Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8661 OF2009STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS R.K. GUPTA & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No.8703 OF2009JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Heard Ms. Nidhi Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana and Mr. M. C. Dhingra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The State is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 11.08.2003 in Civil Writ Petition No.4518 of 2000, in the matter of additional Dearness Allowance, wherein the High Court followed an earlier judgment in CWP No.13300 of 1990, however, limiting the monetory benefits to 38 months immediately preeceding the filing of the Writ Petition.3. It is seen that the relied on judgment was pursued before this Court in SLP (C) No.2578 of 1996 and by order dated 09.05.1997, the same was dismissed on the ground of delay. The State filed Review Petition (C) No.2246 of 1998. There was a delay in filing the Review Petition as well. However, this C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.14055 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.7798 of 2015) Andisamy Chettiar Appellant Versus Subburaj Chettiar Respondent JUDGMENT Prafulla C. Pant, J.This appeal is directed against order dated 07.11.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench Madurai, in Civil Revision Petition (PD) (MD) No.1787 of 2008 whereby the revision was allowed, and order dated 12.03.2008 passed by Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, on I.A. No.3 of 2008 (in A.S. No.55 of 2007), is set aside. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. Succinctly stated, facts of this case are that the appellant/plaintiff instituted Original Suit No.92 of 2003 before District Munsif, Virudhunagar, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in suit. It is pleaded in the plaint that originally the property in dispute was own...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.867 OF2013Parivartan Kendra .Appellant(s) versus Union of India and others .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT | | |M.Y. Eqbal, J.: | By way of present writ petition filed in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner a registered NGO seeks to highlight the plight of the acid attack victims and the inadequacy how the compensation payable to the victims as per the orders of the Apex Court in Laxmi vs. Union of India (in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.129 of 2006). Petitioner also highlights the lack of a legal guarantee to free medical care, rehabilitative services or adequate compensation under the Survivor Compensation Schemes.2. The petitioner highlighting the plight of two dalit girls of Bihar, who were attacked around midnight of October 21, 2012 by four assailants who threw acid on the face and bodies of the girls while they were sleeping on their rooftops. It is alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2150 OF2012|M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR |.....RESPONDENT(S) | W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.2562 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.599 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.600 OF2013A N D CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1522-1523 OF2013JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.In all these appeals, identical question of law is involved and for the sake of brevity, we are discussing the question of law by taking note of the facts from Civil Appeal No.2150 of 2012. The appellant/assessee herein, which is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India, has been selling iron and steel products, that are manufactured by it, to the Indian Railways. For this purpose, contract was signed between the said two parties and the goods were being sold to the Indian Railways at the price mutually agreed upon between them. On each removal of these goods for supply to the Railways, the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION1CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1263 OF2011Maya Devi & Anr. .... Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent(s) 2 3 JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J.1) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.488-DB of 1999 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal.2) Brief facts: (a) As per the prosecution story, the marriage of Kavita @ Kusum (since deceased) was solemnized with Karamvir, son of Mahavir, resident of House No.36, Type II, M.D. University Campus, Rohtak according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 17.07.1994. After 20-25 days of the solemnization of the marriage, Karamvir (appellant No.2 herein), his mother Maya Devi (appellant No.1 herein), brothers Dharamveer and Paramveer and Sister Sonika@Pinki started harassing, maltreating and beating Kavita (since deceased) on account of dowry. Des...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3548 OF2010OPG Securities Private Ltd. ..Appellant Versus S.E.B.I. & Anr. ...Respondents JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.This is a statutory appeal preferred under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for brevity the Act) against the judgment and order dated 11th February, 2010 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for brevity the SAT) in Appeal No.28 of 2009. The dispute between the parties has arisen on account of amended Regulations effective from 1.10.2006 introducing Schedule IIIA into the Regulations. For stock brokers the measure of fee under Schedule III was turnover of the previous year on yearly basis and the same has been replaced by concept of monthly fee on the basis of monthly turnover. The dispute is whether the latter would come into effect immediately from the date Schedule IIIA becomes applicable to a stock-broker or the earlier measure of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10941-10942 OF2013NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. .....APPELLANT VERSUS HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. ..RESPONDENT WITH C A NOS.10943-10944 OF2013 C.A. NO.1774 OF2014 SLP (C) NO.2833 OF2014& SLP (C) Nos.11257-11258 OF2014 JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. While considering Civil Appeal No.D35086of 2013, this Court expressed its doubt in relation to the period of limitation for filing the written statement or giving version of the opponent as per the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question was, whether the said issue was governed by the law laid down by this Court in Dr. J.J.Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, [(2002) 6 SCC635 or Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC480. The following order was passed by this Court in the aforestated Civil Appeal on 29th November, 2013:1. Heard Mr. Vahanvati, learned Attorney Genera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NO.4 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL No.11133 OF2011M/S. ADANI POWER LTD. APPLICANT/APPELLANT Versus GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & OTHERS RESPONDENTS ORDER Chelameswar, J.1. This application is filed by the appellant in Civil Appeal No.11133/2011. The prayer in the application is as follows:a) to stay the operation of the impugned Judgment dated 7.9.2011 and suspend further supply of electricity in terms of the PPA during the pendency of this Appeal. b) in the alternative to prayer (a) above, during the pendency of the accompanying Civil Appeal the Honble Court may direct the Respondent(s) to pay the tariff as per CERC norms for tariff on cost plus basis; and also make the payment from the date of the supply of power under the PPA of the differential amount between the PPA tariff and the tariff as per CERC norms for tariff on cost plus basis on the such terms and condition as this Honble court deems fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No.48 OF2014Union of India Petitioner VERSUS V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. Respondents With Writ Petition (Crl.) No.185/2014 Writ Petition (Crl.) No.150/2014 Writ Petition (Crl.) No.66/2014 Criminal Appeal No.1215/2011 JUDGMENT FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.The Petitioner has challenged the letter dated 19.02.2014 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu to the Secretary, Government of India wherein the State of Tamil Nadu proposed to remit the sentence of life imprisonment and to release the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in the Writ Petition who were convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. As far as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, originally they were imposed with the sentence of death. In the judgment reported as V. Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India & Ors.-. (2014) 4 SCC242 the sentence of death was commuted by this Court. Immediately thereafter, the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No.702 OF2015Vennangot Anuradha Samir ..Petitioner versus Vennangot Mohandas Samir Respondent ORDER M.Y. EQBAL, J.Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records along with the affidavits and petitions.2. Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized in April, 2010 according to Hindu Vedic Rites. At the time of marriage, the respondent-husband was a bachelor and the petitioner-wife was a divorcee. It was a love marriage after both of them came in contact with each other in October, 2006. In 2013, some misunderstanding developed between the petitioner and the respondent as a result of which the petitioner left the house.3. In 2015, the respondent-husband filed a suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the petitioner-wife after solemnization of the marriag...
Tag this Judgment!