Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NONREPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVILAPPEALNO(S).2435OF2018 (@SLP(C)NO(S).34464OF2016) DALIPSINGH .Appellant(s) Versus BHUPINDERKAUR Respondent(s) JUDGMENT DeepakGuptaJ.1. 2. Leavegranted. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.08.2016 in Regular Second Appeal No.1442 of 2010 passedbytheHighCourtofPunjab&HaryanaatChandigarh wherebyconcurrentfindingsoffactofthetrialcourtandthe lowerappellatecourthavebeensetaside. 2 3. BrieflystatedthefactsofthecasearethatBhupinder Kaur(respondentplaintiff)filedasuitforspecificperformance ofagreementtoselldated25.02.1999,wherebyDalipSingh (appellantdefendant) had allegedly agreed to sell the suit property to her for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/ out of whichRs.92,000/waspaidatthetimeoftheagreement. 4. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that there were many suspicious circumstances surrounding the agreement.Thoughthetrialcourtdidnottotallybelievethe casesetup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MA Nos 489-491/2018, 366-368/2018, 392-394/2018, 395-397/2018, 388- 390/2018, 1543-1545/2017, 1546-1548/2017 AND15491551/2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS1216412166 OF2016THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY SEC. AND ORS ..Appellants VERSUS ORDER K. BALU AND ANR. Dr. D Y CHANDRACHUD, J...Respondents 1 This batch of MAs/IAs arises from the judgment dated 15 December 2016 rendered by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v K Balu1 and the subsequent orders dated 31 March 2017 and 11 July 2017. The last of the above orders was delivered in Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v The Union Territory of Chandigarh 2. 1 Civil Appeal 12164-12166/2016 2 Special Leave Petition (C) No.10243 of 2017 2 2 Though the reliefs which have been sought in the individual MAs/IAs may differ, during the course of the hearing there is a broad consensus that for the purpose of the present proceedings, it would be sufficient if this Court were to interpret parag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.18 OF2018INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.756 OF2017A N D CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.1693 OF2017JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.This appeal preferred by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, in which the main contesting parties are M/s. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited and its Directors (other respondents are the proforma parties), questions the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated February 04, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Civil Appeal No.18 of 2018 Page 1 of 42 The impugned judgment is passed by the High Court in the writ petition which was filed by the contesting respondents questioning the validity of actions taken by the appellant against the contesting respondents under the provisions of the Securitisation a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON-REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9382-9384 OF2017IEL SUPERVISORS' ASSOCIATION ETC. ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS DUNCAN INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved 1. by the Judgment dated 24.02.2016 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.12468 of 2002 and other connected matters, by which the High Court remitted the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication.2. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that this is the second time the remittance is made and going by the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by this Court, the High Court could not have made a remand. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 351-355 of 2006 and other connected matters, is reproduced below :- 2 In the circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the Labour Court has taken two different ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.312 OF2018(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6900 of 2014) RAJENDRA RAJORIYA APPELLANT (S) VERSUS JAGAT NARAIN THAPAK AND ANOTHER RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT N. V. RAMANA, J.1.Leave granted.2. In this criminal appeal the judgment dated 08.07.2014, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, bench at Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.104/2013 is impugned.3. Appellant herein filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police station under Sections 420, 467, 1 468, 471,120B, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred as IPC for brevity]. and under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the allegations that one Smt. Vidhyabai and others sold the disputed land to respondent No.1 and got the appellants property mutated by committing fraud and forgery. It was further alleged that the respondents had threatened the appellant with dire consequence and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2406 OF2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21364 of 2017) ESSAR BULK TERMINAL LIMITED & ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.1. 2. Leave granted. The present appeal involves a challenge to a notification dated 18th January, 2016, issued under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, by which the 1 State Government of Gujarat expanded the port limits of Hazira port. It is the case of the Appellants before us that by doing so, the Appellants have been affected because they have spent huge monies on lands reclaimed by them, which would be directly affected by the expansion of the aforesaid port limits.3. The brief facts necessary for determining the questions that arise in this appeal are as follows. In 1994, the parent company of the Appellants entered into an agreement with the Gujarat Maritime Board (hereinafter referred to as GMB) for use of a captive jetty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2362 OF2018(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.27383 of 2015) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..APPELLANT(S) MUNNI LAL & ORS. VERSUS WITH ..RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2363 OF2018(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.27389 of 2015) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SWARUP SINGH & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have been preferred by the Delhi Development Authority (for short, the DDA) aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi declaring that as the 2 physical possession has not been taken, the acquisition has lapsed under the provision of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as "the Act of 2013"). The facts, in short, indicate that notification under section 4 was issued on 5....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.15536 OF2017(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.11348 of 2013) Life Insurance Corporation of India Nandini J.Shah & Ors. :Versus: ..APPELLANT ..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The seminal question posed in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the order passed by the City Civil Court in exercise of power under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, as an Appellate Officer, is in the capacity of a Civil Court or persona designata?.2. When this special leave petition was listed for admission on 12.09.2017, the Court passed the following order :2. Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Sonal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. As the issue was to be debated with regard to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal, learned Solicitor General has placed reliance on Radhe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s).6159-6162 OF2013UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS ANGESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No.5924/2013 JOINT DIRECTORS AND CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR. VERSUS T.R. RAJESH AND Appellant(s) Respondent(s) SLP(C) No.28817/2014 SLP(C) No.28801/2014 SLP(C) No.28811/2014 SLP(C) No.28816/2014 SLP(C) No.28805/2014 SLP(C)No....... of 2018 (@Diary No(s). 15951/2017) Civil Appeal No(s).6159-6162 of 2013 : ORDER (1) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (2) These appeals have been preferred against judgment and Order dated 13.7.2012 in LPA NO.229 of 2 petitioners respondents-writ 2011 in W.P.(C)NO.3316 of 2011, 28.08.2012 in Review Petition NO.486 of 2012 in LPA NO.229/2011 and Review Petition NO.484 of 2012 in W.P.(C) NO.3316/2011 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. (3) The were unsuccessful candidates in the Civil Services ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON-REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2287/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (C) NOS.17055 OF2017 SUDARSANA RAO GADDE APPELLANT(S) VERSUS KARUNA GADDE RESPONDENT(S) KURIAN, J.JUDGMENT Leave granted.2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2017 passed in Civil Revision No.1804/2017. The disputes are matrimonial in nature.3. We had made several attempts for a peaceful and amicable settlement of the disputes, through Mediators and also by the Court itself. In this connection, we may reproduce an order of this Court dated 01.08.2017:- The parties are before us on account of a prolonged litigation for the custody of their minor child Ayush. The parties along with the grandparents are here for quite a few days. We painfully note that the child has not been attending the school for the last one month. Thanks to the intervention of Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Additional 1 Solicitor General, thanks to the strenuous ef...
Tag this Judgment!