Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4602 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23596 of 2015) SOORAJ KUMAR APPELLANT VERSUS TAHSILDAR & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is aggrieved of the recovery proceedings initiated against him culminating in the auction sale of the property belonging to him.3. It appears that the Government had auctioned the property to itself on a nominal price of Re.1/- apparently in full and final settlement of dues.4. It is submitted that the whole proceedings of auction are vitiated since there was no proper inquiry on the market value 5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the appellant, on instruction, submits that the appellant is prepared to settle the whole dues as per the Amnesty Scheme to which the appellant is entitled to.6. We make it clear that in case there is any Amnesty Scheme available to the appellant and in case the appellant is prepared to pay the amo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4603 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11060 of 2016) RAIJIBHAI BHIKHABHAI PARMAR AND ORS APPELLANTS VERSUS RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LTD.) AND ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The limited grievance of the appellants is on the direction to deposit the amounts already received by them at the time of the alleged cessation of employment with the respondents as a pre-condition for the Labour Court to enter adjudication on the grievance raised by the employees.3. Having heard Mr. R.P.Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. C.U.Singh, learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be advanced if the direction of the High Court to deposit the amounts already received by appellants at the time ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4870 OF2015Mohammad Sadique Appellant Versus Darbara Singh Guru Respondent JUDGMENT Prafulla C. Pant, J.This appeal, preferred under Section 116A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, is directed against judgment and order dated 07.04.2015, passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in EP No.1/2012, whereby Election Petition filed by respondent has been allowed, and election of the appellant from 102-Bhadaur (Scheduled Caste) Assembly Constituency in Punjab, has been set aside.2. Brief facts of the case are that General Elections were held to Punjab Legislative Assembly, in January, 2012. Last date of filing of nomination papers was 12.01.2012. Date for scrutiny of nomination papers was 16.01.2012. And polling was held on 30.01.2012. The counting of votes was done on 06.03.2012, in which appellant was declared elected.3. Election Petitioner (respondent herein) filed his nomination paper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4544 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.11996 OF2015 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS REENA SURI AND ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4545 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.12032 OF2015 CIVIL APPEAL No.4546 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.12433 OF2015 CIVIL APPEAL No.4547 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.12606 OF2015 CIVIL APPEAL No.4548 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.13377 OF2015 CIVIL APPEAL No.4549 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.13378 OF2015 CIVIL APPEAL No.4550 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.14103 OF2015 CIVIL APPEAL No.4552 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.15350 OF2015 CIVIL APPEAL No.4553 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.17590 OF2015 CIVIL APPEAL No.4554 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.17601 OF2015 CIVIL APPEAL No.4555 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.17603 OF2015 CIVIL APPEAL No.4556 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.261 OF2016SANKALP CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANR. ... PETITIONER(S) VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) ORDER The following prayer has been made in this petition :a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direciton in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to conduct the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to MBBS Course throughout the country for academic session 2016-17; (b) Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. When the matter was heard on 27th April, 2016, the following order was passed by this Court :Taken on board. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assured this Court that he will remove the office objections by tomorrow. At his request, Respondent No.4 is deleted from the array of parties. All the three respondents are represented ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.178 OF2015Verhoeven, Marie-Emmanuelle .Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. .Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.417 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8931/2015) JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The writ petition is admitted and in the connected matter, special leave is granted.2. The principal question for consideration is whether there is a binding extradition treaty in terms of Section 2(d) of the Extradition Act, 1962 between India and Chile. Our answer to this question is in the affirmative.3. The subsidiary question, equally important, is assuming there is no binding extradition treaty between India and Chile, whether a requisition by Chile invoking the principle of reciprocity and the general principles of international law for extraditing the petitioner from India is maintainable. In our opinion, the general principles of international law do not debar the requisition. Howev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1034 of 2005 M/S. NORTHERN MINERALS LTD. & ORS. .......APPELLANTS VERSUS RAJASTHAN GOVT. & ANR. .......RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.61 of 2006 JUDGMENT JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1034 of 2005 1. An Insecticide Inspector-cum-Assistant Director of Agriculture (HQ) Ajmer, seized sample of Dimethoiate 30% EC (of Batch No.810) from the shop of M/s Joshi Krishi Agencies, Vyapari Mohalla, Near Power House, Madangaj, Kishangarh, Rajasthan, on 15.10.1994. It is not a matter of dispute, that the above sample of the insecticide was manufactured by M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. (appellant No.1 herein) in March, 1994. It is also not a matter of dispute, that the shelf life of the insecticide was to expire in August, 1995.2. The concerned Insecticide Inspector sent the seized sample for analysis to the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Durgapura, Jaipur. Consequent upon the analysis made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2667 OF2007|VLS FINANCE LTD. & ANR. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.In this appeal, challenge is laid to that part of the judgment of High Court of Delhi dated 15th December, 2006 whereby High Court has held that the block assessment proceedings initiated by the respondent-Department against the appellants herein have not become time barred, by giving the respondents benefit of the period during which proceedings were pending in the High Court, in view of some interim orders passed in those proceedings which remained operative till the writ petition filed by the appellants were decided finally. Factual background leading to the present appeal is as under: Search and seizure took place in the business premises of the appellant companies on 22nd June, 1998 on the strength of warrant of autorization dated 19th June, 1998 whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4490 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (c) No.12161 of 2016) NIKHIL KUMAR Appellant VERSUS RUPALI KUMAR Respondent JUDGMENT KURIAN,J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant and respondent have filed the petition under Section 13- B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court (Principal Judge, Family Court, Tiz Hazari District Courts), Delhi. The parties were married on 07.02.2011 according to the customary rights. It is submitted that they have not been able to workout their marriage as husband and wife since day one. For the last around five years, most of the time they have been living separately and their marriage reached a breaking point more than a year back. Both the parties, after giving serious thought on the entire consequences of their decision, have taken a conscious decision to part and accordingly they have filed a petition before the Family Court for divorce on mutual consent on 29....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4476 OF2016[Arising out of SLP(C) No.34858 of 2014]. ASHOK KUMAR GIRI APPELLANT VERSUS GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS. RESPONDENTS ORDER Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.K. Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna, while taking note of the fact, namely, the number of vacancies which were sought to be filled up at the instance of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, took the view that based on the vacancies notified when the 3% reservation provided for under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Protection) Act, 1995, since it worked out to 0.27 post there was no scope to reserve any post under the said category. With that view, the Division Bench declined to grant any relief to the appellant to claim reservation as a disabled person falling under the...
Tag this Judgment!