Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. 2 OF2016IN CIVIL APPEAL No.5401 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.19616 OF2015 SANJIVKUMAR SURAJPRAKASH AGGARWAL Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The dispute in this appeal is whether the tenancy created in favour of the appellant is a sham one or not. It is not in dispute that there is no adjudication on this aspect. Under Section 14 of the SARAFAESI Act, this aspect can be adjudicated before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade Court, Mumbai.3. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank, submits that the Magistrate, in fact, had gone into the aspect while deciding the Invervention Application.4. We do not think that the same would be sufficient in adjudicating the issue regarding tenancy. In our opinion, an inquiry, with the participation of the appellant, would be in the fitness and fairness of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.521 OF2008Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others Petitioners Versus Union of India & Others Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5389 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.244 of 2016) JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No.244 of 2016.2. The petitioners are employed with Prasar Bharati Corporation of India (hereinafter, Prasar Bharati), a statutory corporation brought into existence by the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 (hereinafter the 1990 Act). The petitioners are persons with disability (hereinafter, PWD) as defined under Section 2(t) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter the 1995 Act). They filed this writ petition aggrieved by two office memoranda No.36035/16/91-Estt. (SCT) dated 18.02.1997 and No.36035/3/2004-Estt. (RES) dated 29.12.2005 (hereinafter impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.549 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5032 of 2015) MAHESHWAR PERI & OTHERS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. What is the period of limitation for suo motu initiation of contempt proceedings, is the short question for consideration in this case. The Outlook Magazine, in its 10.11.2008 edition, published an article authored by the third appellant, which mainly dealt with the infamous Provident Fund Scam. The names of the Judges, who are allegedly involved in the case, were published. On 18.11.2008, one Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava and Mr. Veer Singh, Advocates practicing in the High Court of Allahabad, filed Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2008 with the following prayer:It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to proceed for initiating Criminal Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1133 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 21027 OF2013 Union of India & Ors. ... Appellants Versus Diler Singh ... Respondent JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The respondent, a constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was enrolled as such on 1.4.1990. He was posted in the 23 Battalion where he served continuously approximately for fourteen years. Subsequently, he was transferred to 61 Battalion where he served for two years. During the second posting a charge-sheet was served on him alleging that on 22.06.2001 about 11.30 hrs. he left the campus without permission of the competent authority and went to the bazaar and consumed liquor and quarrelled with some civilians. On being informed, S.I. Sheoji Ram, HC Mahabir Singh and Captain Fiyaz Ahmed brought him from bazaar to the campus. On the advice of the competent authority, a medical examination was conducted on the respondent and as per the medical report ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5396 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.30704 OF2013]. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS KAMLESH KUMAR CHIMANBHAI PATEL & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5470 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.30706 OF2013]. JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The main issue in these appeals pertains to the framing of guidelines regarding payment of compensation in respect of the damage caused by drawing of transmission lines. During the pendency of these appeals, the Government of India has framed fresh guidelines regarding the mode and manner of assessment of compensation.3. These appeals are, hence, disposed of with liberty to the respondents to approach the Government of India, if they have any further grievance(s) with regard to the guidelines. No costs. .......................J.[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]. .......................J.[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]. New Delhi; JUNE29 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) 181 OF2012Life Convict Lal Singh @ Manjeet Singh Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.In view of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2016 today, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. ...............................J.[Dipak Misra]. ...............................J.New Delhi; [Shiva Kirti Singh]. June 29, 2016...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1004 OF2006United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant(s) VERSUS Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1016 OF2006United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant(s) VERSUS Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. Etc. Etc. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) These appeals are filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the common final judgment dated 05.07.2004 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal Nos. 30-33 of 2000 by which the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed their appeals and upheld the order of the State Consumer Commission.2) These appeals involve a short point. However, to appreciate the point, few facts need mention infra.3) The appellant - United India Insurance Company Ltd. is the non- applicant whereas the respondent - Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. is the complainant in the complaint filed before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.11 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 3-4/2016 in Civil Appeal No.8745-8746/2014 MADAN MOHAN AND ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS GURMUKH SINGH AND ORS. Respondent(s) (for directions and office report) Date :29. 06/2016 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. K.K.Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Iftekhar Ahmed, Adv. Mr. P. Narasimhan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Ms. Anushree Menon, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER The appeals are disposed of in terms of signed non-reportable judgment. All pending application (s) shall stand disposed of. (Rajni Mukhi) (Chander Bala) SR. P.A. COURT MASTER (Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file) NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NOS. 3-4 OF2016(Applications for direction) IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8745-874...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2904 OF2011Union of India & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Rajbir Singh ...Respondent With CIVIL APPEAL NO.2905 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.3409 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.5144 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.2279 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.1498 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.5090 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.5414 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.5163 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.5840 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.7368 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.7479 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.7629 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.5469 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.10747 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.11398 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.183 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO.167 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.10105 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL No.5819 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.5260 OF2012CIVILL APPEAL D.16394 OF20131 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1856 OF2015(Arising out of SLP (C) No.15768 of 2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO.1854 OF2015(Arising out of SLP (C) No.14478 of 2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO.1855 OF2015Arising out of SLP (C) No.26401 of 2010 CIVILL APPEAL NO.1858 OF2015(Arising out of SLP(C) N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5394 OF2006[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.14174 OF2015]. AARTHI Appellant(s) VERSUS R.M. RAJESHKUMAR Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The dispute essentially is as to whether HMOP No.63 of 2013 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Karur, Tamil Nadu and HMOP No.1050 of 2014, which is pending in the Family Court at Coimbatore, should be tried in Karur or in Coimbatore.3. The learned counsel on both sides have agreed that both the cases can be tried in Family Court at Coimbatore. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of by transferring HMOP No.63 of 2013, pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Karur, Tamil Nadu to the Family Court at Coimbatore with a direction to the Family Court at Coimbatore to consolidate both the cases and dispose of the same expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of first appearance of the parties pursuant to this order.4. The parties s...
Tag this Judgment!