Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8146 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.1103 OF2018 RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER & ANR. .....APPELLANT(S) SHIKUN RAM FIRUDA & ANR. .....RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8148-8149 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 13624-13625 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL No.8147 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.2453 OF2018 A N D CIVIL APPEAL No.8150 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.18460 OF2019 JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. The challenge in these appeals is to an order passed by the 1 2. Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur on 26th May, 2017, which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos. 8148-8149 of 2019 and the orders passed on different dates following the said order. The brief facts leading to the present appeals are that an advertisement was published on 18th June, 2013 inviting applications for various posts in the Rajasthan State and Subordina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).956 OF2010STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MURTI SHRI CHATURBHUJNATH AND OTHERS .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The defendants are in appeal consequent to the dismissal of their second appeal. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was dismissed. The dismissal was reversed in the first appeal and the suit was decreed.2. Shri Rahul Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that respondent no.1 was a public Temple. The revenue records were therefore rightly corrected by recording the name of the collector as Vyawasthapak (Manager) which was done for better management of the temple properties. Respondent 1 nos.2 and 3 were only Pujaris. Therefore, they had no right to claim ownership of the Temple lands, much less have their names entered in the revenue records, seeking restraint against interference. The Temple being si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M.A. No.814 of 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL No.2463 OF2019Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 1 Versus Appellant NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Respondent JUDGMENT INDU MALHOTRA, J.1. The present Application has been filed for Recall of the Judgment dated 05.03.2019 passed by this Court in C.A. No.2463 of 2019, on the ground that the Applicant Company was not served with the Notice of the SLP at the registered office of the Company, nor was a copy of the SLP1served on the Applicant Company. Consequentially, since the Judgment was passed exparte, the Applicants prayed for Recall of the Judgment and a de novo hearing.2. The Applicants submit that the Court Notices were sent to the earlier registered office address of the Applicant Company i.e. at 310, 3rd Floor, BBlock, International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi. However, on 19.05.2014, the Applicant Company changed its registered office to 211, Somdutt Cham...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)No.4294 of 2019 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1619 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.4294 of 2019) Miss XYZ ...Appellant Versus State of Gujarat & Anr ...Respondents JUDGMENT R.Subhash Reddy,J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent in R/Special Criminal Application No.9897 of 2017 filed before the High Court of Gujarat, at Ahmedabad. By the impugned order, High Court has allowed R/Special Criminal Application by quashing FIR No.CR-I-60-2017 registered on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad City, District Ahmedabad. Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.)No.4294 of 2019 2 3. The appellant herein, is the informant in crime registered in FIR No.CR-I-60-2017 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad City. On her complaint the aforesaid crime is registered against the 2nd respondent for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 376, 499 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 82768277 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NOS.1528015281 OF2019 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER/ DEHAR POWER HOUSE CIRCLE BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (PW) SLAPPER & ANOTHER VERSUS .APPELLANTS EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, SUNDER NAGAR/ASSESSING AUTHORITY .RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.8278 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.15283 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.8279 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.15284 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.8280 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.15285 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.8281 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.15288 OF2019 JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The question involved is whether the High Court while exercising revisional power under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Act of 2005), condone the delay in case a 2 revision under Section 48 of the Act of 2005, is filed beyond 90 days from the date of communication of the order or it excludes the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.9276-9290 of 2015 Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. NDPL House. Versus .... Appellant(s) Manoj Misra and Ors. Etc. Etc. . Respondent (s) ORDER Respondent No.1 filed Original Application No.6 of 1. 2012 under Section 14 and 15 read with Section 18 (1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 before the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter, the Tribunal). The subject matter of the application was the encroachment and dumping of building debris in the river bed/flood plain and the natural water body of river Yamuna. O.A. No.300 of 2013 was also filed by Respondent No.1 complaining of ongoing encroachment and the conversion of Kushak drain into parking and road-cum-parking space, conversion of land use of the Shahdara Link Drain from utility to commercial, and proposed construction of commercial undertaking in the form and nature of Delhi Haat, over and above the drain. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.4452 of 2019 Chandra Prakash Budakoti Versus .... Appellant(s) Union of India & Ors. . Respondent (s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1. 05.04.2019 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter, the Tribunal) in Original Application No.626 of 2016. The Appellant who is a Journalist and Editor of Jan Lok 2. Kesari which is a Hindi Newspaper having circulation in Uttarakhand, filed the application in public interest as he was concerned about the environmental damage caused by Respondent No.4 to 8. He alleged in the O.A. before the Tribunal that there was a large-scale felling of trees in private forests located at Patti Dhamnsu, Narendranagar, 1 District Tehri Garhwal in Khasra No.512 and 514. The Appellant also complained of blasting activities being resorted to by Respondent No.4 to 8 in the fragile Himalayan region. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3278 OF2012JAGJIWAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .RESPONDENTS WITH C.A. No.3279 OF2012AND C.A. No.3280 OF2012JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.2.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The case pertains to land acquisition proceedings initiated by way of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). It was proposed to acquire the land for Vasant Kunj residential scheme. Enquiry under section 5A was dispensed with as section 17(1) was invoked. The society filed a representation for withdrawal of the notification and thereafter filed a writ petition on 2 6.12.1999. The society claimed the ownership of the land admeasuring 42 bighas 16 biswas situated in village Mehrauli, New Delhi. The Government of India has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8259 OF2019(arising out of SLP(C) No.11254 OF2019 GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J.Leave granted.2. Heard Ms Madhavi Divan, Learned Additional Solicitor General of India representing the appellants. The Learned Senior Counsel Ms Aishwarya Bhati, represents the contesting Respondent Nos. 2-6. The respondents and few others had filed the O.A. No.1047 of 2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the same was allowed on 20.08.2018 (Annexure P/5). The resultant challenge by the appellants was dismissed under the impugned order of the Page 1/19 High Court of Delhi in the Writ Petition (C) No.557 of 2019, which has led to the present appeal.3. The matter pertains to the recruitment of Special Education Teachers under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The Advertisement No.01/2013 (Annexure P/1) was issued by the Delhi Sub-ordi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1889 OF2010Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju .....Appellant State (NCT of Delhi) Versus WITH .....Respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1890 OF2010Raj Kumar @ Raju State (NCT of Delhi) .....Appellant Versus WITH .....Respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2377 OF2014Sharda Jain .....Appellant State (NCT of Delhi) Versus .....Respondent JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.The judgment dated 27.08.2009 passed by the High Court 1. of Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 144 of 2007 and 51 of 2007 1 has been called in question in the instant appeals. By the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court against Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2), Pushpender (A-3), Nirvikar (A-4), Rajender (A-5) and Roshan Singh (A-6) for offences under Section 302 r/w 120-B and Section 364 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter IPC). Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, and Roshan Singh were also convic...
Tag this Judgment!