Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1715 OF2005G. RAMA SHARMA Appellant(s) VERSUS GOVT. OF A.P. & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. The appellant has approached this Court, aggrieved by the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, culminating in the termination from service.2. Going by his age as of now, he has otherwise attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the question is only academic as of now since the appellant is not interested in pursuing the case for monetary benefits.3. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the civil appeal can be disposed of. Ordered accordingly. .......................J.[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]. .......................J.[ R. BANUMATHI ]. New Delhi; March 22, 2017....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3939/2007 GURBACHAN SINGH APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RAVINDER PAUL MOHINDRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties for quite some time.2. Finding that there is a genuine human problem, we sought the assistance of Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel, to see whether the parties could agree for an amicable settlement of the disputes.3. We are happy to note that Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel, has been successful in making the parties agree for a reasonable settlement. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of as follows: i) The appellant shall surrender vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question on the last day of the month in which Deepawali falls in the year 2019. ii) The appellant shall not induct any sub-tenant and if there is anybody now occupying the premises, the appellant shall see that the said person also vacate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6908 OF2008VED PRAKASH ARYA @ RAMJEE & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS PANNA LAL & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. The appellants, who are the tenants under the respondents, unsuccessful before the High Court, have filed this appeal.2. On 12.03.2004, notice was issued on the following terms :- Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why all the proceedings be not set aside in view of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act No.13 of 1972 being not applicable to trust property. Issue notice on interim relief. The possession of the petitioners over the suit property shall remain protected until further orders.3. Having extensively heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find that in the peculiar facts of this case, the above question needs to be gone into.4. Faced with such a situation, the learned counsel for the appellants sought som...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.757 OF2008MAHARASHTRA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS DILIP GANPATRAO LANJEWAR & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Respondent No.1 was appointed initially for a period of 10 months i.e. from 01.07.1990 to 30.04.1991. After a period of two months (apparently summer vacation), the respondent was again appointed as teacher for a period of 10 months. Thereafter, he was discontinued from service.2. The respondent challenged the same before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuance was illegal. Therefore, an order was passed to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits.3. The same was challenged by the appellant Management before the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed. The appellant still pursued the matter before the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal. The appeal was also dismissed. Hence, this appeal.4. Mr. A. V. Mohta, learned seni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4375 OF2017(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.30666/2015) Dinshaw Rusi Mehta & Anr. .Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) Leave granted.2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition (c) No.938 of 2013 whereby the High Court rejected the petition filed by the appellants herein for quashing and setting aside the judgment/order dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Charity Commissioner-respondent No.2 herein vide which the Charity Commissioner has granted permission to the respondents under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 on the conditions stipulated therein.3) We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal.4) There is one public and charitable Trust called "Parsi Lying-in Hospital" (hereinafter referred to as PLIH) h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4385 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.35153 OF2016]. G N SUBRAMANYA UPADHYAYA Appellant(s) VERSUS SOUMYA M. HEGDE Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1626 OF2015WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1624 OF2015JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Crl. Appeal No.1626 OF2015and Crl. Appeal No.1624 OF20151. The learned counsel for the appellant, on instruction, seeks leave to withdraw these appeals. Permission is granted. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. Civil Appeal No.4385 of 2017 [@ SLP (C) No.35153 of 2016].1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, whereby the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court at the instance of the respondent-wife has been affirmed by the High Court. It is seen that the High Court has taken note of the fact that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. However, it may be noted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4354 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.33992/2013]. RAM JANKI MANDIR APPELLANT(S) VERSUS NURUDDIN BHARMAL RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant/landlord filed a petition for eviction of the respondent/tenant on three grounds, i.e. (i) arrears of rent, (ii) nuisance; and (iii) need for reconstruction. The Trial Court allowed the eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and need for reconstruction. The same was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The respondent/tenant moved the High Court. On the ground of need for reconstruction, the High Court took the view that the Trial Court should have ascertained whether the respondent/tenant was willing to reoccupy the premises after reconstruction and having not done that, the matter was remitted to the Trial Court.3. No doubt, there is a statutory requirement of ascertainment of willingness of the tenant as to whether he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.547 OF2007Ganesh Shamrao Andekar & Anr. Appellants Versus State of Maharashtra Respondent JUDGMENT Prafulla C. Pant, J.This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2007 passed by High Court of judicature at Bombay, whereby Criminal Appeal No.643 of 1989 filed by the respondent-State was allowed, and the appellants are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity I.P.C.), and each one of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ?.5,000/- in default of payment of which the defaulter convict is directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year.2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that appellant No.2 and deceased were neighbours and they used to live with their families in Guruwar Peth, Pune. There was enmity between the two families. Earlier also a criminal case was filed against accused Shamrao Ande...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.612/2007 HAKEEM KHAN & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF M.P. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.788/2008 JUDGMENT ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, J.The incident which occurred in the present case took place in the dark on 30th January, 1990. 30 January is a dark day in world history. Charles I of England lost both his crown and his head on this day in 1649. Hitler came to power on this day in 1933. And the Father of our Nation was assassinated on this day in 1948. The backdrop of this incident occurred when one Ajij Khan and Shabbir Khan, had contested a Panchayat election. Shabbir Khan was elected as Sarpanch resulting in bad blood between the complainant party and the accused/appellants. On the date of the incident, one Chhote Khan lodged an FIR of the said incident in which he stated that one Sayeed Khan had told him that when he was coming from village Shyampur to Mukhtyar Nagar, Hafiz Khan, Jafr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8299 OF2010Palanisamy and Ors. .Appellants Versus K Dhanpalan ..Respondent J u d g m e n t A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.1. The respondent filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on 02.09.1997, for initiating action against the appellants regarding their professional misconduct. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu referred the complainant to its Disciplinary Committee vide a Resolution No.271/1998 dated 26.10.1998. The Disciplinary Committee No.II of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu then registered a complaint bearing D.C.C. No.57/1998. As the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council could not complete the enquiry within one year, the complaint was transferred to the Bar Council of India and came to be renumbered as Transferred Case No.150/2000. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India proceeded with the enquiry and at the end of the enquiry found that the appellants were guilty of ...
Tag this Judgment!