Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1467-1468 OF2005SADHU SARAN SINGH APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.2701 and 5802 of 2003, dated 07.12.2004, by which the High Court has allowed the appeals filed by the accused- respondents herein and acquitted them for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC).2. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant before us was not a party before the Courts below and the present appeals have been preferred by him with the leave of this Court. The locus of the appellant is that he is the brother of the informant Bhola Singh (PW1) who died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and also paternal uncle of the three deceased persons (Sons of inf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5133 OF2006PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Appellant(s) VERSUS POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.256 OF2007JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Despite the very persuasive submissions advanced by Mr. Pradeep Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we find it difficult to appreciate the submissions.2. What has been done by the respondents is only to correct an obvious error that has crept in while applying the norms in the matter of depreciation on equities.3. That there is no depreciation on equity, cannot be disputed. In the subsequent years, it is seen that the mistake has been corrected also.4. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. .......................J.[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]. .......................J.[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]. New Delhi; February 24, 2016....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4088 OF2008INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPN & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS HARISH TOLANI Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. All that the High Court has done in the impugned Judgment is to remove the observations made by the learned Single Judge that the Commissioner or the Municipal Corporation does not have the power to compound any illegal construction.2. The Division Bench of the High Court has further clarified that in the joint inspection, if any illegal construction is noticed, the Commissioner should first consider whether the unauthorised construction can be compounded before ordering for demolition of the said construction.3. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that even going by the direction of the Division Bench of the High Court, the compounding cannot be permitted under law beyond a certain percentage of the alleged unauthorised contruction.4. These are all matters to be ver...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10149 OF2010M/S HARYANA SURAJ MALTINGS LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS NARENDER KUMAR Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length.2. The main contention is that the High Court should have remanded the matter to the Labour Court for consideration afresh having rendered a finding that the materials showed that the respondent had worked for 240 days in a year.3. Though the above submission is ex-facie attractive, we do not think that in the facts of the present case, the matter should be remanded to the Labour Court. What has been ordered by the High Court is only reinstatement with 50% back wages, having found that the termination of the respondent-workman was illegal. We find no illegality in the approach made by the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.4. The civil appeal is, accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1696 OF2016[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.23066 of 2013]. Subhash Chandra ...Appellant Versus Gulab Bai & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1697 OF2016[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.32048 of 2013]. Subhash Chandra ...Appellant Versus Gulab Bai & Ors. ...Respondents JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, CJI. Leave granted.2. The short question that falls for determination in these appeals is whether a retired Municipal Corporation employee can also maintain an application for eviction under Chapter III-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and, in particular, whether any such retired employee is an employee of a company owned or controlled by the State Government within the meaning of Section 23-J(ii) of the Act aforementioned. A Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has by a 2:1 decision answered the said question in the negative and declared t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
|NON-REPORTABLE | IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1691 OF2016(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.27550 of 2012) RAM KUMAR GIJROYA APPELLANT Vs DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANR. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1692 OF2016(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.27551 of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1693 OF2016(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.309 of 2013) AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.1694 OF2016(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.21445 of 2013) JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.Leave granted. The present appeals arise out of the impugned common judgment and order dated 24.01.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No.562 of 2011 and Writ Petition (C) No.8087 of 2011 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.382 of 2009, wherein the learned single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents to accept the O.B.C. certificate of the appellants herein. The important question of law ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2818 OF2008Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Appellant (s) Versus Kishore R. Ajmera ...Respondent (s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8769 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO.6719 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.252 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO.282 OF2014JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. The core question of law arising in this group of appeals being similar and the facts involved being largely identical, all the appeals which were heard analogously are being decided by this common order.2. The question of law arising in this group of appeals may be summarized as follows. What is the degree of proof required to hold brokers/sub-brokers liable for fraudulent/ manipulative practices under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations and/or liable for violating the Code of Conduct specified in Schedule II read with Regulation 9 of the Securities and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1676 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.37555 OF2012 HINA Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the second respondent-Corporation was justified in rejecting the application of the appellant for allotment of retail outlet of petroleum/diesel dealership at location Kalamnuri in District Hingoli in the State of Maharashtra, on the ground that the age proof submitted by her was not of the Secondary School as per the norms, but of a Higher Secondary School.3. It is not in dispute that the appellant had submitted an attested copy of the School Leaving Certificate issued by Shri Shanti Vidya Mandir Higher Secondary School, Shiradshahpur, Hingoli, which is of a Higher Secondary School. That certificate was issued by the Principal of the school and the appellant had produced an attested copy o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1671 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.31851 OF2011]. RAMADHAR SINGH & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMITTEE OF MGT. S.M.S.P.S. ITALI& ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The issued raised in this appeal pertains to election to the Committee of Management of Shri Manas Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Itaili. The disputed election was held on 01.04.2008. It is not in dispute that the term of the Committee is for three years. There were elections in 2011 and 2014 and another election must be getting due as well.3. In that view of the matter, we do not think that anything on facts survives to be considered by this Court in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.4. We make it clear that the elected Committee in office as on today will continue till their term is over.5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that Civil Suit being OS No.1624 of 2009 filed by them, whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1677-1679 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 4372-4374 OF2015 SHRI ANOOP SRIVASTAVA & Anr. Appellant(s) VERSUS RAIS AHMED (BARBER) & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants have approached this Court aggrieved by interim orders dated 14.10.2014, 03.12.2014 and 15.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in its contempt jurisdiction.3. When the matters came up before this Court, this Court passed the following order on 05.02.2015 :- "Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable in two weeks. Dasti, in addition. Post the matter on 19th February, 2015. Until further orders, the operation of the portion of the impugned orders dated 14.10.2014, 03.12.2014 and 15.12.2014 relating to the appearance of the petitioners or any other alleged contemnors/respondents shall remain stayed. However, it will be open to the High Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with...
Tag this Judgment!