Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO................OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.13868 OF2019 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SUNITA .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. Leave is granted.2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th April, 2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the NCDRC) in Revision Petition No.897 of 2018, whereby the NCDRC while allowing the said Revision Petition, has set aside the order passed by the State Commission and has confirmed the order passed by the District Forum.3. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the husband of the respondent herein (original 1 complainant) had taken/purchased a life insurance policy under the Jeevan Suraksha Yojana on 14.04.2021 from the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation, under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6255 OF2021(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.17893 OF2008 DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI ..APPELLANT(S) VS. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA ...RESPONDENT(S) HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY & ANR. JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA J.This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8th February,2008, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ petition No.20470 of 2007, by which the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed.2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-University which was established in the year 2001 was included in the List of Universities eligible to receive assistance from the Central Government under Section 12(b) of 2 the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act for short) and Rules framed thereunder, with effect from 20th May, 2003.3. The respondent-University framed Statutes in the year 2002 providing for variou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.903 OF2011STATE OF KERALA & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S POPULAR ESTATES (NOW DISSOLVED) & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. This appeal by special leave challenges a judgment of the Kerala High Court1, which allowed an appeal preferred by the respondent (hereafter called Popular Estates) and held that an area of slightly over 402 acres (i.e., 100 hectares and 155.90 acres) vested in the State of Kerala (hereafter the state), and the rest of the land (of a total 1534.40 acres) had to be treated as plantation, and thus, belonged to the said respondent.2. Popular Estates became owners of 1534.40 acres of land. Those lands were acquired by sale, by M/s Popular Automobiles, a registered firm, through four registered deeds executed in 1963. These lands fell to Popular Estates share upon partition of the firms assets. The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3135 OF2011THE TRANSPORT CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. THROUGH SANTNU PATRA MANAGER - LEGAL .. APPELLANT v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN. & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. The appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 29th March 2010 passed by a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal. The first respondent is the Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short the Insurance Corporation) established under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the said Act of 1948).2. By a notice dated 6th April 1990, a demand was made by the Insurance Corporation in the sum of Rs.8,01,510/- by way of contribution 2 payable by the appellant for the period from 30th July 1975 to 31st March 1988. The contribution was demanded as per the provisions of Regulations 29, 31 and 33 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (for sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1312 OF2021[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5991 of 2018]. NARAYANA PRASAD SAHU ..APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Abhay S. Oka,J.Leave granted.1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section (16)(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the said Act of 1954). The allegation against the appellant was of violation of clauses (i) and (v) of Section 7 of the said Act of 1954.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16th January 2002 the appellant was selling chana daal in weekly market in Kagpur when the Food Inspector came there and called upon the appellant to show 2 licence. However, the appellant failed to show any licence. The Food Inspector purchased 750 gms of chana daal from the appellant. The said quantity was divided into three parts and was sent for examination to Public A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6534-6535 OF2021STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PREMALATA MOHAPATRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order passed by the High Court of Orissa on 12.4.2016 directing the Collector and the Tehsildar, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the High Court (appellants herein) to demarcate the land of 5 acres in respect of the lease case initiated in the year 1967 and to handover the possession of the said land preferably within a period of four weeks.2. The said order arises out of the fact that the husband of the respondent Shri Umesh Chandra Mohapatra was working with the Indian Army. The claim of his wife1, now deceased, was that keeping in view service rendered by her husband to the nation, each person who returned from 1 Hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner 1 the forward area during the war time is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1170 OF2021The State of Jammu & Kashmir and others Appellants Versus Dr. Saleem Ur Rehman Respondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar in O.W.P. No.1961/2015, by which the High Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction has quashed the criminal proceedings being FIR No.32/2012 and has declared Rule 3.16 of the Vigilance Manual, 2008 dealing with the Preliminary Enquiry (PE) being in direct conflict with the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2 AIR2014SC187= 2014 (2) SCC1 and consequently has declared the same ultra vires, the State has preferred the present appeal.2. That an FIR being FIR No.32/2012, Police Station, VOK was registered against the respondent herein under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.1278 of 2021 Hariram Bhambhi Appellant Versus Satyanarayan & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1 Leave granted.2. On 9 June 2018, the appellant lodged a report at Police Station Kishangarh, District Ajmer on the basis of which FIR No.116/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code was registered. In his complaint, the appellant stated that on 8 June 2018, his younger brother Ram Niwas had gone out for carrying out labour work. The appellant was informed by his mother that evening that Ram Niwas was away to meet his brother-inlaw, Kishan Lal, and that he would 1 not return for the day. On 9 June 2018, Ram Niwass spouse informed the appellant that her brother Kishan Lal had taken Ram Niwas in a vehicle at about 3.00 oclock. The local residents informed the appellant that the dead body of Ram Niwas was thrown out of a vehicle at a specified plac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2021(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.3913 OF2020 DAYLE DESOUZA ..... A P P ELLANT(S) VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C) AND ANOTHER ..... R E S PONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant, Dayle DeSouza, is a director of M/s. Writer Safeguard Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company). In 2009, the Company had entered into an agreement titled Agreement for Servicing and Replenishment of Automated Teller Machines with M/s. NCR Corporation India Private Ltd., the latter having earlier entered into an agreement with the State Bank of India for maintenance and upkeep of the State Bank of Indias Criminal Appeal a/o. SLP (Crl.) No.3913 of 2020 Page 1 of 32 ATMs. On 19th February 2014, the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) had inspected the State Bank of Indias ATM at AST, Komal Chand Petrol Pump, Civil Lines, Sag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.1301 of 2021 Sarabjeet Singh Mokha ....Appellant Versus The District Magistrate, Jabalpur & Ors. .... Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J A Facts ....................................................................................................................3 B Submissions of counsel .................................................................................... 9 C Right to make a representation: Constitutional safeguards and legislative scheme of the NSA ................................................................................................. 17 D Analysis .............................................................................................................2 5 D.1 Delay in considering the representation .................................................. 25 D.2 Failure to communicate decision on the representation ........................ 38 E Conclusio...
Tag this Judgment!