Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2788 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.16196 OF2021 WAQF BOARD, RAJASTHAN .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JINDAL SAW LIMITED & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.2789 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.17334 OF2021 JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order dated 29.9.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.11 was allowed directing the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 8 not to interfere with the action of the writ petitioner in removal of the structure forming part of Khasra No.6731 at Village Pur, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. 1 For short, the writ petitioner 1 2. The writ petitioner was granted lease of an area admeasuring 1556.7817 hectares vide lease deed dated 8.12.2010 for the mining of Gold, Silver, Lead, Zinc, Copper, Iron, Cobalt, Nickle and associated minerals near Village ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2950-2951 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 2536-2537 OF2022 THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS POOJA THANDU NARESH & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. The present appeals are directed against orders dated 29.7.2021 and 20.9.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the writ petitions filed for quashing the circulars issued by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council on 12.11.2020 and 24.12.2020 and consequential orders of directing respondent No.1/writ petitioner1 to undergo two months of Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship,2 followed by one year of internship before granting permanent registration under the Indian Medical Council Act, 19563 (now repealed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019). 1 For short, the student 2 For short, the CRRI 3 For short, the Act 1 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeals are that the student an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.714 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) No.7887 OF2021 ATBIR .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant, serving the sentence of imprisonment for whole of his natural life after commuting of death sentence by the Honble President of India, has preferred this appeal on being aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2021, as passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No.3345 of 2019 dismissing his writ petition against the order dated 21.10.2019, as issued by the Director General of Prisons, Prison Headquarters, Tihar, Janakpuri, New Delhi declining his prayer to grant furlough. 2.1. The prayer of the appellant for grant of furlough has been declined by the orders aforesaid essentially with reference to the conditions of the 1 order dated 15.11.2012 issued by the Honble President of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3504 OF2022(Arising out of SLP (C)No.13668 of 2015) OMKAR SINHA & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS SAHADAT KHAN & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3505 OF2022(Arising out of SLP (C)No.13684 of 2015) JUDGMENT K. M. JOSEPH, J.(1) Leave granted. (2) Both the appeals raise common questions. We take civil appeal arising from SLP (C)No.13668 of 2015 as the leading case. (3) Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Forest Guard on 03.05.1980. He completed his training as Forest Guard in the year 1987. Appellant No.1 came to be appointed as Forest Guard on 15.11.2007. The second appellant was also appointed as Forest Guard on the same day. The appellants were originally part of undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. 1 CA No.3504/ 2022 etc. Upon the enactment of the State Reorganisation Act, 2000, a new State viz., State of Chhattisgarh was born on 01.11.2000. While the State of Madhya Pradesh was undivided, State of Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3468 OF2022Union of India and Ors. Appellants Versus Mukesh Kumar Meena Respondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBCWP No.1542 of 2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein original writ petitioner and has set aside the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No.155 of 2014 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application preferred by 1 the respondent herein original applicant (hereinafter referred to as original applicant) and has directed to extend the grace marks in the subject of Other Taxes by treating him as a person belonging to general category, Union of India and Others have pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6745 OF2009Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (EAST-I) Appellant(s) VERSUS The Assistant Commissioner Bihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT K. M. JOSEPH, J.(1) The appellant challenges the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing Writ Petition No.791 of 2008 filed by it. The relief sought by the appellant is as follows: a) that this Honble court may issue writ of certiorari or any other order, or direction writ, in the nature of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing and setting aside the said impugned Notices dated 27.9.2006 and 01.03.2008 issued by the Respondents under Section 299 and 488 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. (2) Having regard to the nature of the order passed viz., essentially its length, we deem it apposite to refer to it:1. CA No.6745 OF2009Heard.2. The road line was fixed by the Municipal Cor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8717 OF2015Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. Appellants Versus Sandeep Choudhary & Ors. Respondents J UD G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBCWP No.14714/2013, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants herein Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as BSNL) and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No.159 of 2009 by which the learned Tribunal 1 allowed the said application preferred by the respondent No.1 herein original applicant and directed the appellant herein BSNL to consider his candidature if sufficient vacancies exist for placement of the candidates of Other Backward Class and his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.8942 OF2021REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) No.8942 OF2021RAMJHAN GANI PALANI .. PETITIONER VERSUS NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY AND ANR. .. RESPONDENTS ORDER Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking special leave to appeal against the order dated 19th August, 2021, passed by the Gujarat High Court, dismissing the appeal preferred by him against the order dated 19th March, 2021, passed by the Special Judge, National Investigating Agency, Ahmedabad, whereby his bail application was rejected in a case registered originally by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence1 and subsequently taken over by the National Investigating Agency for offences under Sections 120-B, 121-A & 122 of the IPC, Sections 17, 18, 18-B, 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Sections 2, 8, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 29 and 32 (B) (e) of the Narco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7534 OF2021ANAND MURTI ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SONI INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER B.R. GAVAI, J.1. The present appeal challenges the order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the NCLAT) dated 22nd November, 2021, in I.A. No.1115 of 2020 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1507 of 2019, thereby rejecting the Modification Application filed by the appellant herein. Vide the 1 impugned order, the NCLAT observed that, in the meantime, if settlement takes place between the parties for completion of the housing project, the same can be filed under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the IBC) before the Adjudicating Authority. The NCLAT also directed the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP for short)/Resolution Professional (RP for short) to hold the meetin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3470 OF2022(Arising out of SLP (C) No.8302 of 2021) NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL APPELLANT (S) VERSUS MINOSHA INDIA LIMITED RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K. M. JOSEPH, J.1. Leave granted.2. The foremost question which falls for determination by this Court is the impact of Section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as IBC for brevity) and whether the aforesaid provision gives rise to a new lease of life to a proceeding at the instance of the corporate debtor on the basis of a moratorium which is put in place by virtue of the order passed under section 14 of the IBC and whether corporate debtor can take advantage of the same to bring the application in this case filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act).3. Pursuant to an agreement dated 20.02.2015, the appellant placed a purchase order of Rs.16,20,00,000/- ...
Tag this Judgment!