Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1332-1333 OF2022Union of India Appellant Versus Bharat Fritz Werner Limited & Another Respondents ORDER1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with some of the observations made by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the last paragraph of its order dated 19.01.2021, while disposing of Writ Petition No.5700/2020, the Union of India has preferred the present appeals.2. That respondent no.1 herein filed the writ petition before the High Court of Delhi being Writ Petition No.5700/2020 assailing the Letter of Acceptance dated 05.06.2020 issued by the Union of India in favour of respondent no.2 herein, in respect of the award of tender pertaining to lot No.3; ICB Ref. No.21/TCSP/GOODS/P41/2018/TR/TC (Package- 41). 12.1 By the impugned order and keeping in view the fact that substantial time has elapsed since the award of the tender in favour of respondent no.2, the High Court declined to interfere in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1422 OF2022[Arising out of SLP(C) No.24434 of 2019]. SATYA DEV BHAGAUR & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 14261430 OF2022[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 73417345 of 2020]. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 14311437 OF2022[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 81558161 of 2020]. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 14381440 OF2022[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 1312413126 of 2020]. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 14231425 OF2022[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 61426144 of 2021]. JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. In the lead matter in this bunch of appeals, the appellants assail the order dated 13.08.2019, passed by the 1 Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the High Court), in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.837 of 2019, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, challenging the order of the Single Judge of the High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4585 of 2018 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... APPELLANT(S) Versus PROBIR GHOSH AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.14411442 OF2022(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 3040830409 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL NOs.45864587 OF2018JUDGMENT V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.1. By a Notification dated 03.12.2011, the Staff Selection Commission invited applications for recruitment (i) of Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) such as ITBP, BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB; and (ii) of Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. Initially the number of posts sought to be filled up was notified as 39574, but the same was revised to 48802. 12. As per the Notification, the process of recruitment was to comprise of Physical Standards Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Written Examination and Medical Examination.3. The closing date for submission of applications was fixed as 04.01.2012. However, candidates residing in North Eastern States,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1555 OF2022[@ SLP(C) No.26384 of 2019]. ARJUN S/O. RAMANNA @ RAMU APPELLANT v. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENT ORDER Leave granted.1. The appellant was an employee of the second respondent. He was doing the job of driving an auto-rickshaw used as a goods carrier. On 18th February 2009, while the appellant was driving the vehicle, he suddenly noticed a pothole on the road. Therefore, he applied brakes. As a result, the vehicle went out of control, and it overturned. The appellant sustained severe injuries. The vehicle was insured with the first respondent company.2. The appellant filed a claim under the Workmens Compensation Act 1983, now titled as the Employees 2 Compensation Act 1923 (for short, the said Act). The claim was filed on the footing that due to amputation of his right upper limb above the wrist joint, he has completely lost the capacity to drive a vehicle....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.288 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6893 OF2021 KRISHNAMURTHY @ GUNODU AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA ... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal by Krishnamurthy (also described as Krishna Murthy), Gopala and Thimmappa takes exception to the judgment dated 20th February 2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.200147 of 2017, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, has affirmed their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and individually for the offences under Sections 447, 504, 506 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC).3. Having examined the evidence in detail, we agree that Krishnamurthy has been rightly convicted under the aforesaid Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.6893/2021 Page 1 of 26 Sections, including Section 302 of the IPC. Testimonies of Channamma (PW-1), R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 923 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 28615 of 2016) Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. Appellant Versus Ajay Kumar Agarwal Respondent W I T H Civil Appeal No 1389 of 2022 & Civil Appeal No 4274 of 2016 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J11. This civil appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 26 May 2016 of 2 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was rendered in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The issue is whether Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 ousts the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in deciding a dispute between a telecom company and a consumer.2. On 25 May 2014, the respondent instituted a consumer complaint before 3 the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum , Ahmedabad alleging a deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. The complaint states that the respondent had a post-paid mobile connection and was paying an amount of Rs 249...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.13021303 OF2022SRS Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ..Appellant(s) Versus Mr. Kamal Garg & Anr. ..Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisifed with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.12530 of 2021 and in Review Petition No.197 of 2021, the original Respondent No.2 has preferred the present appeals.2. That Respondent No.1 herein original writ petitioner was the auction purchaser, who purchased the properties 1 which were auctioned in pursuance of Recovery Certificate No.6/2016 which was in favour of the Corporation Bank (now merged with the Union Bank of India) for a sum of Rs.85 lakhs. The reserved price of the properties was fixed at Rs.54 lakhs. Respondent No.1 original writ petitioner made the highest bid of Rs.85 lakhs. After making the said bid and after making the earnest money...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.818 OF2022Deenadayal Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Another ..Appellants Versus Munjaji and others ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.819 OF2022Ratnakar s/o Manikrao Gutte ..Appellant Versus Munjaji and others ..Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at 1 Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.570 of 2012, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by respondent no.1 herein and has set aside the auction sale in respect of the lands in question and also ordered that the Sale Certificate dated 19.01.2011 executed by the appellant-bank in Civil Appeal No.818/2022 in favour of the auction purchaser stands cancelled, both, the Bank as well as the auction purchaser have preferred the present appeals.2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nuts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1655 OF2019MANOJ SEVANI Appellant VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1656-1657 OF OF2019MANOJ YADAV ETC. Appellants VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1658 OF2019MANOHAR BALMIKI Appellant VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.726-728 OF2021MANI YADAV & ANOTHER ETC. Appellants VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent 2 JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. These criminal appeals by eight convicted accused/appellants are directed against the common judgment and order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos.830, 832, 833, 835, 836, 837, 843, 844 and 914 of 2012.2. Twelve persons were tried in Sessions Trial No.32 of 2010 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 14...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. No.99210 OF2021IN CIVIL APPEAL No.1842 OF2021ECGC LIMITED .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MOKUL SHRIRAM EPC JV .....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission1 whereby the appellant herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 265.01 Crores along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 19.9.2016 within a period of three months. In case of failure to deposit the said amount, the awarded amount would carry compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% p.a. The appellant has filed an application (IA No.99210 of 2021) ex abundanti cautela to entertain the appeal as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 19862. It is the said application which is being decided by the present order.2. The complainant was awarded a contract for construction of rain water drainage, heavy sewerage and municipal road system by the Government...
Tag this Judgment!