Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.4677 OF1985Versus ORDER M.C. Mehta Union of India & Ors. Madan B. Lokur, J......Petitioner ....Respondents 1. On 18th May, 2018 the learned Attorney General made an oral request for modification of the order passed on 15th May, 2018 particularly the following paragraph:- As far as the amendment of the Master Plan is concerned, we partially modify our order dated 6th March, 2018. It is submitted, on an interpretation of Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, which has been read over to us by the learned Attorney General, that objections to the proposed amendments to the Master Plan for Delhi will be meaningfully considered and amendments notified by the Central Government only after giving a notice period of 15 days for submitting objections. In other words, the Central Government will first invite objections from the people which can be submitted within 15 days of the notification...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No.857 OF2015versus JUDGMENT .....Petitioner ....Respondents Swaraj Abhiyan (VI) Union of India & Ors. Madan B. Lokur, J.1. In the record of proceedings of this Court dated 9th August, 2017 it is noted that learned counsel for the petitioner would like to highlight three issues pertaining to the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short the Act) and the Scheme framed thereunder. These issues are:1. Delay in payment of wages and compensation to the beneficiaries under the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder.2. Reduction in person days and consequent reduction in allocation of funds from the projection made by the State Governments and the Union Territory Administrations.3. Absence of social audits being conducted. W.P. (C) No.857 of 2015 Page 1 of 24 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Attorney General in de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5029 OF2018M/S. B. HIMMATLAL AGRAWAL .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT A.K.SIKRI, J.A neat question of law which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) dismissing the main appeal itself of the appellant herein for non-compliance of the direction to deposit the amount as a condition for grant of stay, is justified and legal.2. In order to decide this question, it is not necessary to take stock of the factual matrix in detail. Narration of the following facts, which are germane for deciding this appeal, would suffice. Civil Appeal No.5029 of 2018 Page 1 of 9 The appellant herein is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of transportation of coal and sand since 1981. In June, 2014, the appellant firm participated in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5696 OF2018[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 13838 OF2018 [DIARY No.7694 OF2018 NARENDRA DEV UNIVESITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY & ORS. VERSUS Appellant(s) BHUPENDRA SINGH RAWAT & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. According to the first respondent, he has been 2. working as a Physical Instructor. Being thus in a teaching post, he is entitled to continue up to 62 years like other teachers. The High Court held in favour of the first respondent and thus, aggrieved, the appellant University is before this Court.3. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, we are inclined to hold that the respondent should be permitted to continue upto the age of 62 years. Ordered accordingly.4. The appellants are granted a period of two weeks to implement this order. Needless to say, the 2 contempt proceedings will stand recalled. Accordingly, the writ appeal now p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITON (CIVIL) No.898 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.2453 OF2007IN STATE OF TAMIL NADU :Versus: ....Petitioner(s) P.K. SINHA AND ANR. ....Respondent(s) WITH M.A. No.934/2018 in C.A. No.2453 OF2007Contempt Petition (Civil) No. of 2018 (Diary No.12431/2018) M.A. No.937/2018 in C.A. No.2453 OF2007I.A. No.47065/2018, I.A. No.50562/2018 and I.A. No.68455/2018 A.M. Khanwilkar, J.ORDER1 This Court on 16th February, 2018 pronounced its judgment and final order in Civil Appeal Nos.2453/2007, 2454/2007 and 2456/2007 and directed the Central 2 Government to frame a scheme under Section 6A of the Inter- State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (for short, 1956 Act), for smooth implementation of the Award passed by the Tribunal and as modified by this Court for carrying out the rights of the States with regard to allocation or sharing of water. The Central Government with a view to arrive at a consensus for framing of the proposed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5668 OF2018[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.13765 OF2018 [DIARY No.16797 OF2018 RAMA NATH JHA Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.1. 2. Writ Petition (C) No.3548 of 2017 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna was filed by the appellant herein, challenging the order dated 14.12.2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in OA No.42 of 2005 and other connected matters.3. The issue pertains to the claim made by the appellant that his promotion as a passenger guard was based on a selection. The impugned Judgment of the High Court reads as follows :- Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Railways. This Court is not willing to set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 14th December, 2012 now in the year 2017 on the ground 2 that this petitioner was not made party and heard. From perusal of the order of the Central Admin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 787/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (CRL) No.4325/2018) K.S. KALINGA RAYAN @ KALINGARAJU APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RESPONDENT(S) KURIAN, J.JUDGMENT Leave granted.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.3. In the nature of the order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to go into the factual matrix at this stage. The appellant had filed Criminal Appeal No.805/2011 before the High Court challenging his conviction and sentence as ordered in Special Calendar Case No.1/2011 on the file of Special Court for Prevention of Corruption, Coimbatore. Paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment reads as follows:- 6. This case has been listed for final disposal for the past two months on various dates but the counsel appearing for the appellant had taken adjournment on one reason or another. As a last chance, case is posted today but there is no representat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 2740 OF2007STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH APPELLANT(s) PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. VERSUS ALL U.P. CONSUMER PROTECTION BAR ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT(S) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.164 OF2002JUDGMENT INDU MALHOTRA, J: (1) The issue which arises for consideration in the present civil appeal and writ petition pertains to the paucity of infrastructure in the Consumer Fora all over the country. (2) This Court vide order dated 14th January, 2016 2 constituted a three-member committee presided over by Justice Arijit Pasayat [Retired]. to examine various aspects as enumerated in the Order. The said committee was requested to forward its deliberations to the various State Governments. (3) By Order dated 21st November, 2016 this Court issued directions to the Union Government to frame Model Rules for the purpose of ensuring uniformity by the State Governments in the exercise of the rule-making power under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4765-4766 OF2018MAHABIR INDUSTRIES .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.4767 OF2018JUDGMENT A.K.SIKRI, J.A short question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. All the appeals are filed by the same party, namely, Mahabir Industries (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) in which common respondent is Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as the Department). Before stating the question of law, it may be necessary to mention in brief the background under which the said question of law has arisen Civil Appeal No(s). 4765-4766 of 2018 & Anr. Page 1 of 15 inasmuch as this background would be an enabling factor in understanding the true ambit and scope of the question of law. The assessee manufactures polythene for which it is having its factory in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. The activity undertaken b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2020 OF2013LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.We have heard the appellant appearing in-person and Shri Sandeep Sethi, learned Additional Solicitor General for India.2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning the judgment and order dated 23.08.2012 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow by which O.A.No.104 of 2011 filed by the appellant has been rejected as not maintainable and 2 returned to the appellant with liberty to file the same before the concerned authority.3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the issues raised in the appeal are: The appellant was commissioned in the Indian Army on 11.03.1989 in the Engineering Discipline. The appellant was subsequently selected and inducted in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) from 31.05.2004. On completion ...
Tag this Judgment!