Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 43804382 OF2016SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA (D) BY LRs. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS SAGI SUBBA RAJU & OTHERS ETC. ..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.These appeals are directed against the common judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No.323 of 1992 and Appeal Nos. 2959 and 2960 of 2001 dated 11 September, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in O.S. No.98 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram (formerly O.P. 1 No.124/1980), and O.S. No.97 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram (formerly O.P. No.10/1982). They were the defendants in O.S. No.72 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram (formerly O.P. No.32/1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur).2. O.S. No.98 of 1984 was filed for partition of Schedule A property against Defendant Nos. 5 to 25. In this suit, on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No.11365 OF2018(Arising from S.L.P. (C) No.13676 of 2017) GAGANDEEP SINGH APPELLANT (S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted. Appellant was No.3 in the select list for appointment to the 2. post of District Programme Officer. He belongs to the reserved category of Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh. The selection commenced with the advertisement by the Punjab Public Service Commission on 21.12.2010. The written examination was conducted in the year 2012. One Gurpreet Singh was appointed against the reserved vacancy (Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh). After one year he resigned from 1 the post on 25.04.2014. According to the appellant the vacancy thus created should be filled up by the next available person from the same community. It is also the case of the appellant that though the appellant is No.3 in the select list, No.2 (Manjinder Singh) not being interested and not having pursued...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6784-6785 OF2018CCI Projects (P) Ltd. Appellant VERSUS Vrajendra Jogjivandas Thakkar ... Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6786-6787 OF2018(CCI Projects (P) Ltd. vs. Vrajendra Jogjivandas Thakkar) JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. These appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are directed against the common order dated 23.01.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (Commission for short) in Consumer Case Nos.975 and 976 of 2016.2. In Consumer Case No.976 of 2016, Vrajendra J.Thakkar, HUF had booked a residential flat with the appellant in a project named White Spring 2 Building, which the appellant was to construct at Village Magathane Dattapada Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai, for a consideration of Rs.90,38,850/- and flat No.6A in the building was allotted to said Vrajendra J.Thakkar, HUF. The parties entered into an agreement dated 30.10.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.31222 OF2018(@ D.NO.39715 OF2018 DR. BABLOO SINGH AND ORS. Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. Respondents WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.31223 OF2018(@ D.NO.40201 OF2018 (Amar Singh Goutam and Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.31225 OF2018(@ D.NO.41516 OF2018 (Ravinder Kumar & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) ORDER Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. Permission to file special leave petition granted in all matters. Heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Mr. Salman Khurshid and Mr. S.G. Hasnain, learned Senior Advocates in support of the petitions.2. These petitions are directed against the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by a bench of five learned Judges of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.51212 of 2010 and other connected matters turning down the reference made to a larger bench and directing that the 2 concerned matters be placed before an appropriate cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1136011363 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.2966829671/2017 DINESH KUMAR KASHYAP & ORS. ETC. APPELLANT(S) Versus SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.11364 OF2018(@SLP (C) No.6165 OF2018 JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.Leave granted. Respondent No.1, South East Central Railway (for 2. short the SECR) issued an advertisement on 15.12.2010 inviting applications for filling up 5798 posts in the pay scale of Rs.5200Rs. 20,200 + Grade Pay of Rs.1800/ in Raipur, Bilaspur and Nagpur divisions and workshops. The claim of the original writ petitioners who filed applications 1 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short CAT) was that as per the existing instructions the select list was prepared with 20% extra candidates. Therefore, the result of 6995 candidates was declared who were successful. The appellants fall in the category of extra 20%. The SECR did not make...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9684 OF2011BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY .Appellant VERSUS BIRLA SUPER BULK TERMINAL (NOW A UNIT OF ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD.) AND ORS. .Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.3688 of 2002 in and by which the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Single Judge thereby setting aside the betterment fee levied by the KTCP by holding that the very acquisition under the Industrial Area Development Act involve change of land use and development by KIADB and while so, further levy of betterment fee under Section 18 of the KTCP is not sustainable. 1 2. Brief facts of the case which led to filing of this appeal are that the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, 1961 to provide for regulation of planned growth of land use and developm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1100 OF2009PALANI Appellant VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondent JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 30.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.427 of 2007 in and by which the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein thereby confirming his conviction under Section 148 IPC, Section 435 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the trial court.2. Kamala (PW-1) is mother of deceased Sankar and Iyyappan (PW-2). Vijayalakshmi is the wife of PW-2 and Abbas (PW-3) is brother of PW-1. The genealogy of the deceased party is as under:- 1 Kamala (PW-1-Complainant) Abbas (PW-3) Maternal Uncle of deceased Sankar (Deceased) Son of PW-1 A8 Iyyappan (PW-2) Son of PW-1 Vijayalakshmi Wife of PW-2 and elder daughter of Case of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 14781479 OF2011RAMJI Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s) JUDGMENT N. V. RAMANA, J.These appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 21st January, 2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 775 SB of 1997 and 101SB of 1998, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and altered the conviction and sentence against the appellantaccused from an offence under Section 304 Part II, IPC to that of under Section 302, IPC.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21st July, 1995 at about 9 p.m. when the complainant Darshan Lal (PW5 2 and his mother were sitting in the compound of their house, his brother Som Raj (deceased) went upstairs. Soon thereafter, their neighboring residents Sukhdev Singh (A1), Sandeep Singh (A2), Ramesh Singh (A3) and Lali @ Tarlok Singh (A4) armed with deadly weapons c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.11370 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.12538 of 2016) Alok Kumar Singh & Others Appellants VERSUS State of U.P. & Others ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.11372 OF2018S.L.P. (C) No.31192 of 2018 (CC No.22932/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11373 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.34047/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11374 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16723/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11375 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16669/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11371 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.9028/2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11377 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.9033/2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11378 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(C) No.9026/2018) 2 CIVIL APPEAL No.11380 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.31199 of 2018) (Diary No.22129/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NOS.11381-11382 OF2018(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.31202-31203 of 2018) (Diary No.22319/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11383 OF2018(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9786-9799 OF2018(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 22057-22070 OF2018 AHMED ABDULLA AHMED AL GHURAIR(THROUGH THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. BARTHOLOMEW KAMYA) & ANR. HOLDER .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.This group of thirteen appeals was heard together and is being disposed of by this common judgment as an identical issue is involved therein.2) At the outset, we may mention that the dispute between the parties pertain to the shares of Respondent No.1, Star Health Insurance Company, standing in the name of the Respondent Nos. 3-7. As per the 2 appellants/plaintiffs, it is Respondent No.2 which has the beneficial interest in those shares. In this behalf, the appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit through their Power of Attorney holder (C.S. No.33 of 2018) before the High Court of Madras seeking, inter alia, the relief ...
Tag this Judgment!