Court : Supreme Court of India
// 1 // REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6260-61 OF2021Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 of Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association Appellant(s) Versus National Textile Corporation Limited & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final judgment and order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal Nos.427 of 2016 and 431 of 2016 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said Appeals preferred by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein National Textile // 2 // Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as NTC) and the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal (hereinafter referred to as KUDA) and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.26642 of 2007, the original writ petitioner Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 of Azam ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1967 OF2009DR. U.N. BORA, EX. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT M.M. SUNDRESH, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court finding the appellants guilty of willful disobedience of the order passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5491 of 2001 etc. dated 12.09.2008 in respect to the levy made while upholding Section 21 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972.2. Pending the appeal, the first appellant died on 27.02.2017. Taking note of the aforesaid fact, the proceedings as against him were declared as abated by the order of this court dated 07.10.2021. 13. We have heard the arguments of the counsels at the Bar and perused the documents filed along with the written arguments. FACTS:4. While leapfrogging unnecessary facts, a brief sketch is furnished hereund...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6469 OF2021[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14165 of 2015]. V. ANANTHA RAJU & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS T.M. NARASIMHAN & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 27.2.2015, thereby, dismissing the first appeal being R.F.A. No.1111 of 2008, filed by the appellants and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the XXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore city dated 18.8.2008, vide which the suit 2 being O.S. No.5622 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the said suit) filed by the appellants/plaintiffs came to be partly decreed.3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status in the said suit. A partnership firm, namely, M/s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.967 OF2021Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya Appellant(s) Versus Anand Athabhai Chaudhari & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat passed in Special Criminal Application No.5670 of 2017, by which, the High Court has allowed the said Special Criminal Application and has quashed and set aside the FIR being M Case No.2 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act) and also quashing and setting aside the order of issuance of summons dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Page 1 of 29 learned JMFC, Jhalod in Criminal Inquiry No.108 of 2013 as well as all consequential ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
// 1 // REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5110 OF2021Sughar Singh Appellant(s) Versus Hari Singh (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No.836 of 2010 by which the High Court has allowed the said Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree for specific performance of the Agreement confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the original plaintiff has preferred the present Appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nut-shell are as under: // 2 // 2.1 That, one Ram Singh executed the agreement to sell in favour of original plaintiff Sughar Singh to sell the suit land for a total sale consideration of Rs.56,000/-. Rs.25,000/- was received by the executant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1285 OF2021(arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No.9871 OF2019 MITESH KUMAR J.SHA APPELLANT (S) VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KRISHNA MURARI, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.2691 of 2016, filed by the Appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) challenging the FIR No.185/2016 dated 29.03.2016 implicating the appellants for offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.20609 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional CMM, Bengaluru, initiated pursuant to charge sheet dated 29.03.2017 against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The High Court vide order impugned herein dismissed the same. 13. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION(S)(CIVIL) No.1867/2019 BABITA SRIVASTAVA Petitioner VERSUS VINOD SRIVASTAVA Respondent ORDER This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife Under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband in the Court of Principal District Judge Family Court at Gurugram (Haryana) to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Gwalior(M.P.). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner is presently residing at Gwalior (M.P.) and hence the aforesaid matter may be transferred to the competent court of jurisdiction at Gwalior. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no objection is raised by the respondent for the said transfer as such. In the circumstances, having regard to the difficulty pleaded by the petitioner and the distance between Gurugram, Haryana and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION(S)(CIVIL) No.3044/2019 RASHMI ROHAN SHETTY Petitioner(s) VERSUS ROHAN RAGHUNATH SHETTY Respondent(s) ORDER This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by the respondent- husband in the Family Court at Thane, Maharashtra, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Mangalore, Dakshin Kannada District, Karnataka. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner is presently residing at Mangalore, Karnataka and hence the aforesaid matter may be transferred to the competent court of jurisdiction at Mangalore. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no objection is raised by the respondent for the said transfer as such. In the circumstances, having regard to the difficulty pleaded by the Petitioner and the distance between Thane, Maharashtra and Mangalore at Karnataka being consider...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1393 OF2011Ramawatar Appellant VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent JUDGMENT SURYA KANT, J.A civil dispute over the ownership and possessory rights of a piece of land between the Appellant and his neighbour Prembai took an ugly turn when the Appellant allegedly not only threw a brick on the Complainant but also made filthy and slur remarks on her caste, which prompted the Complainant to lodge FIR No.18/94 at Police Station O.E. Panna under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (in short SC/ST Act) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.). The Appellant and his coaccused were subsequently tried, which led to the Appellants conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of Page | 1 the SC/ST Act and consequential sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/. The Appellant challenged his conv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1827 OF2011STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ..... APPELLANT VERSUS MAHENDRA ALIAS GOLU ..... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT SURYA KANT, J.State of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) is in appeal against the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench at Jabalpur whereby the respondents conviction under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) has been set aside and instead he has been held guilty under Section 354 IPC and consequently his sentence has been reduced from 5 years to 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment. Page | 1 BRIEF FACTS:2. The prosecution case is that, about a fortnight prior to 20.12.2005 (date of registration of FIR), the two victimprosecutrix who are named as X (PW1) and Y (PW2), aged about 9 years and 8 years respectively, were playing gillidanda in the street located near the respondents house....
Tag this Judgment!