Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3489 OF2020[Arising out of SLP (C) No.95 of 2020]. Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. .. Appellant Versus Piyush Kant Sharma & Ors. .. Respondents ORDER M. R. Shah, J.Leave granted.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim Order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1924 of 2019, the original respondent Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. has preferred the present appeal.3. That the respondent No.1 herein was appointed as Computer Operator on contractual basis. Respondent No.1 original 2 petitioner filed the writ petition before the High Court for grant of regular payscale and to regularize his services on the ground that he is serving the appellant Corporation for the last three years. It was the specific case on behalf of the appellant C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.686 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4337/2020) STATE OF U.P. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GAYATRI PRASAD PRAJAPATI ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, by which the respondent has been granted interim bail on medical grounds for a period of two months while directing listing of the regular Bail Application No.5743 of 2019 in the week commencing from 28.09.2020 for hearing.3. Brief facts of the case necessary to decide this appeal are:- 1 3.1 The respondent, a former minister in the State of U.P. is an accused in case Crime No.29 of 2017 under Sections 376(D)/376/511/ 504/506 of I.P.C. read with Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Gautam Palli, District Lucknow. 3.2 The first information report was registered against the respondent after an order was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2483 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.1048 of 2020) SATISH CHANDER AHUJA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SNEHA AHUJA ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal raises important questions of law pertaining to the interpretation and working of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2005).3. This appeal has been filed by Satish Chander Ahuja, the plaintiff questioning the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 18.12.2019 in RFA No.381/2019 by which judgment Delhi High Court has set aside the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff dated 08.04.2019 2 under Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory and permanent injunction. The High Court after setting aside the decree of the Trial Court has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 681682 OF2020(Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos.43864387/2020) Saravanan Appellant Versus State represented by the Inspector of PoliceRespondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.Leave granted.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 24.06.2020 in Criminal O.P.(MD) No.6214 of 2020 and order dated 27.07.2020 in Criminal M.P.(MD) No.3622 of 2020 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, by which the High Court has released the appellant on default bail/statutory bail, on condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/ (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the credit of crime No.31 of 2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagercoil, 1 Kanyakumari District, the original accused has preferred the present appeals.3. That the appellant herein was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody on 31.01.2020 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC in Crime No.31 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3438-3439 OF2020(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.17313-17314 of 2011) HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION OF MUDUMALAI .. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS IN DEFENCE OF ENVIRONMENT AND ANIMALS AND ORS. ETC. ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH Civil Appeal No.3437 of 2020 SLP (C) No.20154 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.3440 of 2020 SLP (C) No.21460 of 2011 Civil Appeal Nos.3442-3443 of 2020 SLP (C) Nos. 21463-21464 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.3444 of 2020 SLP (C) No.21461 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.3445 of 2020 SLP (C) No.16668 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.3447 of 2020 SLP (C) No.17160 of 2011 Civil Appeal Nos.3448-3449 of 2020 SLP (C) Nos. 17155-17156 of 2011 1 Civil Appeal Nos.3450-51 of 2020 SLP (C) Nos. 17150-17151 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.3446 of 2020 SLP (C) No.21480 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.3452 of 2020 SLP (C) No.21467 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.3453 of 2020 SLP (C) No.21472 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.3454 of 2020 SLP (C) No.21477 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.3455 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.680 of 2020 (Arising from S.L.P.(Criminal) No.4976/2020) Ganesan Appellant Versus State Represented by its Inspector of Police Respondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.Leave granted.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.844 of 2018, the appellant original accused has preferred the present appeal.3. That the appellant herein original accused was tried by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act). That relying upon the deposition of PW3 1 victim, who at the relevant time was studying in 5th standard and aged 13 years, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M.A.NO.1260 OF2020IN CIVIL APPEAL No.839 OF2020CHOWGULE AND COMPANY APPLICANT(S)/ PRIVATE LIMITED ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GOA FOUNDATION & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH M.A.NOS.13851387/2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.840842 OF2020M.A.NO.1384/2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL No.843 OF2020M.A.NO.1345 /2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.848 OF2020M.A.NO.1344/2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL No.847 OF2020M.A.NO.1625/2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.839 OF2020ORDER1 While M.A.Nos.1260, 1344, 1345, 1384, 1385, 1386 and 1387 of 2020 are applications filed by the lessees of manganese/iron ore mines, seeking extension of time for the transportation of the mineral alleged to have been mined before 15.03.2018, M.A.No.1625 of 2020 is filed by the Goa Foundation, 2 which was the writ petitioner before the High Court and the first respondent in the Civil Appeals before this Court, praying for certain directions and for a clarification of the judgment delivered by this Court in Civil Appeal N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NO.62796 OF2020IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.54675468 OF2019Hanumappa (Since Deceased) by His Lrs. & Ors. . Appellant(s) Versus The State of Karnataka & Ors. . Respondent(s) ORDER1 The respondent No.4 to this petition has filed the instant application seeking modification/vacation of the interim order dated 15.02.2019 passed by this Court. Through the order dated 15.02.2019 this Court had directed the parties to maintain statusquo as it existed on that date.2. The facts in brief limited to the consideration of this application would indicate that the respondent No.3 herein was originally the owner of the property bearing Survey Nos. 91 and 2 92, Chikkagubbi Village. The respondent No.4 herein had purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dated 26.04.1978. The petitioner herein claiming to be an agricultural tenant in respect of the said property as also certain other properties and further claiming to be in poss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).3419 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.10255 of 2020) ANIL BHARDWAJ APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed questioning the Division Bench judgment dated 06.01.2020 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant in the writ petition has prayed for quashing the orders dated 14.09.2018, 18.07.2018 and 21.09.2019 by which appellant has been 2 held not suitable for being appointed to the post of District Judge (Entry Level).3. The brief facts of the case are: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement dated 09.03.2017 inviting applications for recruitment in the post of District Judge(Entry Level) in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service by Direct Recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates. In pursuance to the advertise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3427 OF2020(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.16491 of 2019) SUGANDHI (dead) by Lrs. & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS P. RAJKUMAR REP. BY HIS POWER AGENT IMAM OLI RESPONDENT(S) ORDER1 Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2609 of 2018 whereby the High Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants challenging the refusal to entertain an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short C.P.C.) seeking leave of the court to produce additional documents. 23. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit, O.S. No.257 of 2014, on the file of the Principal SubJudge, Pudukottai, and the respondent is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to in their respective positions before the Trial Court. The plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!