Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.724 OF2020PRANEETH K AND ORS. ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.739 OF2020YUVA SENA ...PETITIONER(S) UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. VERSUS WITH ...RESPONDENT(S) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.746 OF2020YASH DUBEY AND ANR. ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH2WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.745 OF2020KRUSHNA GOVING WAGHMARE AND ORS. ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.10042 OF2020(Diary No.15056 OF2020 KAJAL MISHRA AND ORS. ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.741 OF2020WEST BENGAL COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS ASSOCIATIOIN (WBCUPA) AND ANR. ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.794 OF20203 SARTHAK...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200 OF2020(@ S.L.P.(CRIMINAL)No.4178 of 2019) UNION OF INDIA ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. What is the interplay between the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC for short) and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short)?. Whether in respect of offences falling under chapter IV of the Act, 1 a FIR can be registered under Section 154 of the CrPC and the case investigated or whether Section 32 of the Act supplants the procedure for investigation of offences under CrPC and the taking of cognizance of an offence under Section 190 of the CrPC?. Still further, can the Inspector under the Act, arrest a person in connection with an offence under Chapter IV of the Act.2. One Naushad Khan made an online complaint on 22.2.2018. The Commissioner (Food Protection ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2317 OF2011THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. APPELLANTS VS. DAVINDER SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5586 OF2010CIVIL APPEAL No.5597 OF2010CIVIL APPEAL No.5589 OF2010CIVIL APPEAL No.5593 OF2010CIVIL APPEAL No.5600 OF2010CIVIL APPEAL No.5598 OF2010CIVIL APPEAL No.5587 OF2010CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 55955596 OF2010CIVIL APPEAL No.2324 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL No.6936 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.30766 OF20102 CIVIL APPEAL No.2318 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 54545459 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.8701 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 3650036501 OF2011TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.37 OF2011TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.38 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL No.289 OF2014TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No.464 OF2015AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.1477 OF2019ARUN MISHRA, J.JUDGMENT1 A Bench of three Judges vide order dated 20.8.2014 referred the matter to a larger Bench for consideratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2843-2844 OF2010Nazir Mohamed ..Appellant versus J.Kamala And Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.These appeals are against a common judgment and order dated 06.11.2008 dismissing the Second Appeal being S.A. (MD) No.64 of 2000, filed by the Appellant, but allowing the Second Appeal being S.A. (MD) No.558 of 2000 filed by the Respondent, and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1999 of the First Appellate Court in A.S. No.16/1998, to the extent the First Appellate Court had declined the Respondents claim to a decree of recovery of possession of the suit premises. The High 2 Court held that the Respondent, being the Plaintiff in the suit was entitled to a declaration of title in respect of half portion of the suit premises, recovery of possession of the said half portion of the suit premises and also to recovery of income from the said half of the suit property owned by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3984 OF2010V. SUKUMARAN Appellant Versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondents JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. Pension is succour for post-retirement period. It is not a bounty payable at will, but a social welfare measure as a post-retirement entitlement to maintain the dignity of the employee. The appellant has been claiming his entitlement for the last almost 13 years but unsuccessfully, despite having worked with Government departments in various capacities for about 32 years. 1 The Facts:2. The controversy emanates from the appellant having worked in these different capacities with two different departments from time to time, albeit continuously. The appellant joined respondent No.2, Department of Fisheries of the State Government of Kerala as a Casual Labour Roll (for short CLR) worker on 7.7.1976 in a then pilot project on Pearl Culture, at Vizhinjam, Thiruvananthapuram. He worked upto 29.11.198...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.543 OF2020[Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.2040 of 2020]. Karthick & Ors. .. Appellants Versus The State represented by Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu .. Respondent JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.Leave granted.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.118 of 2012 by which the High Court has dismissed the said revision application and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant herein original accused for 2 the offences under Sections 147, 323, 325, 323 read with 149 and 325 read with 149 IPC, the original accused have preferred the present appeal.3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide order dated 24.02.2020 this Court found no ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 496-509 OF2020UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... PETITIONERS(S) VERSUS AGRICAS LLP AND OTHERS ETC. ..... RESPONDENT(S) W I T H TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No.(DIARY No.8823 OF2020 OF2020JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.Applications seeking intervention/impleadment are allowed.2. Considering the nature of controversy involved, this Court, with the consent of the counsels for the parties, vide order dated 29th June 2020 had deemed it appropriate to hear and decide challenge to the validity of the notifications dated 29th March 2019 bearing S.O. Numbers. 1478-E,1479-E, 1480-E and 1481-E pending in several Writ Petitions filed before different High Courts. We have also examined and decided the connected challenge to the Trade Notice dated 16th April 2019 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade on the ground of excessive delegation T.P. (C) Nos. 496-509 of 2020 & Anr. Page 1 of 86 as not being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2710 OF2010NARASAMMA & ORS. Appellants Versus A. KRISHNAPPA (Dead) Through LRs. Respondents JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. A plaint was laid before the City Civil Judge at Bangalore by A. Krishnappa, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein (original plaintiff) against Sri Jayaram, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein(original defendant) under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code), being O.S. No.4268/1989 in respect of the schedule property to the plaint being 1 described as a portion of property bearing Revenue Site No.9, part of Corporation No.2, 2ndmain road, 1st block, Goraguntepalya, Bangalore22 (hereinafter referred to as schedule property).2. The original plaintiff stated that he and his late brother, Mr. A. Muniswamappa, were full and absolute owners of agricultural land measuring 2 acres and 22guntas in Survey ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL No.7074 OF2008STATE OF M.P. & ORS. RAKESH SETHI & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which quashed Rule 55A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereafter the State Rules) framed by the Madhya Pradesh State (hereafter the state) and published by it. The respondent (hereafter the vehicle owner) had approached the High Court, contending that the said rule was ultra vires the states power under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act), and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereafter the Central Rules). The High Court accepted his contentions.2. The vehicle owner purchased the motorcycle in May, 2004 and applied for its registration on 25-05-2004 before the concerned registering authority, through the prescribed application in Form No.20. By an order (of 27-05-2004), the registering aut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL No.2416 OF2010REPORTABLE RAJ PAL SINGH ..APPELLANT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ....RESPONDENT HARYANA, ROHTAK JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.PRELIMINARY AND BRIEF OUTLINE1 This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1 in Income Tax Reference No.53-A of 1991 whereby the High Court, while answering the reference under the then existing Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 19612, disapproved the order dated 29.06.1990 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench3 in ITA No.739/Chandi/89 for the assessment year 1971-1972; and held that the capital gains arising out of land acquisition compensation were chargeable to income-tax under Section 45 of the Act of 1961 for the previous year 1 For short, the High Court. 2 For short, the Act of 1961 or the Act. 3 For short, ITAT. 1 referable to the date of award of compen...
Tag this Judgment!