Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.758 OF2016LOKESH KATARA AND ANR ..... PETITIONERS Versus HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT ..... RESPONDENT ORDER Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J These proceedings have been instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution by two petitioners who are stated to be working as Systems Officers and Systems Assistants since 2009 on a contractual basis. The petitioners state that Systems Officers and Systems Assistants were engaged in the High Court and the district courts in the State of Gujarat in consonance with the National Policy and Action Plan prepared by the E- Committee. In 2013, the Government of Gujarat sanctioned posts of Systems Officers and Systems Assistants in the regular cadre. An amendment was made to the recruitment rules in 2015 for filling up these posts by direct recruitment. The existing Systems Officers and Systems Assistants working in various district courts submitted a representation seeki...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.12071 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.35577 OF2016]. CENTURY21MALLS PVT LTD Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The short issue that arises for consideration in this case is whether the High Court was justified in not granting an interim order, as was granted in other cases pending before it. It is seen that in the impugned order, the High Court has referred to in detail as to why the departure has been made.3. Be that as it may, the High Court has stayed the penalty since even according to the High Court, penalty could not have been imposed without granting an opportunity for hearing. Since the connected matters are pending before the High Court, we refrain ourselves from making any observation on the merits of the matter.4. We dispose of this appeal permitting the appellant to deposit 50% of the demand minus penalty wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 717 OF2006UNION OF INDIA .....APPELLANT Versus RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS .....RESPONDENTS WITH T.P.(C) No.75 of 2012 JUDGMENT Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court by its judgment dated 13 May 2005 issued a direction to the Union Government and to its Secretaries in the Ministries of Civil Aviation and Home Affairs to include the Chief Justices and the judges of the High Court in the list of persons exempted from pre-embarkation security checks at airports and to amend a circular dated 1 May 2002[1]. of the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). This exercise was directed to be completed within thirty days. The High Court has directed that certain suggestions formulated by it for laying down a National Security Policy should be considered by the Union government. The Union of India moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Leave has been granted on 20 J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. No.4 OF2016IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.4754 OF2014HARSHITA BHASIN ..... PETITIONER Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS ..... RESPONDENT ORDER Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J The applicant, Mukul Bhasin, was impleaded as the fifth respondent to a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution which was disposed of by this Court on 9 April 2014. The first respondent to the application was the petitioner in the Special Leave Petition. The applicant and the first respondent were married on 11 July 2007. They have two children Ranvir, who was born on 24 July 2008 and Hridaan, born on 16 November 2011. The children are now eight and five years old. There is a matrimonial dispute and parties have been living separately since July 2013. 2 The applicant instituted a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (Petition 754 of 2013) before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, for dissolution of marr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.12066 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.34016 of 2015) Greaves Cotton Limited Appellant Versus United Machinery and Appliances Respondent JUDGMENT Prafulla C. Pant,J.Leave granted. This appeal is directed against order dated 16.09.2015, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in GA No.2998 of 2015 (in CS No.2 of 2015), whereby said Court has rejected the application moved under Section 5 read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to get the dispute referred to arbitral tribunal. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Greaves Cotton are manufacturers of, inter alia, diesel engines. Respondent United Machinery and Appliances are manufacturers of diesel generator sets. An agreement containing arbitration clause was executed between them for supply of diesel engines by the appellant to the respondent for using the same in the diesel gensets. Arbitration clause contained in A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2148 of 2015 CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS. .... Appellant(s) Versus ABRAR ALI .Respondent JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.The Respondent was appointed as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 10.09.1990. By a memorandum dated 08.10.1999, an inquiry was proposed under Rule 36 of the C.I.S.F. Rules, 1969 for allegations of misconduct and misbehavior for the following Charges:Article of Charge-I No.903190893, Ct. Abrar Ali, Area No.IV, Central Industrial Security Force, BCCL Unit, Dhanbad was granted 2 days casual leave from 12.08.1999 to 13.08.1999 and 14.08.1999 was a second Saturday. He had to resume his duty on 15.08.1999 (F/N). But, he reported for his duty at 1730 hrs. Thereafter, Asstt. Commandant of Area No.4 directed the said Abrar Ali to remain inside the Camp as there was apprehension of danger to his life from the residents of nearby Basti. At about 1900 hrs w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1222 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.7675 of 2015) Sharat Babu Digumarti Appellant(s) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant along one Avnish Bajaj and others was arrayed as an accused in FIR No.645 of 2004. After the investigation was concluded, charge sheet was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate who on 14.02.2006 took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 292 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, the IT Act) against all of them. Avnish Bajaj filed Criminal Misc. Case No.3066 of 2006 for quashment of the proceedings on many a ground before the High Court of Delhi which vide order dated 29.05.2008 came to the conclusion that prima facie case was made out under Section 292 IPC, but it expressed the opinion that Avinish Bajaj, the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1213 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1913 of 2012) HDFC Securities Ltd. & Ors ... Appellants :Versus: State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.Leave granted. This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 16th November, 2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.672 of 2011, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the filing of the writ petition was premature and there was no need for exercising the powers either under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Brief facts of the case are as follows: appellant No.1 - HDFC Securities Ltd., is a public liability company (hereinafter referred to as the Company for short), appellant No.2 is the Managing Director of the Company, appellant No.3 is Business Head o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.231-233 OF2009MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. ..... Appellant(s) :Versus: STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE .. Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.225 of 2009 Criminal Appeal Nos.226-227 of 2009 Criminal Appeal No.895 of 2009 Criminal Appeal No.429 of 2015 JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. Brief facts giving rise to the initiation of criminal proceedings in these cases are as follows: A gruesome incident occurred in Taluk Ramanathapuram, District Tamil Nadu in which the appellants, the deceased and few witnesses were related to each other. As per prosecution case, on 10.02.1994, accused persons assembled unlawfully with deadly weapons and with the common intention to commit murder, they chased the family members of deceased Rajendran when they got down from the bus in the village near Karisalkulam Branch Road. They were coming back to their village after attending the cremation of Rajendran, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10106 OF2016ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.19791 OF2013M/S ALCON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Celem s.a. OF fos 34320 ROUJAN, FRANCE & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J.In this appeal by special leave, the appellantjudgment debtor assails the impugned judgment dated 8th April, 2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Civil Revision Application No.680 of 2011, whereby the High Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant seeking declaration that the Judgment and Order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, England (hereinafter referred to as the English Court) is not executable before the District Court at Nasik, by confirming the order dated 15th April, 2011 passed by the District Judge-2, Nasik. The facts in nutshell are that the respondents herein filed a Suit against the appellant before...
Tag this Judgment!