Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.212 OF2016[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3695 of 2013]. Charanjit Kaur ..Appellant Versus Bikram Singh & Anr. ..Respondents W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.213 OF2016[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3694 of 2013]. JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.Heard the parties. Leave granted. Various shades of life at times create so much impact that even a disinterested person gets shaken and tends to recall the clichd statement that truth can be stranger than fiction. At least in the Indian society, a wife, come what may, is perceived to be the ultimate caretaker of her family and particularly the husband. But cruel acts of the husband and the in-laws can turn the situation upside down. The essential brief facts of this case amply justify the aforesaid observations. The appellant is wife of respondent no.1. Harassed and tortured on account of greed for dowry, she was hounded out of the matrimonial house and was forc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2238 OF2016|BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |N. JAYAMMA |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The instant appeal, which has travelled to this Court, had its origin in a suit filed by the respondent in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for declaration of title to the suit property situated in Sy. No.76/1. It was claimed by the respondent that she had purchased the property on June 22, 1994 ad-measuring East to West 60 ft. and North to South 50 ft. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') from its previous owner and had constructed a building thereupon. The aforesaid suit property, which was part of Sy. No.76/1 comprising 4 acres 31 guntas (hereinafter referred to as the 'scheduled property'), was acquired by the State Government for Bangalore Development Authority appellant herein (for short, 'th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.337 OF2013BABITA BADASARIA & ORS. PETITIONER(S) :VERSUS: PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) ORDER This matter has been placed before us by the Office along with an Office Report for directions. Civil Appeal No.5470 of 2004, filed by M/s. Saket Housing Ltd., was dismissed by this Court on 7-5-2013, after noting the fact that there was enormous deviation from the sanctioned plan in construction of multi- storeyed building. At that point of time this Court observed as follows:There being enormous deviations from the sanctioned plan in constructing the multi-storeyed building, after following the due process of law, construction beyond sanctioned plan was directed to be demolished by the Patna Regional Development Authority. Deviation is shocking and can be undertaken only by such person who considers himself to be law unto himself. One of the deviations is that against sanction of 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1867-1872 OF2009BALWAN SINGH & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. The short issue arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to interest for the period from the date of dispossession to the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short `the Act'). That issue is no more res integra. In the case of R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Vs. DDA & Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC79at paragraph 18, this Court has taken the view that the land owner is not entitled to interest under the Act. However, it has been clarified that the land owner will be entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retained possession of the property.2. Noticing the above position, this Court in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer repor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7622 OF2014COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPELLANT VERSUS M/S. MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD. RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8493 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO.8494 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO.8496 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO.2560 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.36578 OF2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2561 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.36579 OF2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2562 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.36581 OF2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2563 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.37831 OF2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2564 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.37833 OF2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2565 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.37834 OF2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2566 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.6867 (CC2242014) CIVIL APPEAL NO.2567 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.6869 (CC15432014) CIVIL APPEAL NO.2568 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.11094 OF2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2569 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.11095 OF2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2582-2584 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.1012-1014 of 2012) |M/S. ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCJTION LIMITED |Appellant(s) | Versus |STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS |Respondent(s) | W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.2585 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.6462 of 2012) CIVIL APPEAL NO.2586 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.9673 of 2012) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. The short issue raised in these appeals pertains to the stamp duty payable by the developer and the allottees under Sections 33/47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.4. In a writ petition filed by the developer, in respect of the bipartite agreement between the State and the developer, the High Court by judgment dated 4th August, 2011 relegated the developer to the competent authority. However, in the writ petitions filed by the allottees of the developer, by another judgment dated 16th A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No.35 OF2016|PRATIBHA RAMESH PATEL |Appellant(s) | Versus |UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. |Respondent(s) | JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed mainly with the following prayers :- (a) To declare that sections 2, 12 and 15(a) of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012, which has since been notified on 3rd of January, 2013 and the said Act to have brought into force as well on 15th January, 2013, as unconstitutional and void since the said Act by amendment to the Securitisation and reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, has brought Multi State Co-operative Society within the ambit of SARFAESI ACT, 2002 and the RDDBFI Act, 1993 and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2174-2175 OF2012|SHAKUNTALA YADAV AND OTHERS |Appellant(s) | Versus |STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS |Respondent(s) | W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2176-2177 OF2012SHAKUNTALA YADAV AND OTHERS Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellants are aggrieved since their request for release of 1.23 acres of land falling in Khasra No.23/8/1, 8/2, 9/2, 12/2 and 13/1 in village Sahaul, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and .25 acres of land falling I Khasra No.23/10/1 in the same village has been rejected.3. Placing reliance on the letter of the Finance Minister of Haryana, for releasing lands coming under Lal Dora, the appellants approached the High Powered Committee. It appears that the High Powered Committee turned down the request on the ground that possession of the property had already been taken, pursuant to Award pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1686-1687 OF2016UNION OF INDIA ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS TATA TELESERVICES LTD ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT1 As fresh demands have been issued in supersession of the original demands, we find no error in the approach taken by the Tribunal, in the facts of this case.2. The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. .......................J.(KURIAN JOSEPH) .......................J.(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) New Delhi; March 04, 2016....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2533 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.554 OF2016 |KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION |Appellant(s) | Versus |N.K. BYJUMON |Respondent(s) | JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.2. The respondent, who has now appeared in the case, is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) deposited by the petitioner with the Registry.3. The petitioner is directed to pay a further sum of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) to the respondent by way of costs.4. Leave granted.5. Looking at the fact that the respondent has been compensated and the delay was due to carelessness of an employee of the appellant-Corporation, who is being departmentally dealt with, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and remit -2- the matter to the High Court so that the same can be decided afresh on merits.6. The appeal is, accordi...
Tag this Judgment!