Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.519 OF2022(Arising out of SLP(crl) No.3668 of 2021) MOHIT BATHLA .. Appellant VERSUS CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, DIVISION PANIPAT, CGST COMMISSIONERATE, PANCHKULA .. Respondent ORDER1 Leave granted.2. This appeal challenges the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.8190 of 2021 (Q&M).3. The appellant was taken in custody on 25.12.2020 in connection with crime registered pursuant to complaint dated 24.02.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 132/134 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat.4. The application seeking bail in terms of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 having been dismissed by the High Court, the 2 instant appeal has been filed.5. By order dated 13.05.2021, the appellant was granted facility of ad- interim bail subject to the appellant depositing a su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2681 OF2022(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.17253 of 2017) DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) BY LRS. & ORS. ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION) GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR & ANR. ....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Leave granted.2. The appellants before us are eight retired Assistant Professors and a College Librarian, also superannuated, from the State of Manipur. All of them had superannuated between 28th February 2006 and 31st July 2008. Subsequent to filing of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, eleven teaching staffs from different colleges in the same State have taken out an application for impleadment as petitioners. They are allowed to intervene in this appeal.3. Decision was taken by the Government of India to revise the pay scales of teachers and equivalent cadres in the central universities 1 and this was communicated by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2600 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19574 of 2021) PATTALI MAKKAL KATCHI .... Appellant(s) Versus A. MAYILERUMPERUMAL & ORS. . Respondent (s) With Civil Appeal No.2601 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19378 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2602 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19916 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2603 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19776 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2604 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19582 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2605 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.5077 of 2022 @ Diary No.28073 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2606 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19658 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2607 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19401 of 2021) 1 | Pa ge Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19683 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2609 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.20167 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2610 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.21069 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.2611 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.21070 of 2021) Civil Appeal Nos. 2612-2642 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) Nos.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 76577658 OF2017NADAKERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PILLAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.(1) These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 30.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1563 of 2007 connected with Writ Appeal No.1950 of 2007. 2 (2) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: Smt. Pillamma w/o Late Mariyappa and her children (respondents herein) filed Writ Petition No(s).27230/2002 and 23034/2002 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenging the order dated 27.02.1989 passed by the Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the Order of the Land Tribunal dated 30.04.1982 and also the Notice dated 24.05.2002 issued by the Land Tribunal for correcting the extent of land found in the order of the Land Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2643 OF2022[Arising out of SLP(C) No.6885 of 2021]. KALYAN DOMBIVALI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SANJAY GAJANAN GHARAT AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2644 OF2022[Arising out of SLP(C) No.6968 of 2021]. JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.2. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the KDM Corporation) and the State of 1 Maharashtra, by way of the present appeals, challenge the correctness of the judgment dated 6th April 2021, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (ST.) No.3599 of 2020, thereby holding that the KDM Corporation was not the competent authority to suspend respondent No.1Sanjay Gajanan Gharat. By the impugned judgment, the High Court had also quashed the departmental inquiry initiated against the respondent No.1 and directed the KDM Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs.31323133 OF2016P. NAZEER ETC. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SALAFI TRUST & ANR. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.1. Aggrieved by a common Judgment delivered by the High Court of Kerala in two Civil Revision Petitions filed under the proviso to sub section (9) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, reversing the judgment of the Waqf Tribunal and decreeing the suit of the respondents in entirety, but dismissing their own suit, the appellants have come up with the above civil appeals. 12. We have heard Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the private contesting respondents.3. The sole appellant in one of the above appeals by name Shri P. Nazeer was the defendant in a suit O.S No.10 of 2004 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, on the file of Waqf Tribunal, Kollam. The three appellants in the other civil appeal w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2693 OF2022(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.6137 OF2022 (DIARY No.23287 OF2020 HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KARNAL ..... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. MEHTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ANOTHER ..... RESPONDENT(S) ORDER Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. The appellant before us Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal, Haryana, and the respondent M/s. Mehta Construction Company, on 6th July 1998, had entered into an agreement whereby the respondent was to construct water body, water body fall, pedestrian bridge, backwall of deck, pump chamber (partly above and partly below the GI pipe), lay CI and RCC pipes and all other works contingent thereto for development of town park in Sector 8 and 9 (Phase II), Karnal, for an amount not exceeding Civil Appeal @ Diary No.23287 of 2020 Page 1 of 8 Rs.32.50 lakhs. The scope of the work was enhanced to Rs.40,23,962/- and then to Rs.45,87,326/-.3. The contractual work w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2575 OF2022(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 31892 of 2018) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ANOTHER .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS OM PRAKASH RAHI & OTHERS .RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2576 OF2022(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 31890 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2577 OF2022(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 32025 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2578 OF2022(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 31445 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2579 OF2022(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 31900 of 2018) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. Leave granted. 12. The present batch of appeals are directed against the self same judgment dated 31st July, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla which upheld the order passed by the Director of the National Institute of Technology without going through the process of selection of the teachers in the higher pay band of Rs. 3740067000 with AGP Rs.90...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1565 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.13840 of 2019) SWARNALATHA & ORS. ...APPELANT(S) VERSUS KALAVATHY & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian 1. The probate granted by the District Court in respect of two last Wills and Testaments, one by the father and another by the mother, having been set aside by the High Court in an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), one set of legatees claiming under the Will have come up with the above appeal.2. We have heard Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jayanth Muthraj, learned senior counsel 1 appearing for the respondents.3. The couple, Mannar Reddiar and Adhilakshmiammal had two sons by name V.M. Chandrasekaran and V.M. Sivakumar and a daughter by name Kalavathy.4. The mother Adhilakshmiammal died on 14.08.1995. She left behind a Will dated 30.01...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.556 of 2012 SHRIPATI LAKHU MANE ... APPELANT(S) VERSUS THE MEMBER SECRETARY, MAHARASHTRA WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian 1. The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money has come up with the above appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a regular appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by which the decree granted by the Trial Court for recovery of Rs.24,97,077/ together with interest at 10% per annum was modified into a decree for 1 recovery of Rs.7,19,412/ together with interest.2. We have heard Mr.Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Sunil Murarka, learned counsel for the respondents.3. The appellant is a registered contractor with the Government of Maharashtra. In a tender for the execution of the work of Regional Rural Piped Water Supply Scheme for Da...
Tag this Judgment!