stands set aside and instead respondent no.1 has been appointed as Anganwadi Worker for the concerned centre. The moot question to be answered in this appeal is whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1323 OF2015(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10161 of 2014) Mount Mary Enterprises . ... Appellant Versus M/s. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.Leave granted.1. The appellant, the original plaintiff has been aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.12099 of 2013 dated 10th March, 2014 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under: The appellant, who has been described as a plaintiff hereinafter, filed a suit against the present respondent, who has been hereinafter described as a defendant, for specific performance of a contract in relation to the suit property. The suit property was initially valued at Rs.13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lacs and fifty thousand only). The plaintiff, thereafter, realized that market value of the property in question was around Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1145 OF2006|STATE OF KARNATAKA ETC. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |M/S PRO LAB & ORS. ETC. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Constitutional validity of Entry 25 of Schedule VI to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is the subject matter of the present appeal. It is the third endeavour to resurrect this entry, when on the first two occasions, the steps taken by the State were declared as impermissible. Even this time, the High Court has dumped the amendment as unconstitutional. However, the reasons advanced by the High Court in all three rounds are different. While traversing through the historical facts leading to the issue at hand, we shall be referring to the same for clear understanding of the controversy involved.2) This entry was inserted in the said Act by an amendment which came into effect from 01.07.1989, thereby providing levy of tax for pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6373 OF2010JIBAN KRISHNA MONDAL & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No.6374 of 2010 C.A. No.6375 of 2010 C.A. No.55 of 2015 C.A. No.56 of 2015 C.A. No.57 of 2015 C.A. No.58 of 2015 C.A. No.59 of 2015 C.A. No.60 of 2015 C.A. No.61 of 2015 JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and orders passed by the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No.588 of 2002 etc. dated 31st January, 2008, in W.P. No.14779(W) of 2005 etc. dated 23rd July, 2008 and in M.A.T. No.4609 of 2006 dated 26th November, 2008. By the impugned judgment dated 31st January, 2008, Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 21st May, 1999 in C.O. No.21365(W) of 1995 and disposed of the writ petitions preferred by appellants-members of the Home Guards and their Association accordingly. By the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.192 of 2015 (S.L.P (Crl.) No.9835 of 2014) C. SUKUMARAN ....APPELLANT VS. STATE OF KERALA .....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.Leave granted. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.108 of 2001, whereby the High Court has partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order of conviction recorded by the Court of Ld. Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, vide its judgment and order dated 30.01.2001 in C.C No.63 of 1999 and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.901 OF2014KESHAVLAL KHEMCHAND AND SONS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS ... Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (C) No.902 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.903 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.904 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.905 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.907 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.925 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.926 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.937 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.938 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.939 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.940 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.945 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.946 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.947 OF2014WRIT PETITION (C) No.948 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL No.1230 OF2015(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2230 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL No.1231 OF2015(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.12008 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL No.1233 OF2015(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.12153 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL No.1234 OF2015(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.12233 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL No.1235 OF2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.474 OF2013Patel Jathabhai Punajbhai ... Appellant(s) Vs. North Gujarat University & Anr. ... Respondents WITH C.A. No.475/2013; C.A. No.476/2013; C.A. No.477/2013; C.A. No.478/2013; C.A. No.482/2013; C.A. No.483/2013; C.A. No.484/2013; C.A. No.485/2013; C.A. No.487/2013; C.A. No.514/2013; C.A. No.515/2013; C.A. No.517/2013; C.A. No.518/2013; C.A. No.519/2013; C.A. No.520/2013; C.A. No.521/2013; C.A. No.522/2013; C.A. No.523/2013; C.A. No.526/2013; C.A. No.527/2013; C.A. No.528/2013; C.A. No.529/2013; C.A. No.1339/2013; and S.L.P. [C]. Nos.16925-16936/2013. JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The appeals arise out of the third group of matters wherein a common judgment and order dated 7.8.2012 has been passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, determining the compensation for agricultural land at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq.m. and for non-agricultural land at the rate of Rs.78/- per sq.m. situated at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1232 OF2015[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16099 of 2012]. Shri Westarly Dkhar & Ors. .......Appellants Versus Shri Sehekaya Lyngdoh ........Respondent JUDGMENT R.F.Nariman, J.Special leave granted.2. The instant appeal by way of a Special Leave to Appeal has been filed against the judgment and final order dated April 27, 2012 passed by the High Court of Gauhati, Shillong Bench at Shillong in Civil Revision Petition No.18 (SH) of 2010 filed by the Respondent.3. The appeal arises out of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction passed by the Subordinate District Council Court in a suit instituted by the Respondent, which is registered as Title Suit No.16 of 2009. On 30th September, 2009, an ad-interim ex-parte injunction was granted by the Subordinate District Council Court, in the following terms: "On careful perusal of the same, I am satisfied that there is an urgency in the matter for restraining the opposit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.92/2015 JAGE RAM & ORS. ..Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA ..Respondent JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 19.8.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.181 SB of 2000, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants thereby confirming the conviction of the appellants with certain modifications.2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day i.e. 18.11.1994, at about 8.00 A.M. in the morning the complainant Jagdish (PW-5) along with his two sons namely Sukhbir and Mange Ram (PW-6) were busy in cutting pullas (reeds) from the dola of their field. At that time, Jage Ram (A-1) and his sons Rajbir Singh @ Raju (A-2), Rakesh (A-3) and Madan (A-4) armed with jaily, pharsi and lathis respectively, entered the land where the complainant was working with his sons and asked them not ...
Tag this Judgment!