Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1500 OF2019(@SLP(C) No.1216 OF2016 ASGAR & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS MOHAN VARMA & ORS. RESPONDENT(s) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.1 2 Leave granted. This appeal arises from a judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 11 December 2015. Dismissing a petition instituted by the appellants under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court held that the claim set up by the appellants before 1 the executing court for the value of the improvements alleged to have been made by them on the land in dispute under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act 19581 was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The High Court upheld the finding of the executing court that the appellants are not entitled to claim compensation under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act 18822. 3 The genesis of the dispute needs to be explained. The property encompassing an extent of 914 acres orig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.4 OF2019FEDERATION HAJ PTOS OF INDIA .....PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.26 OF2019WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.33 OF2019A N D WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.93 OF2019JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 4 and 33 of 2019 are the Federation/Association of the Private Tour Operators (PTOs)/ Haj Group Organisers (HGOs) who have taken up the cause on behalf of their members, namely, various PTOs/HGOs. Other two writ petitions are filed by the PTOs themselves. The issue raised Writ Petition (Civil) No.4 of 2019 & Ors. Page 1 of 22 in all these petitions is common. For this reason these petitions were clubbed together and counsel for all the parties were heard. We now proceed to decide the controversy by this common judgment.2) For Muslims, place of birth of Hazrat Muhammed, i.e. Saudi Arabia, is the most sacred place. Visiting t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.1433 OF2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1589 OF2018THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...APPELLANT VERSUS KANHA @ OMPRAKASH ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J12 Delay condoned. This appeal is by the State against the judgment and order dated 2 December 2011 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Gwalior Bench. The High Court converted the conviction of the respondent under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (Penal Code) to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for forty days, undergone by him, with a fine of Rs 3,000. 2 3 According to the prosecution, on 8 October 2003, an altercation took place between two parties. The respondent, with an intention to kill one Dashrath Singh, shot him with a fire-arm and caused bleeding injuries on his right thigh. The brother of Dashrath Singh filed a complaint on the same day at the Gwal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8285 OF2009RAM LAL & ORS. Appellant(s) VS. SALIG RAM & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2007 in RSA No.260 of 1995 whereby, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.06.1995 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.154 of 1988 and consequently, dismissed the suit (No.23/1 of 1986) filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for prohibitory injunction and in the alternative, for recovery of possession of the land in dispute.2. At the outset, it could be noticed for a brief outline of the matter that the plaintiffs-appellants had alleged attempted encroachment over the land in question by the defendants. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the 1 First Appellate Court remitted additional issues for finding by the Trial Court on the question as to whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non -Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1393 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.766 of 2019 ]. Association of Managements of Homeopathic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra .... Appellant Union of India & Ors. Versus W I T H .Respondents CIVIL APPEAL No.1395 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.767 of 2019 ]. CIVIL APPEAL No.1394 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.158 of 2019 ]. JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted. The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, 1. Homoeopathy (AYUSH), Government of India by letters dated 12th February, 2018 and 5th June, 2018 instructed all the State Governments and the concerned universities to admit students in AYUSH under- 1 graduate courses on the basis of the in NEET merit list for the academic year 2018-19. By a letter dated 11th June, 2018, the Government of India informed the State Governments that a candidate seeking admission to AYUSH under-graduate co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
C.A.@ SLP(C)No.22212/18 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1382 OF2019[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.22212 of 2018]. Union of India & Ors. ... Appellants Versus Md. Samim Azad ... Respondent JUDGMENT R. Subhash Reddy, J.1. 2. Leave granted. This civil appeal is filed by the Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway and others, aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court passed on 31st August 2017 in F.M.A. No.878 of 2017.3. The dispute relates to appointment of a halt contractor at the railway station. On instructions, we were informed by the learned Additional Solicitor General that there are three types of railway stations, viz., Block Station, Flag Station and Halt Station. Halt station, is a station where signalling system is not 1 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.22212/18 available and train stoppages are controlled by railway time table. Halt contractor is a contractor who is appointed by Railways to sell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1392 OF2019(@ SLP(C) No.27490 OF2018 All India Institute of Medical Sciences Appellant Versus Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is against the final judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital allowing the writ petition being WPSB No.359 of 2018 filed by the respondent no.1 and quashing the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CAT) at the Principal Bench at Delhi, inter alia, staying proceedings in OA33100790/ 2017 filed by the respondent no.1 and pending before a Division Bench of CAT at Nainital. The respondent no.1, an Indian Forest service officer of the 3. Uttarakhand cadre of 2002 Batch was posted as Deputy 2 Secretary at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi from 29.6.2012 till 28.6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5217 OF2010Asharfi Devi (D) THR. LRs. .Appellant(s) VERSUS State of U.P. & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Review Application No.81507 of 2008 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10557 of 2002 whereby the High Court dismissed the Civil Misc. Review Application filed by the original appellant herein. 1 2. In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in this appeal, few facts need mention infra.3. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of the original appellant, who was the writ petitioner and the review petitioner whereas the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition and the review application.4. The original appellant was the owner of certain lands. These lands were subjected to ceiling proceedings un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
C.A.@ SLP(C)No.17428/18 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1381 OF2019[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.17428 of 2018]. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata ... Appellant Versus Jagannath Gupta Family Trust ... Respondent JUDGMENT R. Subhash Reddy, J.1. 2. Leave granted. This civil appeal is filed by the appellant, i.e., the Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, aggrieved by the Order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in I.T.A No.7 of 2017.3. The respondent herein, M/s. Jagannath Gupta Family Trust, is a registered Trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short the Act) and also 1 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.17428/18 approved under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act vide proceedings dated 16.08.2010. The trust was created with an avowed object of public and charitable purposes, namely, medical relief, education, any other causes of public utility etc. It is stated that the respondent-trust is r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.25822583 OF2011G. Ratna Raj (D) by LRs. .Appellant(s) VERSUS Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Ltd. & Anr. .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. 2. Application for substitution is allowed. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 11.01.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A. Nos.299 & 300 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench 1 of the High Court allowed the appeals filed by respondent No.1 herein.3. The controversy involved in these appeals lies in a narrow compass. However, in order to appreciate the same, few relevant facts need mention hereinbelow.4. The original appellantG Ratna Raj (since dead and now represented by his legal representatives) was the plaintiff whereas respondent No.1 was defendant No.1 in the civil suit out of which these appeals arise. Respondent No.2 is impleaded as party respondent in this Court by order dated 06....
Tag this Judgment!