Court : Supreme Court of India
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7317 OF2019(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3213 of 2016) Krishan Chander & Anr. .Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana & Ors. . Respondent(s) JUDGMENT A.S. Bopanna,J.Leave granted.2. The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.22656/2015. The said writ Petition was disposed of along with the writ petition bearing CWP.No.22652 and 22653 of 2015 through a common order. Through the said order the case sought to be made out by the appellants seeking Page 1 of 15 release of the land from the process of acquisition is not considered favourably. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed by the High Court.3. The brief facts are that the lands bearing Khasra No.19/2, 9 measuring 16 kanal situated in Village Para, District Rohtak, to which the appellants claim that their father was the owner, among other l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7306 OF2019(Arising out of SLP (C) No.33818/2015) SHRIRANG YADAVRAO WAGHMARE APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT1 Leave granted.2. The appellant was a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as a Judicial Magistrate on 01.03.1985. On 08.02.2001, he was put under suspension and dismissed from service on 15.01.2004. The appellant challenged his writ petition filed before the High Court. The same was dismissed. Notice was issued in the special leave petition on 14.12.2015 limited to the question of quantum of punishment. The only issue to be decided is whether the punishment imposed upon him is justified or a lenient view can be taken in the matter.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of the 2 Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, especially Rule 5 thereof. We are concerned with the portion ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION No.4272 OF2015SLP (C) PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND PETITIONER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOW GLADA) VERSUS VIDYA CHETAL RESPONDENT WITH SLP (C) No.5237 OF2015PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT PETITIONERS AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER VERSUS RAM SINGH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, J.1. The reference before us arises out of the order dated 13.07.2018, passed by a twoJudge Bench of this Court, wherein they expressed 1 doubt as to the correctness of the judgment rendered in the case of HUDA vs. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC479 This Court therein held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as NCDRC) had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality behind the demand of composition fee and extension fee made by HUDA, as the same being statutory obligation, does not qualify as deficiency in service.2. It is pertinent herein to note the opinion expressed by the two Judge Bench regarding the decision in the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7295 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.8343 OF2019 STATE OF ODISHA & ANOTHER PETITIONER(S) VERSUS ANUP KUMAR SENAPATI & ANOTHER RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.7298 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.29313 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL NO7301OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.32409 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL No.7296 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.16964 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL No.7297 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.17416 OF2018 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) No.22309 OF2019ARISING OUT OF CIVIL APPEAL No.7304 OF2019DIARY NO.31807 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 72997300 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NOS.3111031111 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL No.7302 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.4261 OF2019 AND2CIVIL APPEAL No.7303 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO.6708 OF2019 ARUN MISHRA, J.JUDGMENT1 The question involved in the appeals is whether the employees are entitled to claim grantinaid as admissible under the Orissa (Non...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.7279 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.25909 of 2013) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by Managing Director (Admin. and HR) ... Appellant(s) Versus Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr. .Respondent (s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted. The judgment of the High Court by which the order 1. of dismissal of Respondent No.1 from the service was set aside is the subject matter of this Appeal. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Meter Reader-cum-Clerk in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) in the year 1974. He was promoted as a Junior Engineer in the year 1997. On 21.06.2003, Additional Registrar of Enquiries-I, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore [1]. framed a charge against the Respondent which is as follows: Charge: That you DBE Sri. C. Nagaraju, while working as Junior Engineer (Elecl.,) at KEB, VV-1 (O&M) South Zone, Vidyaranyapuram Circle, Mysore during t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7378 OF2010JOSE PAULO COUTINHO APPELLANT(S) Versus MARIA LUIZA VALENTINA PEREIRA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.1. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situate outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 as applicable in the State of Goa or the Indian succession Act, 1925 is the question which arises for decision in this appeal.2. One Joaquim Mariano Pereira (JMP) had three daughters viz., (1) Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira (ML), Respondent No.1 (2) Virginia Pereira and (3) Maria Augusta Antoneita Pereira Fernandes. He also had a wife named Claudina Lacerda Pereira. 1 He lived in Bombay and purchased a property in Bombay in the year 1955. On 06.05.1957 he bequeathed this property at Bombay to his youngest daughter, Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira, Respondent No.1. He bequeathed Rs. 3000/ each to his other two daughters. His wife expired on 31.10.1960 wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7243 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.4990 OF2018 THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S) RADHA BALLABH HEALTH CARE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (P) LTD. .....RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1)2) 3) Leave granted. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna on November 21, 2017, whereby, the Letters Patent Appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Bench on September 19, 2016 was dismissed. The appellant published an advertisement on May 10, 2008 inviting applications for allotment of plot for health center in Lohia Nagar Housing Colony, Patna measuring 43000 sq. feet at the price of Rs.1,71,89,057/-. Rs.1,00,000/- was the earnest money. The 1 respondent applied for such plot along with the amount of earnest money. It was mentioned in the advertisement that upon receipt of more than one ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7800 OF2014S. Bhaskaran Sebastian (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. Versus Appellant(s) Respondent(s) JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.1. The instant appeal arises out of the order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 10.12.2007 in Civil Revision Petition No.1007 of 2007, setting aside the order of the City Civil Court, Chennai dated 31.01.2007 in E.A. No.5750/2003 in Execution Petition No.1910/1992 in O.S. No.8664/1988.2. follows: The suit temple properties were originally administered by three brothers Sadhasivamurthy, Balasundaram, and Sundararajan (original owners). Vide settlement deed dated 19.09.1947, these original owners endowed the property to the The brief facts from which this appeal arises are as 1 temple. The deed also included a provision that the eldest son of the deceased trustee would become his successor. The genealogy of the family of the original owners is as follows: Sadhas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1388-1389 OF2019(DIARY No.9218 OF2016 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S) SANDEEP KUMAR ETC. VERSUS W I T H .....RESPONDENT(S) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1390 OF2019(DIARY No.7204 OF2016 A N D CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1391 OF2019(DIARY No.7205 OF2016 JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1)2) Delay condoned. Appeals admitted. Criminal appeals arising out of Diary No.9218 of 2016 are filed by the Union of India whereas; criminal appeals arising out of Diary Nos. 7204 of 2016 and 7205 of 2016 are filed by accused - Neeraj Kumar Dhaka and Sandeep Kumar respectively.3) The challenge in the appeals filed by the Union of India under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 20071 is to an order passed on December 12, 2013 by the Armed Forces Tribunal2 setting aside the order of conviction & sentence and of dismissal 1 2 Act Tribunal 14) consequent to District Court Martial3 proceedings conducted against the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3960 OF2011GANPATI BABJI ALAMWAR (D) BY LRs. RAMLU AND OTHERS ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DIGAMBARRAO VENKATRAO BHADKE AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) NAVIN SINHA, J.JUDGMENT The appellants, who were the original defendants are aggrieved by the dismissal of their second appeal, affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which reversed the dismissal of the suit for redemption of mortgage filed by the plaintiffs.2. The parties shall be referred to by their original position in the suit for convenience. The plaintiffs purchased daily necessities from the shop of defendant no.1 on credit. A sum of Rs.10,500/ became outstanding after verification of accounts. 1 On 26.04.1970, the plaintiffs executed an instalment bond, Exhibit 53, to pay the dues in three yearly instalments on the occasion of Gudi Padwa in 1971, 1972 and 1973. The plaintiffs defaulted in payment of the first instalment itself. On 2...
Tag this Judgment!