Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NOS. 22475-22476 OF2012Yogesh Mahajan ... Petitioner Versus Prof. R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences ... Respondent Madan B. Lokur, J.JUDGMENT1 The petitioner who appears in person was initially engaged on a contract basis as a Technical Assistant (ENT) in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in 1998. The initial contract was for a period of three months, but it was renewed from time to time, without any artificial breaks, on a quarterly or a six monthly basis. It appears that the services of the petitioner were taken on contract basis without following any laid down procedure and without adherence to any rules. The contract of the petitioner was finally extended from 1st January, 2010 to 30th June, 2010.2. When the contract of the petitioner was not renewed after 30th June, 2010 he approached the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVILAPPEALNOs.170171OF201 8 (ArisingoutofSLP(C)Nos. 2438788/2013 ) ASHISHKUMAR APPELLANT VERSUS THESTATEOFUTTARPRADESH&ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ASHOKBHUSHAN,J.1.Thesetwoappealshavebeenfiledagainstthejudgmentof High Court of judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Lucknow,dated04.10.2010dismissingtheSpecialAppealNo.446 of2006oftheappellantaswellasjudgmentdated20.12.2012 dismissing the review application filed by the appellant. Partiesshallbereferredtoasreferredintheappeal. 2.Brieffactsofthecasegivingrisetotheseappealsare: The appellant belongs to other backward caste who has passed graduation (B.A.) with Psychology and has also done 2 postgraduation in Psychology from Kanpur University. Appellant has also obtained master degree in Human Resource ManagementandIndustrialRelationsfromLucknowUniversityin theyear1997.Anadvertisementdated30.08.2001wasissuedby the Director, Social We...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CRIMINALAPPEALNOS.21812182OF2017 (ArisingoutofSLP(Crl.)Nos.70527053of2017) RAMBEERSHOKEEN STATEOFNCTOFDELHI :Versus: ..APPELLANT ..RESPONDENT JUDGMENT A.M.Khanwilkar,J.1. Theseappeals,byspecialleave,questionthelegalityand tenability of the judgmentand orderpassed by the learned SingleJudgeoftheHighCourtofDelhiatNewDelhidated 22ndMay,2017inCriminalAppealNo.311/2017andCriminal M.(Bail)No.525/2017.2. Briefly stated, the appellant has been named as an accusedinFIRNo.10of2015registeredatthePoliceStation 2 (SpecialCell),Delhi,foroffencepunishableunderSections3& 4oftheMaharashtraControlofOrganizedCrimeAct,1999 (hereinafterreferredtoastheMCOCA). Hehasalsobeen named as an accused in FIR No.65/2016 for offence punishableunderSections26&27oftheArmsAct,registered atthesamepolicestation.Hewasdeclaredasaproclaimed offender in connection with the said case and was later arrestedon27thNovember,2016. 3. Theap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVILAPPEALNO.2165OF2012 COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX5MUMBAI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S.ESSARTELEHOLDINGSLTD. THROUGHITSMANAGER RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A.No.1429of 2018@SLP(C)No.36560 of 2012, C.A.No.117 of2015,C.A.No.5101of2012,C.A.No.118of2015,C.A. No.6727 of 2015, C.A.No.119 of 2015, C.A.No.116 of 2015,C.A.No.194of2015,C.A.No.114of2015,C.A.No.120of2015,C.A.No.7395of2012,C.A.No.7394of2012, C.A. No. 121 of 2015, C.A. No. 122 of 2015, C.A. Nos.14301432of2018@SLP(C)No.85078509of2012,C.A.No.128 of 2015,C.A.No.1433of2018@SLP(C)No.21294 of 2012 C.A.No.113of20151, C.A.No.7797of2012, C.A.No.381of 2013,C.A.No.7426of2012,C.A.No.8195of2012,C.A.No.126 of 2015, C.A. No. 8800 of 2012, C.A. No. 3273 of 2013, C.A.No.1434of2018@SLP(C)No.10986of2013,C.A.No.124of 2015,C.A.No.1101of2013,C.A.No.129of2015,C.A.No.125 of2015,C.A.No.127of2015,C.A.No.1435of2018@SLP(C)No.21845of2013, C.A.No.6313of2013, C.A.No.6733of2013, C.A.No.6191...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.194/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (Crl) NO.26 OF2018 NON-REPORTABLE BHAUSAHEB VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S) APPELLANT(S) KURIAN, J.JUDGMENT Leave granted. The appellant approached this Court aggrieved by the denial 2. of protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the High Court.3. While issuing notice by order dated 12.01.2018 this Court noted that the appellant had already taken voluntary retirement in the year 2011 and the suicide is of the year 2017. We had requested the learned counsel for the State to get instruction as to the stage of the investigation. Learned counsel for the State submits that the investigation is in progress and the same is yet to be completed.4. Having gone through the materials made available to the Court and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that it is a case where the appellant needs to be given protection on the condition that he would...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)No.2302 of 2017 REPORTABLE SHAFHI MOHAMMAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondent(s) WITH SLP(Crl) No.9431/2011 AND SLP(Crl) No(S). 9631-9634/2012 SLP(Crl.)No.2302 of 2017 : ORDER (1) One of the questions which arose in the course of consideration of the matter was whether videography of the scene of crime or scene of recovery during investigation should be necessary to inspire confidence in the evidence collected. (2) In Order dated 25th April, 2017 statement of Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General is recorded to the effect that videography will help the investigation and was being successfully used in other countries. He referred to the perceived benefits of Body-Worn Cameras in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Body-worn cameras 2 act as deterrent against anti-social behaviour and is also a tool to collect the evidence. It was su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1349/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (C) No.20203 OF2012 SHAHID JAMAL & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) KURIAN, J.JUDGMENT Leave granted. The High Court, as per the impugned order, 2. declined to grant an order in favour of the appellants for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that the application was filed beyond the period of six months.3. To refer to the undisputed facts, though the Award was passed on 31.03.1999, the compensation was paid only on 07.04.1999. There is no dispute that the same was received under protest. According to the appellants, the copy of the Award was not supplied and, therefore, the appellants could not furnish the details of the objections with regard to the Award in the application for reference. 1 4. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON-REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.195/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (CRL.) NO.6315 OF2017 BIKASH MANNA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL RESPONDENT(S) KURIAN, J.JUDGMENT Leave granted.2. Application for impleadment is allowed.3. The appellant approached this Court, aggrieved by the denial of protection under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. by the High Court in connection with FIR No.261 of 2017 dated 02.04.2017.4. 15.09.2017, this Court passed the following order:- When the matter came up before this Court on The petitioner shall take steps to implead the de-facto complainant. On such an application being filed, notice shall be 1 issued to the State as well as to the de-facto complainant. In connection with FIR No.261 of 2017, registered at Police Station Domjur, Howrah, West Bengal, in case the petitioner is arrested, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a self-bond, subject to the condition that he shall cooperate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1281 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.24610 of 2015) AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER ..........Appellant(s) MATHEW K.C. ......Respondent(s) VERSUS JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.Leave granted.2. The present appeal assails an interim order dated 24.04.2015 passed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, staying further proceedings at the stage of Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the SARFAESI Act), on deposit of 1 Rs.3,50,000/-within two weeks. An appeal against the same has also been dismissed by the Division Bench observing that counter affidavit having been filed, it would be open for the Appellant Bank to seek clarification/modification/variation of the interim order.3. Shri H.P. Raval, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, submits that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1301 OF2015Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Appellant (s) The State of Maharashtra Versus WITH Respondent (s) CRIMINAL APPEAL No.165 OF2016Anil Ankush Gadekar Appellant (s) The State of Maharashtra Respondent (s) Versus CRIMINAL APPEAL No.141 OF2016Vishnu Maruti Bule Appellant (s) The State of Maharashtra Respondent (s) Versus 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.91 OF2016Vijay @ Vijay Istriwala Ramdulari Nirmal Appellant (s) Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent (s) CRIMINAL APPEAL No.94 OF2016Sunil Kashinath Chandanshiva Appellant (s) The State of Maharashtra Respondent (s) Versus N.V. RAMANA, J.JUDGMENT1 These five appeals, by way of special leave petitions, are by five accused persons against the conviction imposed by the High Court, wherein leave to appeal to this court has been granted to these accused. Facts being related, and the issue involved being connected, we would like to deal with these case...
Tag this Judgment!