Court : Supreme Court of India
Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc. K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) Nos.1045-1055 of 2018 CIVIL APPEAL NO.10276, 10277, 10279, 10281, 10282, 10318, 10319, 10320, 10321, 10324 and 10328 OF2017K. Ananda Rao etc. .. Petitioners Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and ors. etc. Versus WITH .. Contemnors/ Respondents CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) Nos.1873-1891 of 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO.10354-10361 of 2017 In In WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No.1176/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017 CONMT.PET.(C) No.1177/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017 CONMT.PET.(C) No.1178/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017 CONMT.PET.(C) No.1179/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017 CONMT.PET.(C) No.1181/2018 in C.A. No.12463/2017 CONMT.PET.(C) No.1180/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017 Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc. K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors. 2 CONMT.PET.(C) No.1182/2018 in C.A. No.12463/2017 CONMT.PET.(C) No.1183/2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.5 OF2009Sukumaran .Appellant(s) VERSUS State Rep. by the Inspector of Police .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 12.06.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.513 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the 1 High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts infra.3. The appellant herein (A1) along with co accusedChinnakolandai (A2) were tried for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 109 and 203 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as IPC), Section 36A and E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and Section 3 read with Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in Sessi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.445446 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.56755676 of 2017) State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tamil Nadu .Appellant(s) VERSUS J.Doraiswamy Etc. .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. 2. Leave granted. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 14.07.2016 passed by 1 the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. Nos.825 and 826 of 2015 whereby the High Court dismissed the revisions filed by the appellantState and affirmed the order of the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai by which the respondents herein were discharged under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Crl.P.C.) from the Criminal Proceedings filed against them in Special Case No.4 of 2014 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.25542555 OF2019(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.1977719778 of 2017) Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. .Appellant(s) VERSUS Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. & Anr. .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 13.02.2017 in APOT No.274 of 2016 and dated 02.05.2017 in RVWO No.16 of 2017 passed by the High Court at Calcutta 1 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and review petition filed by the appellant herein.3. These appeals involve a short point as would be clear from the facts stated infra.4. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants in a civil suit out of which these appeals arise.5. The appellant filed a civil suit (Civil Suit No.88/2016) against the respondents for a declaration, damages and for grant of injunction etc. in the High Court at Calcutta on its original side.6. The suit w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7292 OF2009R.DHANASUNDARI @ R. RAJESWARI Appellant(s) VS. A.N. UMAKANTH & ORS. Respondent(s) Dinesh Maheshwari, J.This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.10.2006, as passed in C.R.P. (PD) No.10 of 2006, whereby the High Court of Judicature at Madras has upheld the order dated 07.07.2005, as passed in O.S. No.219 of 2004 by the District Munsif, Chengalpattu allowing the application filed by defendant Nos. 3 to 6 for transposing them as plaintiffs, after the existing plaintiffs sought permission to withdraw the suit.2. The prayer of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 to be transposed as plaintiffs under Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1 1908 (CPC), came to be made and allowed in somewhat peculiar set of facts and circumstances, which could be noticed, in brief, as follows:- (a) The civil suit in question was originally instituted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2523 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(C) No.994 of 2019) SMT. SHANTABEN & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VS. NATIONAL POWER TRANSPORT & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2018, as passed in FA No.1083 of 1993, whereby the High Court of Gujarat has dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants against the award dated 28.09.1992, as made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Main) Kachchh at Bhuj in MACP No.52 of 1987 and has declined the prayer for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 1 3. On 07.01.2019, this Court had issued notice in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.03.2018 'only to examine the non-award of future prospects while awarding compensation to the claimants keeping in view of the order passed by the Constitution Bench in the case of National Insur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non - Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2525 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.32480 of 2018 ]. Urvashi Aggarwal (since deceased) Through LRs. & Anr. .... Appellants Versus Kushagr Ansal (successor in interest of erstwhile Defendant No.1 Mrs. Suraj Kumari) & Ors. .Respondents JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted. The correctness of the judgment of the High Court, 1. affirming the judgment of the Trial Court, by which the suit for specific performance filed by the Appellant and his mother Smt. Urvashi Aggarwal (since deceased) was dismissed, is the issue in the above appeal. The parties are being referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The plaint averments are that Justice Chander Bhan 2. Aggarwal, father-in-law of the First Plaintiff (Smt. Urvashi 1 | P a g e Aggarwal) took the first and second floors of the property at 82, Jor Bagh, New Delhi on rent from Smt. Suraj Kumari (since deceased). After the death of Just...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2544-2545 OF2019(arising out of SLP(C) Nos.16537-16538 of 2016) KRISHNA NAND SHUKLA VERSUS .... APPELLANT(S) DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ALLAHABAD & ORS .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.Leave granted.2. These two appeals have been filed against judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 06.10.2015 dismissing the Writ Petition No.29473 of 1999 and order dated 09.03.2016 rejecting Review Application No.421500 of 2015 filed by the appellant.3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeals are: The appellant claims to be appointed on 02.08.1991 by the Management of Jawaharlal Nehru Smarak Post Graduate College (Affiliated to Gorakhpur University, 2 Gorakhpur. The appellants case is that an advertisement was issued on 22.06.1991 in the newspaper-Hindi Dainik, Gorakhpur in response to which he applied for the post of Professor Defence Studies. The Registrar of the Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO......................OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.25080 OF2016 SWAPNANJALI SANDEEP PATIL Versus APPELLANT SANDEEP ANANDA PATIL RESPONDENT JUDGMENT M.R.SHAH, J.Leave granted.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No.342 of 2015 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal filed by the original applicant and has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune in Marriage Petition No.55 of 2012 by which the learned District Judge dismissed the said marriage petition, 2 the original applicant/appellant-wife has preferred the present appeal.3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: (a) That the appellant herein married with respondent husband on 05.04.2010. (b) That their marriage was an inter-caste ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.957 OF2017Giridhar .. Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 22.09.2016 in Writ Petition No.5450 of 2015, by which the High Court has restricted the grant of monetary benefits to the petitioner with effect from 03.07.2008 only, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.2. The appellant-original writ petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Respondent No.4 College on 26.12.1989 against the post reserved for scheduled tribe category. Though he does not belong to the scheduled tribe category, he was appointed against the said reserved post because, despite the advertisement, no candidate from the said category was available for appointment. As per the Government Resolution dated 25.01....
Tag this Judgment!