Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No(s). 2511/2011 THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RAGHOGARH & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS NATIONAL FERTILIZER LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal No.2512/2011 THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RAGHOGARH & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J.1. These two Appeals arise out of a common Judgment 2 passed on 3rd August, 2007 in First Appeal Nos.1 of 1996 and 175 of 1995, respectively, by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior.2. The short question that arises for our consideration in these appeals is whether the contesting respondents herein, i.e. National Fertilizers Limited and Gas Authority of India Limited, are liable to pay external development charges to the appellant Municipal Council as per its demand?.3. Both the contesting respondents in these appeals were allotted forest lands within the municipal limits of the appellant Council. Subseq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO71OF2018[Arising out of SLP(C) No.5847 of 2017]. M/S NEERJA REALTORS PVT LTD JANGLU (DEAD) THR. LR. VERSUS ..Appellant ..Respondent JUDGMENT Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J12 Delay condoned. The present appeal is from the judgment of a Single Judge at the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. While allowing a first appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment and order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Nagpur which had decreed a suit for specific performance instituted by the appellant, ex-parte. 3 The subject matter of the suit for specific performance is an agreement dated 15 July 2006 entered into by the appellant with the original defendant in 2 respect of agricultural land admeasuring 1.66 Hectares (4.07 acres) situated in Mauza-Sondapar, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur. The total consideration payable under the agreement was Rs 13,04,391 out of which an amount of Rs 3,26,000 was r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.175/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (Crl) No.8464/2017) NON-REPORTABLE BIRBAL PRASAD @ BIRBAL PRASAD SAH @ BIRBAL PRASAD SAO @ BIRBAL SAH VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR RESPONDENT(S) APPELLANT(S) KURIAN, J.JUDGMENT Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and 2. the respondent/State of Bihar.3. Taking note of the fact that the quantity involved in this case is only 14 Kgs. of Ganja, which is a non-commercial quantity, we had requested the learned counsel for the State to ascertain as to whether the appellant is involved in any other case.4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on instruction, has fairly submitted that the appellant is not involved in any other case.5. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant should be released on bail, pending trial.6. The appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4189 OF2007Flora Elias Nahoum & Ors. .... Appellants Versus Idrish Ali Laskar . Respondent JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal arises from the final judgment and final order/decree dated 07.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.A. No.416 of 1984 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the eviction suit filed by the appellants against the respondent and set aside the decree for 1 eviction passed by the Trial Court in their favour and against the respondent.2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts in detail herein-below.3. The appellants are the plaintiffs (landlords) whereas the respondent is the defendant (tenant) in the eviction suit out of which this appeal arises.4. The appellants (plaintiffs) are the owners/landlords of one shop (room) bearing premises No.1, Hartford Lane, Calcutta (hereinafter referred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3018 OF2008Kanaklata Das & Ors. .Appellant(s) VERSUS Naba Kumar Das & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 21.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Kolkata in C.O. No.1759 of 2006 whereby the High Court allowed the application filed by respondent No.1 herein and reversed the judgment and order dated 15.12.2005 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Kolkata in Ejectment Suit No.1615 of 2000 wherein the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by respondent No.1 herein under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of 1 Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for impleadment as Plaintiff in the pending ejectment suit.2. The controversy involved in this appeal is short and it would be clear from the few relevant facts mentioned hereinbelow.3. The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas respondent Nos. 2 to 5 ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4741 OF2007Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association .Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Karnataka & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 19.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.556 of 2007 (GM-POLICE) whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein praying for setting aside the order 1 dated 09.02.2007 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.27523 of 2005.2) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts infra in detail including the background facts, which led to filing of this appeal.3) The appellant is the Association registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. The Association is formed by the persons, who are engaged in the busi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVILAPPEALNO.871OF2018 arisingoutofSLP(C)No.26528of2013 THESTATEOFMADHYAPRADESH&ORS....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MANOJSHARMA&ORS....RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVILAPPEALNO.872OF2018 arisingoutofSLP(C)No.26529of2013 THESTATEOFMADHYAPRADESH&ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ALOKTRIPATHI&ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOKBHUSHAN,J.Leavegranted.2. These two appeals have beenfiled against theidenticallywordedjudgmentsofHighCourt of Madhya Pradesh dated 05.12.2012 and 17.01.2013 respectively dismissing the writ 2 appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thefactsandissueinboththeappealsbeing common,itissufficienttorefertothefacts and pleadings in civil appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.26528of2017fordecidingboththe appeals. The parties shall be referred to as describedinthewritpetition.3. The writ petitioners had passed M.Phil. from different universities under distance education (between the year 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1224 OF2008Mst. Anusuiya @ Saraswatibai & Anr. .Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) This appeal is filed by the two accused persons against the final judgment and order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.419 of 1992 whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the judgment dated 02.04.1992 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No.3/91 1 convicting the appellants-accused under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) reduced the period of their sentence awarded under Section 306 IPC from Seven years to five years and a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months and under Section 498A, from three years to two years. Both th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1676 OF2009Subhash Chander Bansal ... Appellant Versus Gian Chand and Ors. ... Respondents JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Complainant against the final judgment and order dated 04.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.174 of 1999 by which the High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by the appellant herein. 1 2. In order to dispose of the appeal, few relevant facts need mention hereinbelow.3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (five accused persons) were prosecuted under Sections 307/325/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code,1908 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) for causing injuries to two persons namely, Om Prakash and Ravinder Kumar, with Hockey at around 7.15 p.m. on 29.07.1988. The prosecution was initiated against the respondents on the basis of FIR No.128 dated 03.08.1988 lodged by the appellant herein, who is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.881 OF2018[Arising out of SLP (C) No.7470 of 2012]. H.V. Nirmala & Anr. .. Appellants Versus R. Sharmila & Anr. .. Respondents JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. 2. Leave granted. This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No.1128 of 2008 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 1 3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts hereinbelow.4. The appellants are defendant Nos. 2 and 3, whereas respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No.1 in the civil suit, out of which this appeal arises.5. The dispute is essentially between the family members and it relates to certain immovable properties originally belonged to the Head of the family known as - Ramaiah. The family tr...
Tag this Judgment!