Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.292 OF2006DISABLED RIGHTS GROUP & ANR. .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.997 OF2013JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Three issues are raised in this petition which is filed in public interest, for the benefit of persons suffering from disabililty as per the definition contained in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act, 1995) which now stands repealed and is replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act, 2016). The first issue related to the 2 non-implementation of 3% reservation of seats in educational institutions as provided in Section 39 of the Disabilities Act, 1995 and Section 32 of the Disabilities Act, 2016. Second equally important issue raised in thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS02291-022912 OF2017(Arising out of SLP (C ) Nos 6891-6892 of 2017) HALAPPA ..... APPELLANT MALIK SAB Versus JUDGMENT ..... RESPONDENT Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J1The High Court of Karnataka by a judgment dated 12 July 2011 reversed a decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation to the appellant in the amount of Rs.8,66,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum. While reversing the award of compensation, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant was sitting on the mudguard of a tractor and this was not a risk 2 insured by the insurer. Upon this finding, the High Court allowed the appeal of the insurer and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation. 2 The accident took place on 24 September 2005. The appellant was 28 years old at the time of the accident. The case of the appellant is that on 24 September 2005 he was visiting Sirigere to att...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.22966 OF2017[Arising out of SLP (C) No.27398 of 2016]. SRI DINESH KUMAR. J.@ DINESH J, .....APPELLANT Versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J12 Leave granted. The present appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 13 April 2016. 2 3 On 18 June 2012, the appellant who was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04/EL-4782 met with an accident with a mini lorry belonging to the Second and Third respondents. The lorry was insured with the First respondent. As a result of the accident, the appellant suffered grievous injuries. The medical certificate issued by the Bangalore Baptist Hospital (Exhibits P-13 and P-14) indicate spinal injuries. 4 The appellant was twenty six years of age on the date of the accident and was working as a patroller in a private company. His income was Rs.11,000/- per month. The appellant filed a cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.243 OF2005RAJIVE RATURI .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.228 OF2006JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The petitioner herein, who is a visually disabled person, is resident of Gurgaon (now Gurugram) and works in Delhi with a human rights organisation. He has filed this petition in public interest on behalf of the disabled persons (though better expression to describe these persons is differently-abled persons) for proper and adequate access to public places. In particular, this petition seeks providing all accessibility requirements to meet the needs of visually disabled persons in respect of safe access to roads and transport facilities. It is stated in the petition that there are sixty to seventy million disabled persons in India and 2 almost 50% thereof suffer from visual disability. The fundamental concern of these visually impair...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL2017No .22970 of (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.25040 of 2012) .... Appellants STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. B.R. SAINI Versus . Respondent JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted.2. The Respondent who was working in the Appellant-Bank was removed from service. The order of removal was set aside by a Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench. The correctness of the judgment of the High Court is challenged in this Appeal. Articles of Charges framed against the Respondent 3. when he was working as an Officer MMGS-II are as follows: . 1 No CHARGE You availed Demand Loans fraudulently under fake signatures of the depositors/ owners of the STDRs. 1 | P a g e . 2 No CHARGE You closed certain Demand Loans granted at the branch before the date of inspection and reopened the same on the same day with a view to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6460 OF2008VIJENDRA KUMAR & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER, A.P. CHARITABLE & RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS & ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT AMITAVA ROY, J.1. The appellants in their relentless pursuit for a declaration that the temple, which is the subject matter of the lis is their private place of worship and not a public shrine, has put to challenge the determination to the contrary made by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.2007 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.393 of 1992. Thereby the verdict of the Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the appellants had been affirmed. 2 2. We have heard Mr. V.V.S. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.3. The background facts in short need be outlined at the threshold for the desired comprehension of the issue seeking resolution. The flo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.15135 OF2017MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED APPELLANT VERSUS SHILPI CABLE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ...RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.15481 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL NO.15447 OF2017JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. The present appeals raise two important questions which arise under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The first question is whether, in relation to an operational debt, the provision contained in Section 9(3)(c) of the Code is mandatory; and 1 secondly, whether a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor.2. The facts contained in the three appeals are similar. For the purpose of this judgment, the facts contained in Civil Appeal No.15481 of 2017 will now be set out. Hamera International Private Limited executed an agreement with the appellant, Macquarie Bank Limited, Singapore, on 27.7.2015, by which the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO .19400 OF2017[Arising out of SLP (C) No.8858 of 2017]. RAJ KUMAR BHATIA Versus .....APPELLANT SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA .....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J1The present appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 5 October 2016 by which an order of the Trial Court allowing an application filed by the appellant for amendment of the written statement was set aside. 2 On 11 October 2002, Sharda Rani Bhatia instituted a suit for the recovery of possession, arrears of damages and mesne profits against the appellant. The 2 property in dispute is situated on the first floor at 1/6 Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The case of the original plaintiff is that Desh Raj Bhatia acquired the leasehold rights on 13 February 1962. On his death, his children are stated to have relinquished their rights and interest in favour of their mother, Lajwanti Bhatia. She executed a will bequeathing the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.022967 OF2017(Arising out of SLP (C ) No 27279 of 2015) HARPAL SINGH ASHOK KUMAR & ANR Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J ..... APPELLANT Versus ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT12 Leave granted. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, by a judgment dated 19 September 2014 rejected a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition sought to challenge an order dated 21 August 2010 of the Additional 2 District Judge (North) rejecting the objections of the appellant in the course of the execution of a decree. 3 Sometime in 2002 a suit was instituted by the respondents for a permanent injunction, alleging that the defendants to the suit were threatening to interfere with the possession of their lands situated at Nilothi, Delhi. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 14 February 2005, holding it to be barred by the provisions of Section 185 (1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The Trial cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NOS. 93010 AND930072017 IN WRIT PETITION (C) No.4677 OF1985M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India & Ors. ... Petitioner ... Respondents IN RE: VISHVJYOTI OVERSEAS (P) LTD. & ORS. ..Applicants JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Invaders have pillaged Delhi for hundreds of years, but for the last couple of decades it is being ravaged by its own citizens and officials governing the capital city we refer to unauthorized constructions and misuse of residential premises for industrial and other commercial purposes. This Court has focussed on these illegal activities in several decisions and has issued directions from time to time to try and bring some sanity to urban living but to little or no effect. The applications before us, the chronology of events and the historical developments W.P. (C) No.4677 of 1985 Page 1 of 24 leading up to these applications has given cause to reflect and decide on some of these issues keeping our c...
Tag this Judgment!