Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1374 of 2020 Common Cause (A Registered Society) .... Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. . Respondents JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.11.2020 issued by Respondent No.1, which extended the tenure of the Respondent No.2 as Director of Enforcement in the Directorate of Enforcement and for consequential direction to Respondent No.1 to appoint the Director of Enforcement in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (for short, CVC Act). 1 | Pa ge 2. On 19.11.2018, the second Respondent who was working as Principal Special Director in the Directorate of Enforcement was appointed as Director of Enforcement for a period of two years from the date of his assumption of charge of the post or until further...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY/APPELLATE JURISDICTION SLP (C) No.12150 of 2019 Anjali Rathi and Others .... Petitioner(s) Versus Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Others .... Respondent(s) With Civil Appeal Nos.5231-38 of 2019 Anjali Rathi & Etc. .... Appellant(s) Versus Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. .... Respondent(s) With SLP (C) No.___________of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.45043 of 2019) Varun Gupta and Others .... Petitioner(s) Versus Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. .... Respondent(s) and Another 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1The petitioners are home buyers in a group housing project, Canary Greens in Sector 73, Gurgaon, being developed by the first respondent. Home buyer agreements were entered into between the eleven petitioners and the first respondent. Clause 21 of the agreements envisaged that possession of the apartments would be delivered within a period of thirty-six months, which in almost all cases was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7380 OF2009Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana .Appellant(s) Versus Joginder Singh & Ors. . Respondent(s) With CIVIL APPEAL NO.8118/2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO.6933/2009 JUDGMENT A.S. Bopanna,J.1. The appellants in all the above three appeals are assailing the order dated 13.08.2009 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC for short) in Original Petition No.289/1997. Through the said order, the NCDRC has held the appellants herein guilty of medical negligence and has directed payment Page 1 of 27 of Rs.17,00,000/ (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment. The appellant in Civil Appeal No.7380/2009 is the doctor who administered anaesthesia to the patient. The appellant in C.A. No.6933/2009 is the hospital wherein the operation was performed. The appeal bearing C.A. No.8118/2009 is file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2021(Arising out of SLP (C) No.29873 OF2016 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BHALGORA AREA (NOW KUSTORE AREA) OF M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS WORKMEN BEING REPRESENTED BY JANTA MAZDOOR SANGH RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the Management against the judgement dated 11.02.2016 in the L.P.A. No.334/2008 whereby, the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand had set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and restored the Award dated 28.09.2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 Dhanbad whereby, the workmen- Page 1 of 17 respondents were directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.2. We have heard Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the Management. The respondent-Union who were espousing the interest of the discharged workmen, is represented by Ms. Anish...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.876 OF2021Shakuntala Shukla Appellant Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.878 OF2021CRIMINAL APPEAL No.877 OF2021CRIMINAL APPEAL No.879 OF2021JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) dated 08.10.2018 and 06.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1283/2018, 1405/2018, 1496/2018 and 1398/2018, by which the High Court has 1 released the private respondents herein - accused on bail, pending the aforesaid criminal appeals, the original complainant widow of the deceased (victim) has preferred the present appeals.2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the judgment and order dated 08.10.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.1283 of 2018 is the order first in line by which the main accused Swaminath Yadav came to be released on bail and so far as the other a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4964 OF2021(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.5051 OF2018 ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CHARANJIT KAUR .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.4965 OF2021(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.5082 OF2018 A N D CIVIL APPEAL No.4966 OF2021(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.16740 OF2018 JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. This order shall dispose of three appeals bearing Civil Appeal No.4964 of 2021 - Estate Officer v. Charanjit Kaur, Civil Appeal No.4965 of 2021 - Estate Officer v. Kamlesh and Civil Appeal No.4966 of 2021 - Estate Officer v. D.K. Khanna raising identical questions of law.2. In Civil Appeal No.4964 of 2021, the order of the National 1 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 24.05.2017 is the subject matter of challenge. By the aforesaid order, the NCDRC has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant against an order dated 16.05.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5577 OF2021[@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.10621 of 2020]. T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M. MALLAPPA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. By the present appeal, the appellantplaintiff challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 19.3.2020 in R.F.A. No.123 of 2012 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 M. Mallappa (defendant No.2) herein. 23. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under: The plaintiffappellant before this Court filed a suit for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiffappellant that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit sch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 494 495 OF2016RAKESH BHUSHAN PRASAD ALIAS RAKESH PRASAD AND OTHERS ..... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RADHA DEVI (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS ..... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.On or about 5th August, 1967, Shri Banaras Sah (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives), son of late Shri Parmeshwar Sah, acting for himself and as legal guardian of his six minor sons, had instituted Title Suit No.73 of 1967 claiming ownership of 6 kathas in land bearing CSP No.2353 (corresponding to RSP No.4861) of village and police station Parihar, District Sitamarhi, Bihar, against Shri Krishna Kant Prasad. The plaintiffs had also inter alia prayed for a decree of delivery of possession in their favour by dispossessing Shri Krishna Kant Prasad and conversion of the disputed land in original state after Civil Appeal Nos. 494-495 of 2016 Page 1 of 19 removal of any new construction over it. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 55755576 OF2021[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 994849 of 2020]. KAYALULLA PARAMBATH MOIDU HAJI ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS NAMBOODIYIL VINODAN ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dated 21st August 2019 in Regular Second Appeal No.83 of 2007 thereby allowing the appeal in part and remanding the suit to the learned trial court for fresh disposal. The appeals also challenge the order of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala 1 High Court dated 10th February 2020 in Review Petition No.1242 of 2019 in RSA No.83 of 2007 thereby dismissing the review petition.3. The facts in brief giving rise to filing of these appeals are as under: The parties are referred to herein as they were referred to in the original suit. The appellantplaintiff had filed a plaint in respect of the suit proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 5153 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 4655 of 2020) State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr .... Appellant(s) Versus Akhilesh Jha & Anr ....Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1Leave granted. 2 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 5 September 2019. 3 The first respondent was posted as Superintendent of Police at Alirajpur from June 2012 to June 2015. It has been alleged that in spite of the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Police, Indore Zone to disband the Gunda squad, the first respondent constituted, supervised and operated the squad. It has been alleged that on 1 June 2014, individuals belonging to such a squad, acting under the supervision of the first respondent arrested an accused who was taken into custody after being called to the police station by the members of the Gunda Squad. The person, who was under in...
Tag this Judgment!