Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.388 OF20171 FOUNDATION FOR ORGANISATIONAL RESEARCH & EDUCATION FORE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT PETITIONER(S) VERSUS ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE) RESPONDENT(S) ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition raises the issue concerning the Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management- International Business (PGDM-IB) program. By means of letter dated 10.04.2017, the respondent sanctioned the petitioner to increase its intake in the PGDM-IB program by 60 students. Thus, the total seats available in the PGDM-IB program became 120 (60 seats were already sanctioned since 2007). The petitioner accordingly notified its intake capacity of 120 seats in the PGDM-IB course and on this basis started accepting fee and making admissions to the said course. By means of corrigendum letter dated 21.04.2017 the respondent withdrew the increased intake of 60 seats thereby reducing the capa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.No.1&2 of 2017 IN Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5386/2014 (Against the impugned final judgment & order dated 30.10.013 of the High Court of Judicature for Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Civil Writ Petition No.8537/2013) 1 KUTUBUDDIN AGARBATTIWALA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS AMINA BAI & ORS. (For directions and exemption from filing O.T.) Date :29. 05/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA [VACATION BENCH]. Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr.Mohan Pandey, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents are ready to return the cost/fees which was paid by the petitioner to the arbitrator appointed by this Court. He further submits that the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.757-758 OF2016SATISH AND ANOTHER ETC. ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The appellants stand convicted under Section 120-B, 302, 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant Satish has been further convicted under the Arms Act.2. The deceased, husband of appellant Anita, was fatally assaulted inside his house at about 1.30 a.m. in the night intervening 31.03.2007/01.04.2007. PW-2 Sahil, the son of the deceased, went and informed PW-1 Sunita who lived next door. The police report was lodged by PW-1 the next morning at about 9:00 a.m. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 01.04.2007 by PW-10 Dr. Suman Tanwar, which revealed eight incised wounds and seventeen penetrating incised 1 wounds.3. Ms. Prachi Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants Satish and Kishan, submits that there was an unexplained delay of eight hours in l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NOS.9-12 & 13-16 OF2016IN SLP (C) NOS.6828-6831 OF2016STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. PETITIONERS VERSUS KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS. ... RESPONDENTS With I.A. NOS.1-4 OF2016IN AND WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS.421-424 OF2016IN SLP (C) NOS.6828-6831 OF2016JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. State Bank of India and 13 other banks[1]. have filed the instant special leave petitions challenging the order dated 04.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition Nos.12191-12194 of 2016 refusing to pass any ad interim order against Respondent Nos.3, 10 and 11. According to the petitionersbanks they had individually advanced to Respondent No.1 loans of thousands of crores of rupees; that by Master Debts Recast Agreement dated 21.10.2010 and other related documents the existing loans were restructured and treated as a single facility; and that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 executed a corporate guarant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON CIVIL APPEAL No.6461 OF2017(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.36427 of 2014 PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA APPELLANT VERSUS B.R. GUPTA RESPONDENT JUDGMENT S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.1 Leave granted. 2 This appeal emanates from the proceedings of an eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord on 12.4.2004 under Sections 14(1)(a),(b), (d) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act) against the appellant-tenant before the Additional Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant from the premises bearing property No.47, 1st Floor, Bunglow Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. It is an admitted position that the premises in question was let out by the landlord to the tenant for residential purposes and the last paid rent was @ Rs.500/- p.m. exclusive of other charges. The eviction petition was confined ultimately to the solitary ground under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The landlord issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2991 OF2017Kameng Dolo ... Appellant Versus Atum Welly ... Respondent JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for brevity, the Act) assailing against judgment and order dated 08.02.2017 whereby the High Court of Gauhati had allowed the Election Petition 2 of 2014 filed by the respondent herein, and declared the election of the appellant herein, from No.12 Pakke- Kessang (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency (hereinafter referred to as constituency), as void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act.2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant and the respondent filed their respective nomination papers from the earlier mentioned constituency. No other candidate had filed nomination papers in respect of the said constituency. Respondents younger brother, Sri Utung Welly was the election age...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1353-1354 OF2017(@ S.L.P. (CIVIL) NOS. 35104-35105 OF2016 Consortium of Titagarh Firema Adler ... Appellant(s) S.P.A. Titagarh Wagons Ltd. through Authorized Signatory, Titagarh Towers, 756, Anandapur, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata - 700 107, West Bengal Versus Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. ... Respondent(s) (NMRCL) having its Head Office at Metro House, Bungalow No.28/2, Anand Nagar, C.K. Naidu Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur through its General Manager (Procurement) & Anr. WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1355 OF2017(@ S.L.P. (CIVIL) No.36308 OF2016 JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., the 1st respondent herein, issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 25.01.2016 for the work of design, manufacture, supply, testing, commissioning of 69 passenger rolling stock (Electrical Multiple Units) and training of personnel at Nagpur Metro Rail Project. The said project is being funded by KfW Development Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.444 OF2013Gaurav Kumar Bansal .Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents WITH Writ PETITIOIN (CIVIL ) No.823 OF2013Foundation for Resto. of National Values .Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. These two writ petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution consequent upon the unprecedented flood and landslide disaster that occurred in Uttarakhand in 2013. Undoubtedly the disaster led to widespread damage to life, limb and property and according to the petitioners, the adverse impact of the disaster could have been mitigated had there been effective implementation of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short the Act) and adequate preparedness by the State Government of Uttarakhand. It was alleged in the writ petitions that many of the other States were also not fully prepared to deal with a disaster and therefore nec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7020 OF2011GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED ...APPELLANT VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. The appellant Company, incorporated in the year 1932, is engaged in the business of manufacture of steel furniture, security equipments, typewriters, electrical equipments and a host of other related products. It is also a promoter of various other companies and invests its funds in such companies in order to maintain control of such concerns as sister concerns.2. The issue in the present appeal relates to the admissibility or otherwise of deduction of expenditure incurred in earning dividend income which is not includible in the total income of the Assessee by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as in force during the relevant Assessment Year i.e. 2002-2003.3. For the Assessm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
R e p o r t a b l e IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.394 OF2017State of jharkhaND through sp, cbi Appellant VERSUS lalu prasad @ lalu prasad Yadav Respondent with CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.393 OF2017State of jharkhaND through s.p., cbi Appellant VERSUS Sajal chakrabortY Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.395 OF2017State of jharkhaND through sp, cbi Appellant VERSUS dr. jagannath mishra Respondent JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The appeals arise out of three separate judgments and orders of learned Single Judge of High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi discharging three accused persons namely; Lalu Prasad Yadav, Sajal Chakraborty and Dr. Jagannath Mishra on the ground of their conviction in one of the criminal cases arising out of fodder scam of erstwhile State of Bihar. Applying the provision under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.PC), the High Court has quashed RC No.64A/96 ...
Tag this Judgment!