Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) D.No.1141 OF2018WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.10066 OF2018IN CIVIL APPEAL No.6179 OF2017DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PETITIONER(S) VERSUS GAURAV KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) ORDER Delay condoned. The present Review Petition has been filed to recall the judgment of this Court dated 04.05.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.6179 of 2017 @ SLP(C)No.38303 of 2016 along with bunch of matters, filed at the instance of Govt.of NCT of Delhi. Counsel for the Review Petitioner submits that the very same common judgment dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Delhi High Court, was a subject matter of challenge by the Govt.of NCT of Delhi as well as by the present Review Petitioner Delhi Development Authority in SLP(C)No.8779 of 2016. Due to some inadvertence the Civil Appeal preferred by Govt.of NCT of Delhi tag along with other matter(s) and came to be 2 dismissed. Although, it was not connected with the bunch of matters which wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6119 OF2021(Arising out of SLP (C) No.36767 OF2016 ANAPURNA JAISWAL APPELLANT(s) VERSUS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. Leave granted.2. An advertisement was published on 12.10.2011 by the respondent inviting applications for grant of dealership of petrol pumps. The appellant made her application on 11.11.2011. On the basis of the evaluation done, the appellant was placed in the first position. While so it appears that on the basis of complaint, the matter was looked into and order dated 12.11.2014 came to be issued by which the respondent took the view that the lease dated 08.11.2011 which was the foundation for the offer made by the appellant would commence from the date of approval of the petrol outlet. This meant that the possession over the premises did not amount to a lease and on the date of the execution of the lease deed the lease had not come int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5887 OF2021UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SUSHIL KUMAR GODARA ....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. Counsel for parties were heard, with their consent, for final disposal of the appeal. The appellant (hereby insurer) questions the judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi1 ("hereafter the NCDRC"). In the impugned order, the NCDRC dismissed the appellants revision petition, that challenged the order2 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Bikaner (hereafter the State Commission).2. The respondent-complainant obtained an insurance policy3 from the insurer for his Bolero car, somewhere in Punjab, though he was a resident of Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. The vehicle had a temporary registration (No.PB-11-T-5101 from 20-06- 1 Dated 11/12/2020 in Revision Petition No.1984/ 2015 2 dated 20/03/2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.4222 of 2020 Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth & Anr. .... Appellant(s) Versus Chandra Prakash Jain & Anr. . Respondent(s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.1. Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which was admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad bench (hereinafter referred to as the NCLT or Adjudicating Authority) on 01.06.2020. The Appellants, who are the suspended directors of the board of R.K. Infratel Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporate Debtor), filed an appeal which was rejected by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the NCLAT). Therefore, this Appeal.2. The Corporate Debtor is in the business of setting up underground fiber network in the cities of Surat, Ahmedabad, 1 | Pa ge Vapi, Silvasa, Ankleswar and in South Gujarat, and providing dedi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1027 OF2020Union of India and another Appellants Versus Abhiram Verma Respondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 9.2.2018 passed by the Learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in T.A. No.25/2017(SWP No.454 of 2008), by which the learned Tribunal has disposed of the said transfer application by setting aside para 2 of letter dated 31.01.2007 to the extent it denied terminal/pensionary benefits to the respondent herein original applicant 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) and directed the appellants original respondents to process his claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking his qualifying service as 15 years as regards late entrant in terms of Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations and to release the same together with arrears, the department Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1491 OF2007PLACIDO FRANCISCO PINTO (D) by LRs & ANR. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JOSE FRANCISCO PINTO & ANR. .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff have appealed before this Court, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 6.7.2005 affirmed by the High Court in the Second Appeal on 16.8.2006.2. The plaintiff filed a suit1 (Special Civil Suit No.55/77/I) seeking possession and accounts from his younger brother-defendant No.1 (respondent No.1) who was given the southern portion of the property in question by virtue of a gift deed dated 10.5.1957 executed by the parents of the parties involved. The northern portion was allotted to the plaintiff by the same gift deed.3. The plaintiff had inter-alia pleaded that Defendant No.1 Jose 1 Hereinafter referred to as the first suit 1 Francisco Pinto earlier sold his one of his properti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. No.64307 of 2021 In Civil Appeal Nos.1045-1052 of 2011 VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LTD. Appellant VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN Respondent WITH I.A. No.64291 of 2021 In C.A. No.10676/2013. I.A. No.64512 of 2021 in C.A. Nos.10674-10675/2013 I.A. Nos.64951 and 64954 of 2021 in C.A. No.1202/2011 I.A. Nos.64961 and 64963 of 2021 in C.A. No.1203/2011 ORDER I.A. No.64951 of 2021 in C.A. No.1202 of 2011 and I.A. No.64961 of 2021 in C.A. No.1203 of 2011 seeking change in the name of the applicant/appellant and appropriate amendment to the cause title are allowed. I.A. No.64307 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos.1045-1052 of 2011; I.A. No.64291 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No.10676/2013; I.A. No.64512 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos.10674-10675/2013; I.A. No.64954 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No.1202 of 2011; and I.A. No.64963 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No.1203 of 2011 have been preferred by the applicants/appellants seeking liberty 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1113 OF2021(ARISING OUT OF PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRIMINAL) NO.5618 OF2021 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1114 OF2021(ARISING OUT OF PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRIMINAL) NO.3949 of 2021) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.Leave Granted 2. These two petitions for Special Leave to Appeal, now appeals on grant of leave, have been listed as connected matters and heard by us as such. A learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in an order passed on 31st March, 2020, 1 from which SLP (Crl.) No.5618 of 2021 originated, had directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court to not to list bails, appeals, applications for suspension of sentence in appeals and revisions in the category of extreme urgent matters. We shall henceforth refer to that application (S.B. Criminal Miscellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Miscellaneous Application No.1630 of 2020 in Writ Petition (C) No.880 of 2016 SURAZ INDIA TRUST Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA Respondent JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. The raison detre of contempt jurisdiction is to maintain the dignity of the institution of judicial forums. It is not a vindictive exercise nor are inappropriate statements by themselves capable of lowering the dignity of a Judge. These are often ignored but where despite all latitude a perennial litigant seeks to justify his existence by throwing mud at all and sundry, the Court has to step in.2. In order to understand the contours of the present dispute, nothing more is required than to turn to the judgment of this Court in WP(C) 1 No.880/2016 dated 01.05.2017. This judgment is not an origination but in some sense a culmination. Mr. Rajiv Daiya, claims to be the spirit behind Suraz India Trust (for short Trust), which has been filing a large nu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6091 OF2021(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 21736 of 2007) UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS TRILOK S. BHANDARI & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th November, 2006 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand directing the present appellant to adjust the original petitioner1st respondent and other persons like him who were 1 earlier promoted in the cadre of Indian Forest Service (hereinafter being referred to as the IFS) in the year 1996 against the notional vacancies and consequential pensionary benefits keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah 1.3. The facts in brief which are relevant for the present purpose are that the 1st respondent was the member of State Forest Service of UP ...
Tag this Judgment!