Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.595 OF2021M/S. SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5768 OF2021JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.595/2021. Mr. Lonkar Nitin representing the Original Applicant before the National Green Tribunal. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appears for the Ministry of Environment & Forest. Page 1 of 18 The Government of Maharashtra and the State Pollution Control Board are represented by Mr. Rahul Chitnis and Mr. Mukesh Verma, learned counsel respectively.2. These two appeals are filed under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short the NGT Act) assailing the judgment and final order dated 18.1.2021 in the OA No.83/2019. Under the impugned judgment, the NGT held that further construction cannot be made ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2018 Hari & Anr. .... Appellants Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh . Respondent With Criminal Appeal Nos. 190-192 of 2018 Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2018 Criminal Appeal No.1503 of 2021 (@SLP (Crl.) No.1975 of 2018) Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2021 Criminal Appeal Nos. 1553-1556 of 2018 Criminal Appeal No.189 of 2018 Criminal Appeal No.187 of 2018 JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.1. Leave granted.2. By a judgment dated 14.11.2011, the Trial Court held the following persons guilty of the offences under Sections 147, 302 read with 149, 323 read with 149, 324 read with Section 149 and 201 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(3)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the 1 | Pa ge Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act): - Dhanni son of Ratan Singh, Tej Singh son of Kerori, Dharamveer son of Kanhayalal, Shivcharan son of Maniram, Singh Ram son of Mani Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION Review Petition (Criminal) No.641 of 2015 In Criminal Appeal No.1795 of 2009 Mofil Khan & Anr. ...Petitioner (s) Versus The State of Jharkhand . Respondent(s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.1. This Petition has been filed under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, seeking review of the judgment dated 09.10.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.1795 of 2009. The Petitioners were convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and sentenced to death for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 449 read with Section 34, IPC. The 1 | Pa ge conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court was upheld by the High Court of Jharkhand by an order dated 02.07.2009 and the Criminal Appeal filed by the Petitioners against the said order was dismissed by this Court by its judgment dated 09....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9334 OF2010 Union of India & Ors. ...Appellants vs. Ram Bahadur Yadav ...Respondent JUDGMENT R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.1. This Civil Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.04.2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.230 of 2009. By the aforesaid order, the intraCourt Appeal filed by the Appellants is dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.2. The respondent herein was working as Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force. In the disciplinary inquiry initiated against him, he was charged for collusion with main accused in 1 the incident involving theft of more than Rs.1 Crore of Non-Judicial Stamp Papers. The competent Authority, stating that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, has passed order dated 22.10.1998, dismissing the respondent from service. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6669 OF2021Electrosteel Castings Limited ..Appellant(S) VERSUS UV Asset Reconstruction ..Respondent(S) Company Limited &Ors. JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A. No.292 of 2019, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the original plaintiff rejecting the plaint/suit filed by the appellant herein original plaintiff on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 34 of the 1 SARFAESI Act, 2002, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1 That original defendant No.3 respondent No.3 herein (hereinafter referred to as original defendant No.3) availed the loan facility vide Rupee Loan Agreement dated 26.07.2011 from defendant No.2 respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2373 OF2010SURINDER SINGH ..... APPELLANT VERSUS STATE (UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH) ..... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT SURYA KANT, J.AppellantSurinder Singh has laid challenge to the judgement dated 19th May 2010 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, whereby, the order of his conviction and sentence dated 25th July 2006 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh was confirmed. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter, Arms Act), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 3 years for both the offences, with a direction that sentences will run concurrently. FACTS:2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 10th July 1999, Mansur Page | 1 Ali, Advocate (Complainant) was sitting at his residential office along with his clerk Maler Singh (PW3), giving dictation to his steno, R.K. Sood ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5894-5895 OF2021L & T Finance Ltd. Appellant(s) Versus Pramod Kumar Rana & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders dated 26.08.2021, 03.09.2021 and the subsequent order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as National Commission) passed in Consumer Complaint No.1653 of 2018, the original opposite party No.2 L & T Finance Ltd. has preferred the present appeals.2. Facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:- 2.1 That one complaint being Consumer Complaint No.1653 of 2018 filed by the respondent No.1 Pramod Kumar Rana is pending before the 1 National Commission. The aforesaid complaint came up for hearing before the National Commission on 12.08.2021. Learned counsel for the original opposite party No.1 M/s. Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. made a sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6825 of 2008 STATE OF HARYANA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS HARNAM SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.The appellant before us is the State of Haryana assailing the legality of a judgment delivered by the High Court for the State of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on 5th May, 2008. In the judgment under appeal, the High Court set aside the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on the point of genuinity of a Will of one Kishan Singh by which agricultural land comprising of 52 kanals and 3 marlas in the district of Kurukshetra in Haryana stood bequeathed to one Harnam Singh (since deceased). The Will [the English translation of which has been annexed to the counter-affidavit 1 of one Naseeb Singh, filed as and on behalf of the legal heirs of Harnam Singh (deceased)]. does not specify the area or description of the land. The disposition 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.5884 OF2009Akkamma & Ors. ..Appellant(s) Versus Vemavathi & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.The appellants before us are the plaintiffs in a suit instituted in the year 1987 by their predecessor Arakeri Abbaiah claiming for declaration of ownership of certain immovable property comprising of 10.54 guntas situated in Vibhuthipura Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Relief was also claimed in that suit in the form of injunction directing the defendants therein not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suitproperty. On his death, Arakeri Abbaiahs legal representatives were brought on record. In this judgment, we shall refer to Arakeri Abbaiah as the original plaintiff. He was the soninlaw of the first defendant in the suit Muniyappa. Both the defendants have passed away subsequently and their legal representatives are on record. The original sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7031 of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.8670 of 2007) DEVENDER BHASKAR & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging the order dated 22.02.2007 passed in CWP No.20630 of 2006 in Suman Lata and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors.3. The appellants herein were impleaded as respondents before the High Court as the outcome of the result of the said writ petition was likely to affect their service career. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein, namely, The State of Haryana, Director, School Education, Haryana and Haryana Staff Selection Commission were arrayed as respondent nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition. Most of the private respondents in this appeal were writ petitioners before the High 2 Court and some of the r...
Tag this Judgment!