Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (C)NOS.2159-2268 OF2013AND REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS.2048-2157 OF2013IN TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NOS.98-105, 107-108,110-139, 142, 144-145 OF2012& 1-5, 7-25, 28-49, 53, 58-73, 75-76 & 107-108 OF2013MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ... PETITIONER(S) VS. CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH R.P.(C) NO.1956 OF2013IN T.C.(C) NO.101 OF2012ORDER These review petitions have been filed against the judgment of this Court dated 18th July, 2013 passed in Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC305 The review petitions were placed before a Three-Judge Bench and notices were issued on 23rd October, 2013 and thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that Civil Appeal No.4060/2009 and connected matters involving an identical issue, had been referred to a Five-Judge Bench. Accordingly, on 21st January, 2016, these review petitions were ordere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No.382 OF2014|CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION |.....PETITIONER(S) | |VERSUS | | |UNION OF INDIA & ORS. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The petitioner herein, viz., Centre for Public Interest Litigation, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It claims that the very purpose for which this society was established was to bring causes to the Superior Courts, which are of grave public importance, by way of public interest litigation in an organised manner. In the present writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the decision of the Government of India, taken sometime in March 2013, allowing voice telephony to respondent No.2 (Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.) on payment of Rs.1,658 crores entry fee. Allegation of the petitioner is that the aforesaid amount at which the license for voice telephony is granted to re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3608 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1490 of 2015) State of Kerala & Ors. ..Appellants VERSUS M/s Kerala Rare Earth & Minerals Limited & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3609 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1840 of 2015) State of Kerala & Ors. ..Appellants VERSUS M/s. Kerala Rare Earths & Minerals Limited & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3610 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.1914 of 2015) State of Kerala & Ors. ..Appellants VERSUS M/s. Kerala Rare Earths & Minerals Limited & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, CJI.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 13th November, 2014 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, whereby, Writ Appeals Nos.1610, 1611 and 1621 of 2014 filed by the appellants-State of Kerala have been dismissed affirming thereby an order passed by a Single Bench of that Court, allowing the writ petitions filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3593 OF2016[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.3988 OF2016]. MANISH KUMAR SUREKA Appellant (s) VERSUS WEST BENGAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2016, whereby the request made by the appellant for enlargement of time for deposit of the amount ordered by the High Court was rejected.3. By order dated 23.12.2015, the High Court had passed the following order in respect of the subject matter :- ".....On going through the impugned order, in order to see the Financial Institution gets its substantial repayment fo the dues, we are of the opinion the following conditional order would justify the situation : (i) In case the purchaser of the appellant deposits with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court a sum of Rs. 25 Lac as directed by learned Single Judge on or before 28.12.2015, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.271-273 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.484-486 of 2016) Standard Chartered Bank Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra and Others Etc. Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.2. The present appeals, by special leave, are directed against the order dated 13th October, 2015, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1482-1484 of 2015 whereby the learned single Judge by the common impugned order has quashed the orders of issuance of summons against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein (original accused Nos. 5 and4) by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court at Esplanade, Mumbai, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the Act). Be it noted that the High Court has declined to quash the order of the Magistrate issuing summons against the respondent No.4 (original accused No.2), but the said accused has not approached ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3486 OF2016ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.15966 OF2012NARAYAN ...APPELLANT VERSUS BABASAHEB & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant is before us aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, dated 5.10.2011 in Second Appeal No.213 of 2004 wherein and whereby the High Court has confirmed the judgment and decree of the Courts below.3. This Court, while issuing notice on 27th April, 2012, has passed the following order:Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable in ten weeks limited to the question as to whether the Suit filed in the year 1989 with regard to the sale deed dated January 20, 1982 was within limitation. Dasti, in addition to the ordinary process. In the meanwhile, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the property which is subject matter of the sale deed dated January 20, 1982. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.114 OF2014Common Cause Petitioner versus Union of India and others Respondents With WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.194 OF2014Prafulla Samantra and another Petitioners versus Union of India and others Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. This Court by its order dated 16.5.2014, in Common Cause v. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC155 restrained 102 mining leaseholders from carrying on any mining operations. The above order was passed on account of the fact, that none of these leaseholders were in possession of clearances/approvals/consent, required for carrying on the mining operations. The above order dated 16.5.2014, granted liberty to the leaseholders whose operations were suspended, to move this Court after obtaining the requisite clearances/approvals/consent, whereupon this Court would, on being satisfied, revoke the suspension order.2. A number of applications came to be filed before ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1363 OF2007Lilawati Agarwal (D) By Lrs. Appellant(s) and Others Versus State of Jharkhand Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Lilawati Agarwal (Dead) By Lrs. and Others vs. State of Jharkhand[1]., after referring to the paragraphs 31 and 34 of the pronouncement in Union of India and Another vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc.[2]., expressed doubt with regard to the correctness of the decision in K.S. Paripoornan (II) vs. State of Kerala and Others[3]. and eventually expressed thus:- In Raghubir Singh case two terminus points were fixed i.e. award by the Collector or decision of the Reference Court must have been taken between 3- 4-1982 and 24-9-1984. It has been clearly stated in the last line of para 34 that every case must have been decided between the aforesaid terminus. In Paripoornan II case at para 4 it was observed that restrictive interpretation should n...
Tag this Judgment!