Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6778 6780 OF2022Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) & Ors. ...Appellant(s) Versus Nisar Ahmed Ganai & Ors. Respondent(s) With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6781 6783 OF2022JUDGMENT M.R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, at Jammu in respective writ petitions preferred by the private respondents herein original petitioners whereby the appellants herein original respondents have been directed to determine the compensation of the acquired lands in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013), the appellants herein 2 original respondents have preferred present appeals.2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1768 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) No.9609 OF2022@ DIARY No.22814 OF2019 DEVENDRA NATH SINGH ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 10.09.2018, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.649 of 2016. 2.1. The said petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 was filed by respondent No.3 of the present appeal, against the order dated 21.06.2014, as passed by the ACJM, Barh, District Patna2 in Barh Police Station Case No.115 of 2012 whereby, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 on the allegations 1 CrPC, for short. 2 Hereinafter referred to as the Magistrate. 3 IPC, for short. 1 against the respondent No.3 of m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7203 OF2022(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.20578 of 2021) MAHESH GOVINDJI TRIVEDI . APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BAKUL MAGANLAL VYAS & ORS. .. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal by the defendant in a pending suit for specific performance (Suit No.1821 of 2004) is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2021, as passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.10 of 2020 arising from an order dated 02.05.2019 in Notice of Motion (L) No.1014 of 2019 in the said suit. 2.1. By the said order dated 02.05.2019, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dealing with the trial of suit in question, had accepted the notice of motion moved by the defendant-appellant so as to take the belatedly filed counter-claim on record. The Division Bench of the High Court has, however, set aside the order so passed by the Single Judge 1 and has remit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).4913 of 2015 M/s. ASHOKA INVESTMENT CO. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/s. UNITED TOWERS INDIA (PVT.) LTD. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Vikram Nath, J.1. This appeal by the Consumer under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 19861 has been filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2, (NCDRC), Delhi in Original Petition No.377 of 2000 between M/s. Ashoka Investment Company Vs. M/s. United Towers India (Pvt.) Ltd. By the said order, the NCDRC directed the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.4,95,000/(four lakhs and ninety five thousand) 1 In short the 1986 Act 2 In short NCDRC pg. 1 being total sale consideration to the appellant with interest @ 9 % per annum w.e.f. 17.01.1995 till the date of refund/compliance.2. The admitted facts are that, the appellant on 12.05.1980 applied for purchase of two flats bearing Nos.501 and 50...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7180 OF2022[Arising out of SLP (C) No.10206 of 2020]. S. VASANTHI & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S ADHIPARASAKTHI ENGG. COLLEGE AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 31st January, 2020, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMA No.2518 of 2016.3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:3. 1 On 22nd May, 2010, S. Sathiyanarayan was riding on a Bajaj Avenger motorcycle, bearing registration No.TN04 S6492, at GST Road, Tambaram. While he was travelling from the south to north direction by the western side of the road, a bus owned by M/s Adhiparasakthi Engineering College (respondent No.1 herein), bearing registration No.1 TN21H2727, which was being driven rashly and negligently, came from the same direction and dashed against his motor cycle from the backside, thus dragging ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2022(Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.27603/2019) SMT. IMLIKOKLA LONGCHAR & ORS. . APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS. . RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.Leave granted.2. The origin of the controversy giving rise to the present appeal goes back to the year 2007 and there have been several rounds of litigations over the issue which we shall briefly narrate in the subsequent paragraphs of this judgment. The contesting parties in this appeal are the appellants and the respondent no.4 (Keruupfeu K). The educational authorities of the State of Nagaland, who are also respondents in this appeal are supporting the appellants. The dispute is on the question of seniority the appellants and K in the cadre of senior lecturer under the State Council of Educational Research and Training 1 Service (SCERT), Department of Education, Government of Nagaland. The appellants are collec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No._______OF2022ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) No.1568 OF2022VIJAY RAJMOHAN ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.J.1. Leave Granted.2. Two important questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. The first question is whether an order of the Appointing Authority granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881, would be rendered illegal on the ground of acting as per dictation if it consults the Central Vigilance Commission for its decision. The second question is whether the period of three months (extendable 1 hereinafter referred to as the PC Act. Page 1 of 30 by one more month for legal consultation2) for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory or not. The further question i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No(s). 4678 OF2021(arising out of SLP (Civil) No.23353 of 2012) M/S. M.S.P.L. LIMITED Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No(s). OF2022(arising out of SLP (Civil) No.23351 of 2012) SRI SYED AHMED Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. Respondent(s) CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 46994719 OF2021(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 2086620886 of 2012 THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER Appellant(s) VERSUS SRI KAKARAL RAVIKUMAR AND OTHERS Respondent(s) 1 CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 46794698 OF2021(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 2131021329 of 2012 M/S. AARESS IRON & STEEL LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) AND WITH CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 47454747 OF2021(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 2191521917 of 2013 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER Appellant(s) VERSUS SRI KAKARAL RAVIKUMAR AND OTHERS Respondent(s) JUDGM...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.1497 of 2022 Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel Appellant Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1 This appeal arises from a judgment dated 12 January 2022 of the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court dismissed an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 30 August 2016 by which the first respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 18811. At the core, the issue is whether the offence under Section 138 of the Act would deem to be committed if the cheque that is dishonoured does not represent the enforceable debt at the time of encashment. 1 The Act 1 The Facts 2. On 10 April 2014, the appellant issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Act to the first respondent-accused. It was alleged that the first respondent borrowed a sum of rupees twenty lakhs from the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D.No.28852 of 2020 Y. Sai Satya Prasad & Ors. Petitioner(s) Versus D. Prabhakara Rao & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1.0. Present contempt petition has been preferred by the 84 petitioners erstwhile employees of the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities alleging deliberate and willful disobedience of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 7.12.2020 in MA No.1270 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018 and other allied Miscellaneous Applications in the case of Telangana Page 1 of 54 Power Generation Corporation Limited vs. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited reported in 2020 SCC Online SC995noncompliance alleged against the Telangana Power Utilities (hereinafter referred to as the TS Power Utilities). 2.0. Shri Huzefa Aziz Ahmadi learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicants, Shri Ranjit Kumar and Shri V Giri, learned Senior Advocates have appeare...
Tag this Judgment!