Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON-REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No.1802/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (C) NO.31937 OF2017 DR. VANDANA TYAGI PETITIONER(S) VERSUS APEEJAY SARASWATI P.G. COLLEGE FOR GIRLS & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) KURIAN, J.JUDGMENT Leave granted.2. The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the interim order dated 24.10.2017 passed in LPA No.552 of 2017 filed by Respondent No.1. As per the impugned order, the appellant has been restrained from performing her functions as Principal.3. We find that the Letters Patent Appeal is ripe for hearing and it is posted to 11.04.2018. We request the High Court to dispose of the appeal, LPA No.552/2017 (O&M), expeditiously and preferably before the Court closes for summer vacation.4. filling up the post of Principal on a regular basis. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.5. 6. It will be open to the parties to take all available contentions before the High Court and in case the specific contention is taken by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVILAPPEALNO.1754OF2018 (ArisingoutofSLP(Civil)No.12416of2016) Munusamy&Ors. Versus . Appellants TheManagingDirector,TamilNaduState TransportCorporation(Villupuram)Ltd. .Respondent JUDGMENT A.M.Khanwilkar,J.1. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 16.04.2013 in C.M.A. No.2819 of 2012. The High Court allowed the prayer for grant of enhanced compensation amount in favour of the appellants. The appellants seek furtherenhancementofcompensationamountontheground 2 that the High Court has not provided for future prospects, while computing the compensation amount. The appellants relyupontherecentdecisionoftheConstitutionBenchofthis Courtinthecaseof NationalInsuranceCompanyLtd.Vs. PranaySethiandOrs.1,tobuttresstheirsubmission. 2. Beforewedealwiththegrievanceoftheappellants,itis apposite to reproduce the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.473 OF2005Sampurna Behura ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ....Respondents JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. What can a citizen do if the State pays no attention to his or her fundamental or human or statutory right, nor takes serious interest in fulfilling its constitutional or statutory obligations?. What if that citizen is a voiceless child or someone whose voice cannot be heard over the din of governance for example, physically or mentally challenged persons, senior citizens, and other disadvantaged sections of society such as scheduled castes, tribals and several others?. The aggrieved would perhaps approach the judiciary (if he or she could and as a last resort) for the enforcement of a human right. Should the judiciary take corrective W.P. (C) No.473 of 2005 Page 1 of 62 steps and be accused of judicial activism or overreach or should the cynics and skeptics have their day resu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVILAPPEALNOS.1101111012OF2017 VijayKumarRastogi Versus . Appellant UttarPradeshStateRoadways TransportCorporation .Respondent JUDGMENT A.M.Khanwilkar,J.1. Thepresentappealstakeexceptiontothejudgmentof theHighCourtofDelhiinMACAppealNo.393/2009dated6th December,2016,wherebytheHighCourtdeclinedtoenhance the compensation amount awarded to the appellant by the MotorAccidentClaimsTribunalandtotheorderdated18th January,2017dismissingtheReviewPetitionNo.20of2017. 2 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) vide order dated 4th April, 2009, awarded compensation to the appellant and his fatherinlaw to the tuneofRs.5,59,584/andRs.4,53,131/,respectively,against whichfourappealswerefiledbeforetheHighCourt,oneeach bytheappellantandhisfatherinlawandtwocrossappeals by the respondent, all of which were disposed of by the impugned judgment. The appellant alone has ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVILAPPEALNO.7176OF2015 SubeSinghandAnr. Versus . Appellants ShyamSingh(Dead)andOrs. .Respondents JUDGMENT A.M.Khanwilkar,J.1. The sole question to be answered in this appeal is: whethertheHighCourtwasrightinapplyingmultiplier14for determiningcompensationamountinamotoraccidentclaim caseinreferencetotheageofparentsofthedeceasedwhilst relying on the decision of this Court in Ashvinbhai JayantilalModiVs.RamkaranRamchandraSharmaand Anr.1?. 2. Briefly stated, in a motor accident which occurred on 22.09.2009,AjitSingh,whowasattherelevanttime23years ofagedied.Hisparents,whowereintheagegroupof40to45 12015(2)SCC180 2 years, filed a petition claiming compensation. The Motor AccidentClaimsTribunalheldthattheestablishedincomeof the deceased was around Rs.4,200/ per month and after deductionof50%asthedeceasedwasunmarried,calculated the same as Rs.2,100/ per month. Thereafter, it app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVILAPPEALNOS.73007309OF2016 ARCHITSAINIANDANR. :Versus: . APPELLANTS THEORIENTALINSURANCECOMPANY LTD.ANDORS. .RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT A.M.Khanwilkar,J.1. Theseappealstakeexceptiontothejudgmentandorder dated1stFebruary,2016passedbytheHighCourtofPunjab andHaryanaatChandigarhinF.A.O.Nos.1179,1180,1181, 1182,1183,1318,1452,4596,4597&4598of2013,whereby the High Court modified the award passed by the Motor AccidentClaimsTribunal,YamunaNagar,Jagadhari,onthe finding that it was a case of contributory negligence and resultantlyheldthattheclaimantsinjuredwereentitledto 2 only50%ofthetotalcompensationawardedtothemincluding theenhancedcompensation. 2. Thesolequestionraisedinthepresentappealsisabout thejustnessandtenabilityoftheapproachoftheHighCourt inreversingthefindingoffactrecordedbytheTribunalonthe factum that the motor accident which occurred on 15th December,2011atabout10.30P.M.wasduetoparkingofthe ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1969 OF2011SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RAKHI TRADING PRIVATE LTD. ....RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3174-3177 OF2011AND CIVIL APPEAL No.3180 OF2011JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Fairness, integrity and transparency are the hallmarks of the stock market in India. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) is the vigilant watchdog. Whether the factual matrix justified the 1 watchdogs bite is the issue arising for consideration in this case. There are two sets of party respondents the traders 2. and the brokers. SEBI proceeded against the traders for violation of Regulations 3(a), (b) and (c) and 4 (1), (2)(a) and (b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the PFUTP Regulations). In the case of brokers, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.20982 OF2017INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...APPELLANT (S) SHAILENDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.& ORS. VERSUS WITH ...RESPONDENT (S) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10742 OF2008YOGESH KUMAR & ORS. ...PETITIONER (S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ...RESPONDENT (S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.20920 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)Nos.26574-26575 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.28993 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30198 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30192 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30142 OF20151 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30128 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30203 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL No.4835 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.25289 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)CC No.9842 OF2016SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22356 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.31678 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL NO.4836 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22527 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.4705 OF2016SPECI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.245 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1498/2017) MUBIN SHAIKH APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.246 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1499/2017) CRIMINAL APPEAL No.247 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2058/2017) CRIMINAL APPEAL No.248 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5834/2017) CRIMINAL APPEAL No.249 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5835/2017) CRIMINAL APPEAL No.250 OF2018(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5836/2017) ORDER1 Leave granted. 2 2. On 02.06.2014 at about 9.00 P.M., the deceased Shaikh Mohsin was proceeding for dinner with another friend Riyaz. He was wearing a pastel green colour shirt and had a beard. According to the prosecution, the accused respondents before us, targeted them because they belonged to a certain community and started assaulting Shaikh Mohsin with hockey sticks, bats and stones. This resulted in his death. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVILAPPEALNO.1562OF2018 (arisingoutofSLP(C)No.35738of2017) STATEOFMADHYAPRADESHTHROUGH PRINCIPALSECRETARY&ANR. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS MAHENDRAGUPTA&ORS. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ASHOKBHUSHAN,J.The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,BenchatGwaliordated22.03.2017bywhichjudgment writappealfiledbytheStatequestioningthejudgmentofthe learnedSingleJudgedated17.03.2015hasbeendismissed. 2. Thepartiesshallbedescribedasreferredtointhewrit petition.Thefactsgivingrisetothisappealare: The writ petitioners have permanent permit for two 2 routes,oneGwaliortoBhanderandsecondGwaliortoDatia. RespondentNo.3hasalsothepermanentpermitfortheroute Gwalior to Jhansi. Respondent No.3 preferred an application formodificationoftimescheduleformovementofhisvehicle. TheapplicationofRespondentNo.3cameforhearingbeforethe State Transport Authority ...
Tag this Judgment!