Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9441 OF2019(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.14926 OF2017 JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PETITIONER(S) Versus MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S) WITH (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.31106 OF2017 CIVIL APPEAL No.9442 OF2019JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) issued an advertisement on 19.07.2006 inviting applications from candidates desirous of competing in the Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET). This test is not meant for selection to any post but is conducted to determine the eligibility of the candidates for appointment as lecturers in universities and colleges of the State 1 of Jharkhand. This test called the State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) is conducted as per the guidelines laid down by the University Grants Commission (UGC).2. The test consists of three papers the first two papers are multiple choice questions to be answered on an Optical Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9533-9537 OF2019(arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) NOS.5395-5399 of 2016) P. Singaravelan & Ors. Etc. Etc. ..Appellants Versus The District Collector, Tiruppur and DT & Ors. Etc. Etc. WITH ..Respondents CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9538-9546 OF2019(arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5605-5613 of 2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9547-9549 OF2019(arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5391-5393 of 2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9551-9559 OF2019(arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5367-5375 of 2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9560-9561 OF2019(arising out of SLP(C) Nos. of 2019) [Diary No.42301/2017]. JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.CIVIL APPEALS @ CIVIL APPEALS @ CIVIL APPEALS @ CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5395-5399 OF2016 SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5605-5613 OF2016 SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5391-5393 OF2016 AND SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5367-5375 OF2016Leave granted. 1 2. These appeals have been filed against the common final judgment and order dated 08.07.2015 passed by the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS. 786-787 OF2019IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8442-8443 Of 2016 M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH REVIEW PETITION (C) No.789 OF2019IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8450 Of 2016 M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CONCRETE PIPE INDUSTRIES ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ...RESPONDENT(S) 1 AND REVIEW PETITION (C) No.788 OF2019IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8445 Of 2016 M/S TRUSSES AND TOWERS (P) LTD. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.These review petitions have been filed against the common judgment dated 23.01.2019 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 8442-8443 of 2016, Civil Appeal No.8450 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No.8445 of 2016, by which all the Civil Appeals were dismissed, sought to be reviewed by these applications. All the review petitions filed have raised different ground...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 94889489 OF2019(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.55815582 of 2019) University of Delhi .Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Ors. . Respondent(s) JUDGMENT A.S. Bopanna,J.Leave granted.2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellantUniversity of Delhi through its Registrar to challenge the common judgment and order dated 29.10.2018 whereby, the High Court of Delhi declined to condone the delay of 916 days in filing the appeal to challenge the judgment dated 27.04.2015 whereunder, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the W.P (C) No.2743/2012 filed by the University of Delhi.3. The challenge in the writ petition was, inter alia, to the decision dated 12.5.2011 of the Delhi Development Page 1 of 34 Authority (hereinafter referred to as the, DDA for short) who had allowed respondent no.13M/s Young Builders (P) Ltd. to construct a highrise multistory group housing society in the control zone of Zone...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Crl.A.No.1268 of 2013 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1268 OF2013Manju ....Appellant Versus State of Delhi ....Respondent JUDGMENT R. Subhash Reddy, J.1. This criminal appeal is filed by the sole accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 12th March 2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2010 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, by which the appellant herein was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.2. The appellant herein was admitted in the maternity ward of the Lady Hardinge Medical College Hospital and delivered a baby girl around 12:30 in the afternoon on 24th August 2007. It is the case of the prosecution that 1 Crl.A.No.1268 of 2013 as the new born was a baby girl, as such the appellant- mother has caused her death by strangulation after baby was handed over to her at 04:30 p.m. on the said date. On 26th August 2007 post-mortem was conducted on the dead body a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2059 OF2015Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. (Presently known as Saurashtra Chemicals Division of Nirma Ltd.) VERSUS ...APPELLANT National Insurance Co. Ltd ...RESPONDENT KRISHNA MURARI, J.JUDGMENT The appellant purchased a standard fire and special perils policy from the respondent National Insurance Company Ltd. thereby insuring the risk of loss/damage to the stock of coal and lignite stored in its factory compound. An additional premium of Rs. 59,200/- was paid by the appellant company so as to cover the risk of loss of the aforesaid stock on account of spontaneous combustion. The appellant was declared a Sick Unit and was accordingly registered under SICA. The factory remained closed from 17.02.2006 to 09.08.2006 and was re-opened on 10.08.2006.2. After re-opening it was noticed between the period from 11.8.2006 to 20.8.2006 that some amount of stock of coal and lignite has been diminished/destroyed on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1885 OF2019Suraj Jagannath Jadhav .. Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.723 of 2013, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant hereinoriginal accused and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court 2 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the only submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantoriginal accused is that the death of the deceased can be said to be a culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the case would fall under Exception 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9415 OF2019[Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C)No.11015 OF2017 Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through LRs. ..... Appellants(s) VERSUS The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another .....Respondents(s) JUDGMENT Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 24.11.2008 passed by High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in M.F.A No.3274 of 2007 whereby the appeal filed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hubli-Ankola against the award of the Reference Court was allowed and the compensation for acquiring appellants land was reduced from Rs.10,00,000 per acre to Rs 5,10,000/- per acre.3. The facts giving rise to the present controversy may be breifly noted. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hubli, Ankola issued Notification No.HB-LAW CR:1. 2002-2003 dated 18.4.2002 under Section 17(4) and 4(1) 1 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring land ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3613 OF2016Rajendra Diwan ... Appellant versus Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr. .Respondents WITH AND CA. No.10214 OF2016C.A. No.3051 OF2017JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.This appeal, purportedly under Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act, is against an order dated 1.12.2015 of the Rent Control Tribunal at Raipur, confirming an order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Rent Control Authority, whereby an application filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the appellant tenant under Section 12 of the Rent Control Act has been allowed. 2 2. Appeal against an order of the Rent Control Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act provides:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, a landlord and/or tenant aggrieved by any order of the Rent Controller shall have the right to appeal in the prescribed manner within the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9265 OF2019(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.3885 OF2018 M/S ESPIRE INFOLABS PVT LTD APPELLANT(S) Versus SADHANA FOUNDATION RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.Leave granted.2. The present appeal arises from a claim of the landlord respondent herein, claiming rent for the period 01.11.2015 to 31.01.2017. We may point out that another petition was filed by the landlord claiming rent for the period 01.01.2013 to 30.10.2015. The landlord claimed rent @ Rs.18,43,900/ per month relying upon the lease deed dated 01.01.2013. The stand 1 of the tenant appellant herein, is that, in fact, there was a subsequent registered lease deed dated 01.09.2015 which is effective from 01.03.2015 in which the rent is @ Rs.7,50,000/ per month. In addition thereto, it is claimed that as per Clause 1(c) of the registered lease deed dated 01.09.2015, the tenant was entitled to spend an amount of Rs.9 crores for d...
Tag this Judgment!