Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No 78 of 2021 Manjit and Ors .... Appellant(s) Versus Union of India and Anr ....Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres; and (b) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 The dispute in the present case relates to a scheme, popularly termed as the Larsgess Scheme, which had been adopted by the Railway Administration previously. The Punjab and Haryana High Court passed orders on 27 April 2016 and 14 July 2017 requiring the Union of India to reconsider the Scheme. The orders of the High Court were evidently based on the fact that the Scheme provided for an entry into service for certain wards of serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.268-269 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C)Nos.17665-17666 of 2019) POORAN CHAND ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CHANCELLOR & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals have been filed challenging the Division Bench judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 12.04.2018 by which writ petition filed by respondent No.4 has been allowed and the order of the Chancellor dated 08.07.2009 rejecting the representation made by respondent No.4 was set aside.3. Brief facts of the case for deciding these appeals are:1. 3.1 King George Medical University is a Medical University under the by U.P. Act No.8 of 2002 namely the King George Medical University Act, Uttar Pradesh Act, 2002. An advertisement dated 15.03.2005 was issued by U.P. King Georges University of Dental Sciences, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as University) inviting applications for the post of Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No.2344 OF2019AMRUTA BEN HIMANSHU KUMAR SHAH PETITIONER(S) VERSUS HIMANSHU KUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA SHAH RESPONDENT(S) ORDER V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent, has come up with the above petition seeking the transfer of Family Suit No.33 of 2016 from the Family Court, Banaskantha, Palanpur, Gujarat, to a competent court in Mumbai, Maharashtra.2. I have heard Mr. Harsh Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ranu Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent. 13. The petitioner and the respondent got married on 28.02.2002. Two children were born in the wedlock on 31.08.2007 and 27.01.2011.4. Disputes arose, leading to the respondent filing a petition in HMP No.11 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur, Gujarat, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition was transferred to the Family Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.88 OF2021(arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.10247/2019) AJAY KUMAR @ BITTU & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. ..RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand dated 27.09.2019, by which judgment High Court had dismissed the Criminal Revision filed by the appellants. The Criminal Revision was filed by the appellants against the order dated 17.08.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Laksar, by which the appellants were summoned by the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 23. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal are:- i. The appellant was made an accused in FIR No.175/2015 at Police Station Kotwali, Laksar, Haridwar, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 452, 504 and 506 IPC along with six other accused. An FIR No.176/2016 was also registered in the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 251-252 of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.14266-14267 of 2019) ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GILLAPUKRI TEA COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.1. Leave granted.2. Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited has filed these appeals challenging the judgment and order in Writ Appeal Nos. 219 & 220 of 2017 dated 14.03.2019 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Guwahati has dismissed the 2 said appeals confirming the order of the Learned Single Judge in Review Petition Nos. 79 & 80 of 2016.3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under.4. In order to set up a plastic park, the Government of Assam decided to acquire a portion of the land belonging to the first respondent situated at Gillapukri Tea Estate, Village Gillapukri, Tinsukia, Assam. The Government of Assam, in exercise of the power ve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.155 of 2021 Chintpurni Medical College and Hospital & Anr. .... Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Anr. . Respondent (s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.1. The Appellants requested the Medical Council of India for permission to admit 150 students in MBBS course for the academic year 2019-2020. The Board of Governors in supersession of Medical Council of India rejected the request on 21.05.2019. The Appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi questioning the correctness of the proceeding dated 21.05.2019. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by its judgment dated 09.12.2020. This Appeal is filed challenging the said judgment.2. The first Respondent granted letter of permission to the first Appellant-College on 30.06.2011 for intake of 150 students in the MBBS course for the academic year 2011- 1 | Pa ge 2012. As the inspections carried out by the assessors of the Medical Counci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M.A. No .2673 of 2019 In Civil Appeal No.1298 of 2018 Darshan Singh & Ors. .... Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab & Ors. . Respondent (s) ORDER1 A pension scheme was proposed by the Government of Punjab in lieu of Contributary Provident Fund in the year 1991 which was ultimately introduced in 1999. The cut off date fixed for implementation of the pension scheme is 01.07.1999. The request made for altering the cut off date was not accepted by the Government on the ground that there would be huge financial burden on the State exchequer. The Writ Petition filed for implementation of the pension scheme from 1995 was dismissed by the High Court. Civil Appeal No.1298 of 2018 was filed challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of the High Court.2. This Court directed the learned counsel for the State of Punjab to obtain instructions about the actual financial liability of the State as the learned Senior Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NonReportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.26484 OF2018and INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.102466 OF2020in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.26484 OF2018ANKITA MEENA PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNIVERSITY OF DELHI RESPONDENT(S) ORDER V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. Challenging an order of the learned single judge, confirmed by the division bench in an intracourt appeal, refusing to interfere with the decision of the University denying permission to her to appear in the 4th Semester LLB Examination, a student has come up with the above SLP.2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the University. 23. The petitioner joined the 3year LLB Course at Law CentreII, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi in August, 2016. By the time she joined the course she was already married for about 5 months.4. The petitioner completed the first 3 semesters without any hindrance. However, she fell short of the required a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION Review Petition (C) No.472 of 2018 In Transfer Petition (C) No.1252 of 2016 Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan .... Petitioner Versus Navin Chauhan . Respondent (s) ORDER1 The Petitioner preferred Transfer Petition (C) No.1252 of 2016 seeking transfer of HMA No.487 of 2015 filed by the Respondent from the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket District, New Delhi. The Transfer Petition was dismissed taking into account the fact that no serious inconvenience will be caused to the Petitioner for travelling between Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to Saket, New Delhi. While dismissing the Transfer Petition, this Court directed the trial to be conducted at Gautambudh Nagar, Family Court through video conferencing.2. This Review Petition has been filed by the Petitioner on the ground that there is no video conferencing facility at Gautambudh Nagar, District Courts. Ano...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2760 OF2010Indian Bank and another Appellants Versus Mahaveer Khariwal Respondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 02.02.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No.246 of 2007, by which the Division Bench has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the 1 learned Single Judge and has quashed and set aside communication dated 20.04.2004 of the bank rejecting the application for voluntary retirement and has directed the appellantbank to release retiral dues of the respondent in accordance with the Pension Regulations, 1995 with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of writ petition, the employerbank has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present ...
Tag this Judgment!