Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.OF2020(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) DIARY No.1321 OF2020 Commissioner, Directorate of Logistics Petitioner(s) Versus M/s. Almighty Techserv, Proprietor Mr. Manish Dalmia & Anr. Respondents(s) ORDER Deepak Gupta, J.Delay condoned.2. The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), through the Directorate of Logistics floated an etender for supply, installation and maintenance of 74 videoscopes at various field formations of CBEC. Various bids were received. The tender was awarded in favour of M/s. ASVA Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. 1 The award of this tender was challenged by the unsuccessful bidder M/s. Almighty Techserv on various counts. The High Court vide impugned judgment has held that the award of tender in favour of M/s. ASVA Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. is illegal and according to the calculation of the High Court, the tender of the writ petitioner should have been treated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.5440 OF2020[@ DIARY No.1476 OF2020 District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary .. Petitioner Versus Ishwar Shandilya & Ors. .. Respondents JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (PIL) No.31 of 2016, the District Bar Association, Dehrarun, through its Secretary, has preferred the present SLP. That by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court in the writ petition (PIL) filed by the private respondent herein has issued the following directions: The District Bar Associations of Dehradun, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar shall, forthwith, withdraw their call for a strike, and start attending Courts on all working Saturdays. All the District 2 Bar Associations in the State shall forthwith refrain from abstaining from Courts beca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.190 OF2018ARUN KUMAR GUPTA PETITIONER(S) Versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.391 OF2018Deepak Gupta, J.JUDGMENT1 These writ petitions have been filed by two erstwhile judicial officers who were members of the judicial service in the State of Jharkhand and are directed against the orders whereby they have been compulsorily retired. In respect of the two writ petitions which are the subject matter of this judgment, this Court passed the following order on 06.09.2018: Writ Petition Nos. 190/2018 and 391/2018 shall remain pending. The High Court of Jharkhand may like to reconsider the matter in the light of the 1 entirety of the materials that have been placed before us at the hearing by the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court and also by the learned counsel for the High Court. We make it clear that the High Court is free to decide the matter as m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1511 OF2020(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.725 OF2017 SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. 2. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 19th September 2016 whereby the defendant's second appeal was allowed and the suit for a permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and rendition of accounts was dismissed. The suit was filed by plaintiff No.1 claiming himself to be the owner of land measuring 53 Bighas 11 Biswas and plaintiff No.2 claiming herself to be the owner of land measuring 12 Bighas 16 Biswas. The plaintiff No.1 claimed to be ex-ruler of an erstwhile princely state of Dhami and that had been getting his property managed through 1 various persons. The assertion of the plaintiffs is that the defendant was appointed as a Manager to look...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 119 of 2010 Md. Younus Ali Tarafdar .... Appellant(s) The State of West Bengal Versus .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.The present Criminal Appeal arises from the 1. judgment of the High Court of Calcutta by which the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) was affirmed.2. On 20.03.1984, a phone call was received from Bhaskar Gupta, PW6by Rajarhat Police Station that a dead body was found in a well inside the garden. The Investigating Officer PW20 reached the place of [1]. occurrence at 6.05 p.m. and saw a body floating in the well. The dead body could not be taken out as it was dark by then. A First Information Report was registered and the sketch map of place of incident was prepared. The body was brought out of the well the next day. PW18Dr. Santosh Kuma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5437-5438/2012 M/S. ANANDA SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST ..APPELLANT(S) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.4702/2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1727/2020 (@SLP(C) NO.25761/2015) ORDER CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5437-5438/2012 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment(s) and Order(s) passed by the High Court of Karnataka. In our considered view, the reasons assigned by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) need no interference as the same are in consonance with law. Accordingly, there is no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed. 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4702/2014 This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Director of Income Tax against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court holding that a newly registered Trust is entitled for registration under section 12AA of the I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.286 OF2020(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.)NO.1041 OF2020 SANJEEV KAPOOR CHANDANA KAPOOR & ORS. ... APPELLANT VERSUS ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 05.11.2019 in CRM-M-4663 of 2019 filed by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 05.01.2019 passed by the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. The High Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the appellant.2. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding this appeal are: The appellant was married to respondent No.1 on 04.11.1998. On 17.08.199 a daughter was born and on 2 18.07.2005 a son was born out of their wedlock. An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No.1 on 09.07.2013 against her husband claiming maintenance for respondent No.1 as well as respondent Nos.2 and 3,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 482 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 11551 of 2011) Suresh Chand and Anr Versus .... Appellants Suresh Chander (D) Thr LRs and Ors .... Respondents JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J12 Leave granted. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 3 The issue in the present appeal is whether a right of pre-emption was available to Beni Prasad who is alleged to be a joint owner in possession of the disputed courtyard. This has arisen in the context of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act 19661. Briefly stated, 1 the Act 1 the facts which have given rise to the present appeal are thus: A suit2 for pre-emption was instituted by Beni Prasad in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Badi, District Dholpur in Rajasthan. Beni Prasad died during the pendency of the proceedings a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6006 OF2009VITHALDAS JAGANNATH KHATRI (DEAD) THROUGH SMT. SHAKUNTALA ALIAS SUSHMI & ORS. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT & ORS. Respondents JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. This appeal has come to us owing to a difference of opinion between Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.and K.M. Joseph, J.in a judgment dated 29.08.2019.2. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy in this appeal are as follows: a partition deed dated 31.01.1970 (duly registered on 1.07.1970) was executed between late Shri Vithaldas Jagannath Khatri and his minor son and three minor daughters. In terms of this 1 document, the agricultural land of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is sought to be divided by mentioning that parties two to five - who are the four children of Vithaldas - have to be provided expenses for their education and marriage, which will be borne out of the separate property al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 9492 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 10520 of 2017) ...Appellant ...Respondents The Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy Represented by its Executive Officer, Joint Commissioner Versus P K Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustee and Ors JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1 This appeal arises from a judgment dated 1 December 2016 of a Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court dismissed the appellants second appeal and upheld the judgment dated 31 August 2005 of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli and the decree dated 10 November 2004 of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, 1 Tiruchirapalli, permitting the first respondent to sell a portion of the suit property to the fourth respondent.2. The first respondent is a trust represented by its Managing Trustee. The second and third respondents are members of the...
Tag this Judgment!