Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.218 OF2021TEJINDER KUMAR JOLLY & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J.Heard Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Rahul Verma, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondent No.1, Mr. Mukesh Verma, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.2. The challenge here is to the order dated 27th August, 2019 whereby the learned National Green Tribunal (for short the NGT) opined that the O.A. No.449 of 2019 registered Suo Moto by the Tribunal, would not require adjudication in light of the order passed while disposing of the O.A. No.332 of 2017. Page 1 of 143. The matter pertains to two stone crushers operated by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in Village Fatta Bangar at Haldwani in Nainital District. The contention of the appellant (based...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6953 OF2021(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.15113 OF2018 VEENA PANDEY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J.Leave granted.2. The present appeal arises out of claims for pensionary benefits under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Scheme, 1998 for short). The appellants husband Ramashankar Pandey rendered service in the South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, after being transferred from Bharat Coking Coal Ltd in 1999. The employee retired on 31.05.2004 as Chief Personnel Page 1 of 7 Manager at Bilaspur and later settled in Bhojpur, Bihar with his family. He opted for receiving 90% pension during his life time as provided under para 15 1(b) of the Pension Scheme, 1998 effective from 31.03.1998. Since the employee opted to receive 90% of the total admissible amount of the pension during his lifetime, on his death on 12....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6957-6958 OF2021(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.19179-19180 of 2021 Arising out of Diary No.26546 of 2018) CHITRABAI & ANR. ETC. Appellants VERSUS DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTIONS), SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS-III, SECUNDERABAD & ANOTHER Respondents ORDER Application for substitution preferred to bring legal representative of the deceased appellant is allowed. Abatement, if any, is set-aside. Cause title be amended accordingly. Delay condoned. Leave granted. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Kalaburagi in MFA CR-OB Nos.1580/2013 and 1583/2013. The matters arising from the same acquisition had come up before this Court in Civil Appeal No.7642 of 2019, (titled Mahadev (D) by LRs Kalawati & Others v. Deputy Chief Engineer (Constructions), South Central Railways III & Another) and 2 other connected matters, which were disposed of by this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6734 OF2021M/S. NARINDER SINGH AND SONS ..... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER II, NORTHERN RAILWAY, FEROZEPUR DIVISION, FEROZEPUR ..... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.Despite rounds of litigation, the disputes that arose in 1996 will, unfortunately, continue even post this judgment.2. M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons, the appellant before us, vide letter dated 27th January 1993 was awarded tender by the respondent namely, Divisional Superintendent Engineer-II, Northern Railway, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, Punjab, for additional washing line to accommodate 26 coaches at Jammu Tawi Railway Station. Disputes arose when the respondent terminated the contract vide letter dated 03rd April 1996 due to stated non-performance and Civil Appeal No.6734 of 2021 Page 1 of 9 repeated lapses by the appellant. The appellant, on the other hand, alleged breache...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1415 OF2021(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 931 of 2021) SAGAR LOLIENKAR .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF GOA & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard Mr. Pallav Mongia, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Ruchira Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.3. The appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 7th December, 2020 upholding his conviction for offences under Sections 279, 304A of Indian Penal Code(IPC) and under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and sentencing him with simple imprisonment of two months and 1 fine of Rs. 1,000/ for the offence under Section 279 IPC; simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 10,000/ for the offence under Section 304A IPC; and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ or in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 10 days for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 181 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1410 OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.925 OF2021 ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SATISH AND ANOTHER .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1411 OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.1339 OF2021 NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER.... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1412 OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.1159 OF2021 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SATISH .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1413 OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.5071 OF2021 1 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS LIBNUS .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1414 OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.7472 OF2021 SATISH ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. Leave granted in all appeals.2. The four Appeals filed by the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6961 OF2021(Arising out of SLP (Civil*) No.7609 of 2021) M/s. SUZLON ENERGY LTD. Appellant VERSUS JAYANTHI & ORS. Respondents ORDER Leave granted. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 06.05.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No.1365 of 2021. The instant proceedings arise out of Writ Petition No.15896 of 2020 filed by the respondents challenging the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the third respondent in the writ petition, granting permission to the present appellant to erect electric towers in the lands of the writ petitioners, under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Various grievances were raised by the original writ petitioners which did not find any favour with the Single Judge of the High Court. However, the Division Bench of the High Court issued directions in paragraphs 4 and 5 of its order which were to the following effect:2. 4, Though there doe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6910 OF2021Steel Authority of India Limited Appellant(s) Versus Gouri Devi Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition No.7791 of 2020 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal passed in T.A. No.14 of 2014 wherein the learned Tribunal directed the appellant to consider the case of the respondent original applicants second son for appointment on compassionate ground, the Steel Authority of India Limited has preferred the present appeal. 12. Though served nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent.3. The issue involved in the present appeal is in a very narrow compass....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1424 OF2021(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9077 of 2019) M/s. NAG LEATHERS PVT. LTD. Appellant VERSUS M/s. DYNAMIC MARKETING PARTNERSHIP, REP. BY ITS PARTNERS & ANOTHER Respondents ORDER Leave granted. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 02.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. No.8869 of 2018. The appellant preferred aforestated Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code for short) seeking quashing of pending proceedings initiated by the respondents herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act for short) on the ground that the debt in question was not enforceable and was only in the nature of a security. The challenge having been negated, the instant appeal has been filed in this Court. On 25.10.2019, following submission advanced on behalf of the appellant was noted by this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6903 OF2021The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Appellant(s) Versus Ashish Awasthi Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.6904 OF2021The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Appellant(s) Versus Baalendu Yadav Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur in WA No.1559 of 2018 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and has directed that the 1 appellants herein original respondents to consider the claim of the respondent herein original writ petitioner for a compassionate appointment, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.2. That the respondents father was working on the post of Chowkidar i...
Tag this Judgment!