Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 483/2009 NON-REPORTABLE H. PRABHAKAR BALIGA & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VASUDEVA RAO KANEMAR @ V.R. KANEMAR & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.The appellants/tenants are aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the High Court. According to the appellants, House Rent Control Petition for eviction was not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 2(7) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that at the time when the eviction petition was filed the same was maintainable and the bar was only created by the subsequent amendment. It is also submitted that these aspects have been considered by this Court in R. Kapilnath (Dead) through LR. v. Krishna, reported in (2003) 1 SCC444 It has been held by this Court that the proceedings which had already been initiated prior to the amendments would not affect the pending actions.3. It is, accordingly, di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.295 OF2012Dr. S. Rajaseekaran (II) Union of India & Ors. Versus ....Petitioner ....Respondents JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, an orthopaedic surgeon, a public spirited citizen and President of the Indian Orthopaedic Association has, inter alia, prayed for enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims.2. The petitioner states that in his capacity as Chairman and Head of Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, he witnesses daily, the acute loss of life and limbs caused by road accidents. He suggests that practical measures need to be taken in a time-bound and W.P. (C) No.295 of 2012 Page 1 of 33 expeditious manner to give effect to legislations, reports and recommendations for ensuring that the loss of lives due to road accidents is minimized. The petitioner estim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CA No....... OF2017@ SLP (C) No.29919 OF2016REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.19962 OF2017(Arising out of SLP(C) No.29919 of 2016) VINOD GOYAL & OTHERS Appellants Versus VISHRANTI CITY RESIDENTS WELFARE SOCIETY & OTHERS ....Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 22.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in and by which the High Court directed auction of the personal properties of the partners/ex-partners of the developer firm and also directing the individual consumer/buyer/allottee to file complaint against the former or present proprietors of the developer firm.3. The appellants are partners in the developer firm-M/S Sai Apartments and Infrastructure Ltd. which has evolved the plan for setting up residential project and was given licence by the Page No.1 of 8 CA No....... OF2017@ SLP (C) No.29919 OF2016Government of Punjab to develop the said plotted colony....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4767-4769 OF2001PATEL FIELD MARSHAL AGENCIES AND ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS P.M. DIESELS LTD. AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.19937 OF2017(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.1851 OF2009, CIVIL APPEAL NO.19938 OF2017(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.27309 OF2012 S.L.P. (C) NO.30121 OF2012AND JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI,J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No.1851 of 2009 and S.L.P. (C) No.27309 of 2012. 2 2. A relatively simple question though of considerable importance in Intellectual Property Rights jurisdiction has presented itself for an authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the present bunch of appeals. The question arising will be formulated for an answer at a subsequent stage and for the present we will take notice of the relevant facts giving rise to the issue in question.3. The respondent in Civil Appeal Nos.4767-4769 of 2001 (P.M. Diesels Ltd.) is the registered owner of three trade mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.1088 OF2017Common Cause Versus .... Petitioner(s) Union of India and Others .... Respondent(s) ORDER R.K. Agrawal, J.1) By means of the present public interest litigation (PIL), the petitioner, Common Cause, a Registered Society, through its President Shri Kamal Kant Jaswal, questions the validity of the order dated 22.10.2017 issued by Secretariat of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) appointing Shri Rakesh Asthana Respondent No.2 herein as the Special Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the ground that the appointment has been made illegally, arbitrarily, mala fide and 1 in violation of the principles of impeccable and institutional 2 integrity.2) We have heard learned Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General appearing for the Union of India.3) Shri Prashant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.19881 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.7740 OF2017 DR. NAZRUL ISLAM Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.7741 OF2017JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.SLP (C) No.7740 OF2017Leave granted.1. 2. The appellant is before this Court challenging the Judgment dated 08.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in WP CT No.140 of 2015. The main contention of the appellant is that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him cannot be continued once he has retired from service.3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Union of India and the State of West Bengal have invited our attention to Rule 6(1) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 and submit that the departmental proceedings can be continued for the purpose of withholding the pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, 2 whether permanently or fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Khilendra Singh Versus Union of India Ministry of Agriculture Through Secretary & Ors. NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.___19862_____ OF2017(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil ) No.14201 of 2011) .... Appellant .Respondents JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted.2. The Appellant applied for appointment to the posts of Subject Matter Specialist (Crop Protection & Crop Psychology) in Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan, Almora. The Appellant belongs to Jaat caste which was falling within the category of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Tesildar, Thakurdwara, Moradabad (U.P.) issued a certificate in favour of the Appellant stating that he belongs to Other Backward 1 | P a g e Classes on 22nd June, 2007. The Appellant was appointed on 2nd January, 2008 in a post reserved for OBCs. A show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant asking him to explain as to why his appointment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL NO...........OF2017@ SLP (C) NO.31405/2016 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.19856 OF2017(Arising out of SLP(C) No.31405 of 2016) LAXMIDHAR NAYAK AND ORS. Appellants Versus JUGAL KISHORE BEHERA AND ORS. ...Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. Appellants who are the sons and daughter of the deceased Chanchali Nayak have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of their mother in the road accident on 29.09.1991 as against compensation of Rs.70,600/- awarded by the tribunal and affirmed by the High Court of Orissa.3. Mother of appellants-Chanchali Nayak was working as an agricultural labourer. On the date of accident - 29.09.1991 at about 8.00 a.m., Chanchali Nayak was proceeding on the left side of the 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO...........OF2017@ SLP (C) NO.31405/2016 road alongwith some other labourers. At that time, due to head-on-collision between two vehicles-bus (bearing No.OSF5157 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION ( CIVIL ) NO .55 OF2013KOSHY JACOB Petitioner VERSUS UNION OF INDIA &ORS. Respondents ORDER1 We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeks 2. direction for implementation of guidelines issued by this Court in Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2009) 5 SCC212 3. According to the averments in the petition, the petitioner is an advocate. He was forced to spend more than 12 hours on road to reach his home after being discharged from hospital after surgery on 23rd May, 2012, on account of an on-going agitation. According to the petitioner, large number of strikes/agitations have taken place resulting in destruction of public property and also resulting in violation of fundamental right of the people for which suitable remedy is not available to the aggrieved victims. 2 Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.191 OF2017MANOHAR LAL SHARMA Petitioner VERSUS SANJAY LEELA BHANSALI & ORS. Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India giving it the nomenclature of public interest litigation basically with twin prayers that a film titled Padmavati should not be exhibited in other countries without obtaining the requisite certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for brevity, the Act) and the Rules and guidelines framed thereunder and further to issue a writ of mandamus to the Central Bureau 2 of Investigation (CBI), respondent No.5 herein, to register an FIR against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and their team members for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act read with Sections 153A, 295, 295A, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of...
Tag this Judgment!