Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8113 OF2009THE VICE CHANCELLOR, RANCHI UNIVERSITY & ORS. .Appellant(s) VERSUS JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No.440 of 2006, whereby the High Court setting aside the order of the Single 1 Judge allowed the L.P.A. filed by the respondent Nos.9 and 10 herein.2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts in detail hereinbelow.3. The appellant is the University at Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the University) whereas respondent no.1 is the State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) created under the State Law.4. On 05.07.1976, the Board allotted 192 Flats to the University for the residence of the University's employees known as Ranchi Universit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.863 OF2012RAJENDRA SINGH ..Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal is filed by the accused against the final judgment and order dated 3.11.2003 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Government Criminal Appeal No.377 of 1999 whereby the High Court reversed the judgment of the Sessions Judge 1 and convicted the appellant for the commission of offence of murder of Satyapal Singh under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.2. Few facts need mention for disposal of the appeal infra.3. The appellant was prosecuted for commission of the offence of murder of one Satyapal Singh Chauhan by firing a bullet from his revolver on 01.12.1994. Due to gunshot injury caused to Satyapal Singh from the short distance, he died while he was being taken to the hospital after t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2301 OF2009BHAGIRATH ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI,J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.309 of 2007 in and by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and also the life imprisonment imposed upon him.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2005 at about 10.00 p.m. the deceased-Bherulal was surrounded by the appellant- Bhagirath (armed with farsi) and other accused persons (since acquitted) viz. Mangu, Sangita Bai, Suma Bai and Ramkunwar. In the wordy quarrel between the deceased and the appellant-accused Bhagirath is said to have inflicted the farsi blow on the right side of skull near ear. When PW-6 (Ramchandra) tried to save the deceased, he also sustained injuries on his right hand. Further, case of the prosecution...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No(s). 4451 OF2009SHRIKANT Appellant(s) VERSUS NARAYAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s) BANUMATHI, J.: JUDGMENT (1) This appeal arises out of judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, in Second Appeal NO.303 of 1998 dated 29th September, 2005 and also review petition, M.C.C. NO.1258 of 2005 dated 27th January, 2006, in and by which the High Court has held that the quit notice issued by the appellant-landlord was defective and hence the appellant is not entitled to seek for eviction. (2) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned judgment and the evidence and the materials on record. 2 (3) The appellant herein has filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent of Rs.2700/- per month. The Trial Court decreed the suit and ordered eviction of the respondent(s). The Trial Court recorded the finding that there is landlord-tenant relatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IA NOS. 6 AND8OF2016IA NOS. 10, 11, 80176, 96202, 109668, 109720 AND12277 OF2017IA NOS. 68888 AND68897OF2018WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.728 OF2015IN ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.891 OF2016WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.895 OF2016WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.899 OF2016A N D WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.213 OF2017JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Writ Petition (Civil) No.728 of 2015 was filed on September 24, 2015 on behalf of three infants, who are made petitioners in this writ petition. Petitioner No.1 and 2, on the date of filing of this IAs in Writ Petition (Civil) No.728 of 2015 & Ors. Page 1 of 54 writ petition, were six months old and petitioner No.3 was fourteen months old. This petition has been filed through their next friends, i.e. their fathers, who are concerned about the health of their children as they feel that due to the alarming degra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5276 OF2008Govindammal (Dead) By Lrs. and Ors. ...Appellants Vaidiyanathan and Ors. ...Respondents Versus JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.The legal representatives of the original defendant in O.S No.45/85 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore are the appellants before this Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred by their status before the Trial Court. 2 The suit was filed by the respondents herein, seeking a declaration that A schedule property (as described in the plaint) belongs to them or in the alternative for partition of half share in B1schedule property (as described in the plaint) of which A schedule is a part. According to the plaintiffs (respondents herein), the properties originally belonged to two brothers namely, Pazanivelu Mudaliar and Chokalingam; Pazanivelu Mudaliar had two sons, namely, Narayanaswamy Mudaliar and Manickam. Narayanaswamy had a son na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10662 OF2018(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.25770 OF2015 AJIT KR. BHUYAN AND OTHERS .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DEBAJIT DAS AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10663 OF2018(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.29168 OF2015 A N D CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10664 OF2018(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.17329 OF2017 JUDGMENT A.K.SIKRI, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment because of commonality of issues therein. The Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.25770 of 2015 Page 1 of 20 judgment impugned is also the same, i.e., judgment dated August 07, 2015 passed by the High Court of Gauhati.3. Mr. Debajit Das (respondent No.1 herein) was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department on September 30, 1996 and on completing six years of service he was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in December 2002. Subsequently, a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10670 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(C)No.11206 of 2018) GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. APPELLANTS Versus MACHHLA DEVI RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.10671 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(C)No.12881 of 2018) JUDGMENT N.V.RAMANA, J.Civil Appeal No.10670 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.11206 of 2018) 1.2. Leave granted. Heard Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. K. 2 Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.3. This appeal is directed against order dated 21.03.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition(C) No.7928 of 2018 wherein without issuance of notice to the Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the GDA) an order was passed in the favour of Machhla Devi (hereinafter referred to as the allottee). It is worthwhile to be noted that the impugned order i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9597 OF2018TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS EQUIPMENT CONDUCTORS AND CABLES LIMITED .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, NCLAT) dated September 04, 2018 is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings. It is a short order, which is reproduced herein its entirety. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and being satisfied of the grounds shown, six days delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. I.A. No.973 of 2018 stands disposed of. Prima facie case has been made out by the Appellant in view of the part decree awarded by the competent court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the review application under Section 37 Civil Appeal No.9597 of 2018 Page 1 of 19 preferred by the Respondent having rejected on 29th January, 2016. Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 10571 OF2018(arising out of SLP(C) No.6599 of 2018) MOHAMMED IMRAN .APPELLANT(S) STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant, a successful aspirant for judicial service, is aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2010 cancelling his selection for appointment due to the character verification report of the police, and the refusal of the High Court to interfere with the same.3. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the denial of appointment on grounds of moral turpitude is wrong and unsustainable. The appellant has been 2 acquitted of the charge under Sections 363, 366, 34, I.P.C. on 28.10.2004 much before he cleared the examination for appointment in the year 2009. He had truthfully and honestly disclosed his prosecution and acquittal by the Sessions Court, Sangli. According to the allegat...
Tag this Judgment!