Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.496 OF2017(With I.A. No.52343 of 2017) Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research and Ors. ..Petitioners Versus Union of India and Anr. ..Respondents JUDGMENT A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.1. The petitioners made an application to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India for establishment of a new medical college at Murukambattu Village, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, in the name and style of Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research for the academic session 2016-17. The Ministry forwarded the application to the Medical Council of India (for short MCI) for evaluation and for making recommendations to the Ministry under Section 10A of 2 the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, (for short195. Act) for the academic session 2016-17. MCI submitted an assessment report after which the respondent No.1 Central Government declined to issue a letter of permission to the petitioners colle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION .. APPELLANT(S) PARMANAND SINGH (D) TH. LRS CIVIL APPEAL No.7183 OF2008Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J... RESPONDENT(S) 1. The present case reveals a very sorry state of affairs. It appears that the ancestors of the appellant were Zamindars, and the appellants claim that they were in possession of the disputed land, which is roughly 5 acres, since 1930. On 25th July, 1974, proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Act were initiated against the appellants on the ground that the said land belonged to the State Government and the Gaon Sabha and that the appellants therefore ought to be evicted. After the appellants filed their reply in the aforesaid proceedings, by order dated 25th July, 1974, the proceedings were dropped and it was stated that proceedings under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act be initiated. 2 2. On 30th October, 1974, the State Government on behalf of the Union o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.709 OF2017(With I.A. No.74584 of 2017) Shri Gangajali Education Society & Anr. .Petitioners Versus Union of India and Ors. ....Respondents A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.JUDGMENT1 The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order of respondent No.1 dated 14th August, 2017, whereby respondent No.1, relying upon the recommendations made by respondent No.2, rejected the petitioners application for establishment of a medical college and debarred the petitioners from admitting students to the said college for two years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also directed that the petitioners bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crore be encashed. 2 2. Petitioner No.1 Shri Gangajali Education Society had made an application to the respondent No.1 Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India (for short MHFW) for establishment of a new medical college at Bhilai, Chhatisgarh in the name and style o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No.11126 OF2017(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) No.20679 OF2017 HRD CORPORATION (MARCUS OIL AND CHEMICAL DIVISION) APPELLANTS VERSUS GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED (FORMERLY GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.) RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.11127 OF2017(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) No.20675 OF2017 JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1.2. Leave granted. The present appeals raise interesting questions relating to the applicability of Sections 12 and 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in particular with respect to sub-section (5) of Section 12 added by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 3 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as the 2016 Amendment Act).3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to decide this case are as follows. The respondent, GAIL (India), issued a notice inviting 1 tenders for supply of wax generated at GAILs plant at Pata, Uttar Pradesh for a period of 20 years on an exclusive bas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6749 OF2008BOMMA SUBBA LAKSHMI Appellant(s) VERSUS SUTAPALLI BHIMLINGAESWARA RAO & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. The appellant approached this Court challenging the Judgment dated 07.09.2006 passed in F.A. No.3165 of 2007 by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The issue pertains to partition.2. Having heard the matter for some time, we directed the parties to be personally present before this Court and we are happy to note that on the suggestion made by the Court, the parties and their respective counsel have taken genuine efforts to see that the dispute, which is essentially between the sister and the brother, are patched up. It is heartening to note that they have filed a compromise, settling the entire disputes. The memorandum of settlement dated 21.08.2017, duly signed by the parties, has been produced before this Court by way of an interlocutory application. 2 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 8337-8338 OF2017M/S. INNOVENTIVE INDUSTRIES LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS ICICI BANK & ANR. JUDGMENT ...RESPONDENTS R.F. Nariman, J.1. The present case raises interesting questions which arise under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), which received the Presidential assent on 28th May, 2016, but which provisions were brought into force only in November-December, 2016.2. The appellant before us is a multi-product company catering to applications in diverse sectors. From August, 2012, 1 owing to labour problems, the appellant began to suffer losses. Since the appellant was not able to service the financial assistance given to it by 19 banking entities, which had extended credit to the appellant, the appellant itself proposed corporate debt restructuring. The 19 entities formed a consortium, led by the Central Bank of India, and by a joint meeting dated 22nd Februa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.22 OF2009Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager .Appellant(s) VERSUS C.S. Shyam & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 20.09.2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.2100 of 2007 whereby the High Court disposed of the writ appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the judgment passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant 1 herein challenging the order of the Central Information Commission holding that the appellant must provide the information sought by respondent No.1 herein under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2) Few relevant facts need mention to appreciate the controversy involved in appeal.3) The appellant herein is a nationalized Bank. It has a branch in District Malappuram in the State of Kerala. Resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.245 OF2010AMIT VASHISTHA .........APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SURESH AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 30.01.2009 in Criminal Revision No.445 of 2007. By the impugned order, the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code on the premise that the adjudication proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter for short the Act) not being before a court, the complaint itself was not maintainable.2. In an adjudication proceeding under Section 7A of the Act, with regard to provident fund claims of the respondent, the 1 Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner filed a complaint on 22.06.2001 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 228 IPC, that the respondent had obstructed and interfered with the proceedings by abusing the Pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.513 OF2017(With I.A. No.74980 of 2017) Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust and Anr. .Petitioners Union of India and Ors. Versus WITH ..Respondents WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.681 OF2017(With I.A. No.75275 of 2017) JUDGMENT A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.1. The petitioner No.1 Dr. Jagat Narain Subharti Charitable Trust, Dehradun, made an application to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India for establishment of a new medical college at Dehradun in the name and style Shridev Suman Subharti Medical College & 2 Hospital, Dehradun from the academic session 2016-17 onwards. That application was forwarded to Medical Council of India (for short MCI) for evaluation and making recommendations to the Ministry under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short195. Act). The Executive Committee of MCI considered the proposal pertaining to the aforementioned new medical col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No.468 OF2017KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) .PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER .RESPONDENTS With IA No.73463 of 2017 JUDGMENT AMITAVA ROY, J.The instant application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is for laciniating the order dated 31.5.2017 issued by the respondent No.1 Union of India, thereby debarring the medical college of the petitioner in the name and style of Kanachur Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as college/institution) at Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka from making admission in MBBS Course for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorizing as well the Medical 2 Council of India, (for short hereinafter referred to as MCI) to encash the bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores furnished by it. Further, an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought for to direct the respondents to...
Tag this Judgment!