Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.455 OF2019Jignesh Shah & Anr. Petitioners Union of India & Anr. Versus WITH Respondents CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.______ of 2019) (D. No.13468 of 2019) WITH TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.817 OF2019WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.7618-19 OF2019(D. No.16521 of 2019) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.645 OF2019JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.W.P.(C) No.645 OF20191. The issues involved in Writ Petition (Civil) No.645 of 2019 are entirely different from the Writ Petition (Civil) No.455 of 2019 and its 1 other connected matters. This writ petition is accordingly de-tagged from Writ Petition (Civil) No.455 of 2019. The Registry is directed to list this writ petition separately. W.P.(C) No.455 of 2019 & Civil Appeal (Diary No.16521 of 2019) 2. Delay is condoned. Civil Appeal (Diary No.16521 of 2019) is admitted.3. Writ Petition (Civil) No.455 of 2019 and Civil Appeal (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 14891490 OF2019(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos.89688969 of 2019 (Arising out of Diary No.23350/2017) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Etc. .Appellant(s) Versus Mrs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Respondent(s) Agarwal & Anr.Etc. JUDGMENT A.S. Bopanna,J.Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The appellant Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is before this Court assailing the order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 284/2013 and 323/2013. Through the said order the High Court has Page 1 of 15 allowed the Criminal Revision Application No.284/2013 and discharged the accused No.2 and further the Criminal Revision Application No.323/2013 filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.4. The brief facts limited to the disposal of these appeals is that the first respondent in both these appeals, namely, Smt. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1963 /2010 Shri Subir Bose Versus Appellant Inspector of Factories, represented by S. M. Paranjpe & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT INDU MALHOTRA, J.1. The appellant Mr. Subir Bose, was the Managing Director of M/s. Berger Paints India Ltd. (the Company for short) and resident of Kolkatta at the time of the offence..2. On April 28, 2006 at about 11:20 hours fire had broken out at the factory premises of the company located at IDC Kundaim, Goa. There was no causality except that one Shri Tulsidas Dutta Palkar a worker, had sustained minor injuries and was taken to hospital and discharged after treatment on the same day. 1 3. On 28th June, 2006, Inspector of Factories, Altinho, Panaji, Goa filed a private complaint in discharge of official duties under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Factories Act for short) against the appellant Managing Director of the Company, as the occupier, and Shri S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7576 OF2019(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.24633 OF2017 STATE OF GOA & ANR. APPELLANT(S) Versus DR. ALVARO ALBERTO MOUSINHO DE NORONHA FERREIRA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.Leave granted.2. The following question arises for decision in this appeal. Whether conversion charges payable for conversion of land from agricultural to nonagricultural should be calculated on the basis of the rates applicable at the time of making of 1 the application or on the date when the order allowing conversion of land was issued?. 3. Facts necessary for decision of the case are that the respondent and three of his family members applied to the State for permission to convert some agricultural land measuring 16014 sq. mtrs. on 08.03.2013. This application was acknowledged by the Office of the Deputy Collector on 29.04.2013. Inspection of the land was carried out on 15.05.2013 and the Mamlatdar submitted his repor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7593 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(C) No.16682 of 2019) M/S BAGALKOT UDYOG LIMITED APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SHIVASHANKARGOUDA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The short issue involved in this case is whether the High Court was right in remitting the matter back to the Executing Court to decide whether the order passed by it is in accordance with decree passed by the Civil Court or not. The undisputed facts are that the appellant was a lessee under the respondents pursuant to a lease deed dated 19.11.1952 commencing from 01.04.1953. The lease was for a period of 30 years ending on 31.03.1983 and contained a clause giving right of renewal of the lease for another period of 30 years commencing from 01.04.1983 to 31.03.2013. 1 The appellant exercised his right to extend the lease but the respondents refused to extend the lease for a period of 30 years. Therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4563 OF2014DINA NATH (D ) BY LRS & ANR. .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SUBHASH CHAND SAINI & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10th May, 2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil Miscellaneous (M) No.44 of 2011 at the instance of the appellants (tenants) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India upholding orders of the Rent Controller striking out defence of the appellants on account of alleged failure to pay the rent.2. The matter earlier was heard by a two Judge Bench of this Court 2 and there was a unanimity on the principles of law that the power to strike out the defence vested in the Rent Controller under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter being referred to as the Act, 1958) is discretionary and not mandatory and it is imperative that every violation in implementation of the directi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1481 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.1513 OF2011 NEVADA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS .. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1122 OF2011CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1482-1485 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.891-894 OF2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1486 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.4360 OF2011 A N D CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1487 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.3958 OF2013 Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1513 of 2011 and connected matters Page 1 of 39 JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.2. A Division Bench of this Court (Jagdish Singh Khehar and Arun Mishra, JJ.) vide order dated November 18, 2014, noticing that the issues that arise have far reaching and serious consequences, had refer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.149 OF2017STATE OF UP AND OTHERS ...Appellants VINOD KUMAR KATHERIA Respondent VERSUS JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 06.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal Defective No.347 of 2016 in and by which the High Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent setting aside the dismissal order passed against the respondent.2. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as under:- The respondent-employee was working as Lekhpal in the Revenue Department of the Government of U.P. since the date of his appointment with effect from 16.01.1990. During the respondents posting as Lekhpal in District Mainpuri, the respondent was suspended vide order dated 17.05.2008 by the 2 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mainpuri District. A charge sheet dated 01.07.2008 was issued by the appellant against the respondent wherein seven s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.7459-7460 of 2010 KANCHAN DUA Versus .... Appellant(s) UNION OF INDIA & ANR. . Respondent (s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Sanction was accorded by the President of India for the 1. modifications to the Rules/Regulations concerning pensionary benefits to the Armed Forces personnel on 31.01.2001. Pensionary benefits upon the death or disability in attributable/aggravated cases is dealt with in Part II thereof. Category E of Part II is as follows: Category E Death or disability arising as a result of: - a)Enemy action in international war. b)Action during deployment with a peace keeping mission abroad. c)Border skirmishes. d)During laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also minesweeping Operations. 1 e)On account of accidental explosions of mines while laying Operationally oriented mine-field or lifting or negotiating mine-field laid by the enemy or own forces in Operational areas n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7544-7545 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.35673-74 of 2014) M/S. CANARA NIDHI LIMITED ...Appellant VERSUS M. SHASHIKALA AND OTHERS Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. In the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeking to set aside the award, whether the parties can adduce evidence to prove the specified grounds in sub-section (2) to Section 34 of the Act, is the question falling for consideration in these appeals. 1 3. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 12.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition Nos.18374-75 of 2010 (GM-RES) in and by which the High Court set aside the order passed by the District Judge and directed the District Judge to recast the issues and permit respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file affidavits of their witnesses and also permitting cross-examination of the witnesses.4. Brief...
Tag this Judgment!