Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1482 OF2018Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, New Mandi Yard, Alwar Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Alwar Respondent(s) With CIVIL APPEAL No.1861 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.1851 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.1850 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.1863 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.1862 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.1860 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.1859 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.1856 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.1858 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.3158 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.3160 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.3369 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.3367 OF20181 CIVIL APPEAL No.3368 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.3370 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.3371 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.3372 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.3373 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.3374 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.4384 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.4382 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.4383 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.6012 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.715 OF2019CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3356-3358 OF2019JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. As common questions of law and facts arise in these gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1000 OF2021SATHISH KUMAR A @ SATHISHKUMAR ANAND @ SATHISH KUMAR GUPTA Appellant VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent JUDGMENT1 This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.1586 of 2017.2. The appellant was tried in Sessions Case No.1387 of 2010 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and was sentenced by the Trial Court to rigorous imprisonment for life under the first count and to rigorous imprisonment for five years under the second count. 23. According to the prosecution, the appellant committed the murder of his wife, namely, Smt. Priyanka Gupta in the early hours of 10.08.2010 and thereafter sought to create an impression...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1609 OF2022(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.6516/2019) M/S PURI INVESTMENTS ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S YOUNG FRIENDS AND CO. & ORS. ....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Leave granted.2. The appellant, as the landlord, is the original applicant in an eviction proceeding instituted under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking recovery of possession of a shop room located at Connaught Place in the central part of Delhi. The eviction proceeding was instituted in the year 1974. We shall henceforth refer to the shop room as subject-premises. In that proceeding instituted before the Rent Controller, Delhi, altogether three 1 individuals and three firms were originally impleaded as respondents. In this appeal, however, only three respondents have been impleaded, being the firm-Young Friends & Co. and two individuals Ashu Mohan Gupta and Shashi Gupta. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2136 OF2012HORTICULTURE EXPERIMENT STATION GONIKOPPAL, COORG .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION .RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2121 OF2012WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2135 OF2012WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2141 OF2012JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. The instant appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 26th October, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. 12. That while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd February, 2009, it was observed that once the employer has failed to deposit the contribution of EPF or committed default as mandated under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1952), having failed to do so after determination under Section 7A by the competent authority, levy of damages is a sine qua non an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1575 1576 OF2022(ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NOS.2367-2368 OF2019 GOWRAMMA C (DEAD) BY LRS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MANAGER (PERSONNEL) HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICAL LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Leave granted.1. The appellant impugns the judgment of the Division Bench by which the High Court confirmed the view taken by the learned single Judge. The original appellant passed away and the legal representatives pursue the appeal as additional appellants.2. The appellant was appointed as Staff Nurse (Group-C) with the respondent. There was an inquiry against her by the respondent on the charge that the appellant had professed to belong to the Scheduled Caste category and secured employment, whereas, she did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community. The Tahasildar verified the caste certificate and vide order dated 10.07.2009, it was found that the 2 appellant did not belong to the community...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1559 OF2022(Arising out of SLP (C)No.7726 of 2019) JAYASHREE Appellant(s) VERSUS THE DIRECTOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION Respondent(s) JUDGMENT K. M. JOSEPH, J.1. Leave granted.2. By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru rejecting the OA filed by the appellant against the order dated 24.03.2014. By order dated 24.03.2014, the respondent-State has purported to terminate the services of the appellant on the basis that the appellant was found to not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community purporting to belong to which the appellant applied and was given appointment. Further by the impugned order, the appellant has been called upon to pay the amounts which she has received. 1 CA No.1559/2022 (@ SLP (C)No.7726/ 2019) 3. Heard Mr. S. N. Bhat, learned senior counsel appearing for the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO . 155 8/2022 [@ SLP [C]. NO.16820/2021]. SARDAR MEENA Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. Leave granted.2. An FIR was registered on 12.05.2021 by the complainant Ravi Kumar Meena against the appellant who is a Sarpanch of Gola ka Bas alleging that the said Sarpanch along with 8-10 other associates, with the intention of committing the offence of robbery, loot and murder came on a vehicle in the night armed with weapons. They committed offence of house trespass and with intention to cause fatal injury even started indiscriminate firing. This has allegedly caused injuries on several parts of the body of the complainant. On the registration of the FIR, the police started investigation and took the appellant into custody. The endeavour of the appellant to procure bail from the trial Court did not succeed but ultimately the High Court granted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1217 OF2022Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Appellant(s) Versus State of U.P. and Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, Bench Lucknow in Writ Petition No.4529 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant herein and held that the appellant herein as a financier-in-possession of the transport vehicle is liable to pay tax under the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, the original writ petitioner, the financier has preferred the present appeal. The said financier had extended a loan for the purchase of the transport vehicle and on default in payment of the loan is in possession of the vehicle in question. 12. As above stated, that the appellant Mahindra and Mahindra Financia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1506 OF2019SANTOSH & ANR. Appellants VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondent JUDGMENT1 This appeal under Section 2(A) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No.448 of 2004.2. The basic factual aspects of the matter as set out by the High Court in its judgment are extracted hereinbelow for facility: 3. On the complaint (Ex-Ka-1) of Shalendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-1), FIR (Ex-Ka-15) of Case Crime No.160 of 1998 was registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC at P.S. Shahpur, district Gorakhpur, on 23.03.1998 at 21:30 hours, by Head Moharrir Tulsi Ram (PW-8), against Uma, Bhola, Santosh, Gopal, Shalesh and some unknown accused. It has been stated in the FIR that today on 23.03.1998, the informant along with his bro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.11397 OF2016SHRIKANT G. MANTRI ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. The present appeal filed by the appellant complainant challenges the judgment and order dated 1st June, 2016, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) in Consumer Complaint No.55 of 2006, thereby holding that the appellantcomplainant was not a consumer as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 2 the said Act). As such, by the impugned judgment and order, the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed being not maintainable.2. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The bare necessary facts for adjudication of the present appeal are as under:3. The appellantcomplainant had opened an account with erstwhile Nedungadi Bank Limited (hereinaft...
Tag this Judgment!