Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION CASE (CIVIL) NO.27 OF2015HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD. ...PETITIONER VERSUS STERLITE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT1 This application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in terms of clause 22.3 of the Supply Contract between the parties which was entered into in the following circumstances: In March 2006, MTNL issued a tender for supply, installation, testing, commissioning of Broadband Access Network. Both the petitioner and the respondent together bid against the tender floated and the respondent acted as the lead bidder. The contract was awarded in favour of the respondent by the MTNL. On 9th April, 2007, the parties entered into a Supply Contract for the aforesaid project. According to the petitioner, though it had complied with all the terms and conditions of the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3971 OF2006Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. ... Appellant (s) Versus Matwal Chand (D) Thr. LRs. ... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 15.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Delhi in two writ petitions raising identical questions of law on similar facts. The writ petitions filed by the respondent have been allowed and the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the LA Act) have been declared null and void. Aggrieved, the Delhi Administration has filed the instant appeal. The core facts lie in a short compass and are as follows: The subject land, admittedly, was evacuee property. It was acquired under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short the DPCR Act). Thereafter the property was transferred to the compensation pool under Section 14 of the said Act. A decision was taken ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2825 OF2015[Arising out of SLP(C) No.30338 OF2014 State of West Bengal and Others ... Appellants Versus R.K.B.K. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.In this appeal, by special leave, the legal substantiality and acceptability of the judgment and order dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in AST No.177/2013 whereby it has overturned the decision of the learned Single Judge requiring the respondent-writ petitioner to knock at the doors of the alternative forum by way of appeal, on the foundation that the authority that had passed the adverse order against the first respondent had no jurisdiction, and assuming he had the jurisdiction, it stood extinguished by expiration of the time limit stipulated in certain paragraphs of the West Bengal Kerosene Oil Control Order, 1968 (for brevity, the Control Order), is called in question.2. The facts which need to be exposi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3470 OF2006Sandu (D) by Lrs. Appellant (s) Versus Gulab (D) by Lrs. and others Respondent (s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: The Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was introduced to provide for the restoration of certain lands to persons belonging to the scheduled tribes. It has been notified on 01.11.1975. Under Section 4 of the Act, the restoration is contemplated in respect of transactions on or after 1st day of April, 1957. Section 4 reads as follows:4. Restoration of lands of persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes. Where any land of a Tribal is, at any time on or after the 1st day of April 1957 and before the 6th day of July 1974, purchased or deemed to have been purchased or acquired under or in accordance with the provisions of the relevant tenancy law by a non-Tribal-transferee or where any acquisition has been regularised on payment of penalty unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6848 OF2015(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.6244/2015) Smita Subhash Sawant .Appellant(s) VERSUS Jagdeeshwari Jagdish Amin & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.02.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.9388 of 2014 which arises out of judgment and order dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Municipal Election Petition No.129 of 2012 holding that the election petition filed by respondent No.1 herein questioning the appellants election as a Councilor of the Bruhan Mumbai Municipal Corporation from Ward No.76 is within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 33 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state a few r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.413 OF2007NIZAM & ANR. ...Appellants Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN ...Respondent JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment dated 01.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan Jaipur Bench in Criminal Appeal No.1248 of 2002, whereby the High Court confirmed the conviction of the accused-appellants under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on each of them with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause and also two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- with default clause respectively.2. Case of the prosecution is that deceased-Manoj was the helper on the truck No.MP-07-2627 and had gone to Pune and thereafter to Barar alongwith his first driver Raj Kumar (PW-2) and second driver Ram Parkash (PW-1) and from Barar they loaded the truck with pipes for destination to Ghaziabad on 23.01.2001. Accused-appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.861 OF2014MUSKAN SAMAJIK EVAM SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM PRACHAR SAMITI ... PETITIONER(S) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in view of the judgment dated 20th August, 2015, delivered by this Court in Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (Writ Petition(C)No.705/2014), nothing survives in the petition and it has become infructuous.2. The writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.3. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. ..............J.[ANIL R. DAVE]. ..............J.[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]. ..............J.[UDAY UMESH LALIT]. New Delhi; 3rd September, 2015....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6911 OF2015(Arising out of SLP(C)No.25539 of 2014) MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ... APPELLANT(S) VS. SRI AUROBINDO INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Leave granted.2. In view of the judgment dated 20th August, 2015, delivered by this Court in Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (Writ Petition(C)No.705/2014), the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.3. There shall be no order as to costs. ..............J.[ANIL R. DAVE]. ..............J.[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]. ..............J.[UDAY UMESH LALIT]. New Delhi; 3rd September, 2015....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6913 OF2015(Arising out of SLP(C)No.24686 of 2014) MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ... APPELLANT(S) VS. RUXMANIBEN DEEPCHAND GARDI MEDICAL COLLEGE & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Leave granted.2. In view of the judgment dated 20th August, 2015, delivered by this Court in Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (Writ Petition(C)No.705/2014), the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.3. There shall be no order as to costs. ..............J.[ANIL R. DAVE]. ..............J.[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]. ..............J.[UDAY UMESH LALIT]. New Delhi; 3rd September, 2015....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6912 OF2015(Arising out of SLP(C)No.22472 of 2014) MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ... APPELLANT(S) VS. SUBHARTI MEDICAL COLLEGE MEERUT ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Leave granted.2. In view of the judgment dated 20th August, 2015, delivered by this Court in Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (Writ Petition(C)No.705/2014), the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.3. There shall be no order as to costs. ..............J.[ANIL R. DAVE]. ..............J.[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]. ..............J.[UDAY UMESH LALIT]. New Delhi; 3rd September, 2015....
Tag this Judgment!