Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.26278 OF2015SARASWATI MEDICAL COLLEGE .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER M. Y. EQBAL, J.The petitioner-College has preferred this special leave petition against the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2015 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.8385 of 2015 whereby the High Court dismissed the said writ petition following the judgment dated 20th August, 2015 in Jamia Hamdard (Deemed University) vs. Union of India and the judgment dated 1st September, 2015 in Kanchan Islamic Education Trust (R) vs. Union of India.2. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner challenged the communication dated 15.06.2015 of respondent no.1 The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (for short 'UOI') disapproving the application of the petitioner for establishment of a new medical college with effect from the academic year 2015-16. A fur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8064 OF2015(Arising from S.L.P. (C) No.10039/2014) Rajinder Kumar Appellant (s) Versus State of Haryana and another Respondent (s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. The appellant was appointed as a constable under the first respondent-State on 24.12.1979. On the ground that he remained absent from duty while he was posted in police lines, Kurkshetra, Haryana on three occasions, extending to a total period of thirty seven days, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. He was found guilty of misconduct and a major penalty of dismissal was imposed on him by order dated 22.11.1994 of the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, Haryana. The appeal before the D.I.G. of Police, Ambala, Haryana was dismissed, and that order was challenged before the High Court in C.W.P. No.16511 of 1997. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Judgment dated 26.05.2009. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:It is, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.25650 OF2015KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST(R) .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER M. Y. EQBAL, J.The petitioner-Trust has preferred this special leave petition against the impugned judgment and order dated 01.09.2015 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.7128 of 2015 whereby the Delhi High Court dismissed the said writ petition.2. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner challenged the communication dated 15.06.2015 of respondent no.1 The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (for short 'UOI') disapproving the application of the petitioner for establishment of a new medical college for the academic year 2015-16. A further direction was sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition directing respondent no.2-Medical Council of India (MCI) to inspect the petitioner's college for the purpose of establishment of new medical college for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1178 of 2008 Gurmit Singh and another . Appellants Versus State of Punjab Respondent JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment and order dated 08.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.503-DB of 1997 affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Appellant No.1 Gurmit Singh was married to Charanjit Kaur. However because of some differences, she was staying with her father Kulbir Singh, who was running a shop for sale of marble and chips at village Loharan in Distt. Jalandhar. On 06.02.1996 at about 4.00 pm, Appellant No.1 accompanied by his brother Harjinder Singh, i.e. Appellant No.2 allegedly came on a scooter to the shop of Kulbir Singh and asked him to permit Charanjit Kaur to stay with Appellant No.1. According to the prosecution, Kulbir Singh asked b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8084 OF2015(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.9796 OF2012 RAM KUMAR & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS ABHINANDAN KUMAR TADAIYA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 5th January, 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in Civil Revision No.339 of 1992 arising out of eviction proceedings initiated against the appellants (tenants) by the respondents (landlords) on the ground of arrears of rent from 14th February, 1984 to 14th June, 1990. The courts below have upheld the claim for eviction holding the appellants to be defaulters.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that following finding has been recorded by the High Court while dismissing the revision petition by the impugned order:- Admittedly, there is no material ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8067-8068 OF2015[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3139-3140 of 2015]. S. Nihaal Ahamed .. Appellant -vs- The Dean, Velammal Medical College Hospital and Research Institute & Ors. .. Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8069-8070 OF2015[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.10354-10355 of 2015]. JUDGMENT C. NAGAPPAN, J.Leave granted.2. All these appeals have been preferred against the common judgment dated 25.9.2014 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Appeal (MD)Nos. 794, 898, 921 and 923 of 2014.3. The facts are briefly as follows: The appellants passed Higher Secondary examination in March 2013 and submitted application for admission to M.B.B.S. Course to the Consortium of Tamil Nadu Private Professional Colleges Association, affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University which is one of the respondents herein, and both of them had preferr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4606 OF2006JELES EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS. .......APPELLANTS VERSUS R.T. BHITALE .......RESPONDENT JUDGMENT J.S.KHEHAR, J.1. Appellant No.1 Jeles Education Society (hereinafter referred to as `the appellant-society') runs and operates the Mahatma Gandhi Vidyamandir School. The school is upto Class-X. One Raut was engaged by the school, as a trained Graduate Teacher, to teach the subjects of English and Sanskrit. For reasons which are not relevant for the present controversy, Raut tendered his resignation, in the middle of the academic session 1989-90. The same was accepted on 26.07.1989.2. The appellant-society issued an advertisement on 04.12.1987, seeking to fill up the vacancy created as a result of the resignation of Raut. An English translation of the aforesaid advertisement, is being reproduced hereunder:WANTED Wanted trained Graduate Teacher to teach English & Sanskrit. Priority for Backward Cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. Nos. 7-8 & 9-10 OF2015IN SLP (C) Nos. 23886-23887/2012 The Committee-GFIL .Petitioner(s) VERSUS Libra Buildtech Private Ltd. & Ors. Applicant(s)/ Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. In the light of the order dated 22.01.2015 already passed by this Court in I.A. Nos. 7-8 as mentioned in the Office Report dated 11.02.2015, no further order on these IAs. is required.2. I.A. Nos. 9 and 10 these two applications are filed by the applicants/respondent Nos.1- 4.-. Libra Buildtech Private Ltd. & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) for direction by this Court to State of Punjab and S.D.M. Dera Bassi to refund the full amount of stamp duty to the applicants.3. In order to appreciate the nature of controversy involved and the direction sought for refund of the amount paid by the applicants for purchase of stamp duty for execution of sale deeds in relation to properties in question, it is neces...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1294-1295 OF2015(@ SLP(Crl) Nos. 8567-8568 of 2015) State through Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau ... Appellant Versus Mushtaq Ahmad Etc. ... Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.In this appeal, by special leave, the State of Jammu and Kashmir has called in question the legal propriety of the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 35 and 36 of 2009 whereby the High Court has converted the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge holding the accused respondents guilty of the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the NDPS Act) and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and further to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs each and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of one year to one under Section 8 read with Section 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2110 OF2009NARENDER SINGH & ORS. .. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .. RESPONDENT AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2111 OF2009THUDDI & ANR. .. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J.Out of 7 accused, A2 to A6 are the appellants before us in these two appeals.2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 7th September, 2006 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.666 of 2000. Altogether there were seven accused. One accused by name Ravi was a juvenile and, therefore, his case was separated and dealt with separately. As A1 has not preferred any appeal, we are not concerned with his case.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that on 27th June, 1997 at 10:00p.m. P.W.3, 6 and the deceased were sitting and conversing with each other alon...
Tag this Judgment!