Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1706 OF2022(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6535 of 2022) RITU RAI Appellant VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s) ORDER Leave granted. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being No.19717 of 2021. The appellant is the informant at whose instance Crime No.1592 of 2016 was registered at Police Station Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, against respondent no.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 376, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After cognizance having been taken by the Trial Court, Criminal Case No.192 of 2019 is presently pending. During the pendency of the trial, application Exh. 61Kha was moved on behalf of the appellant praying that Principal/In- Charge/concerned Officer of Kendriya Vidyalaya No.4 DLW Campus, ...
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 S.L.P.(C) No.6464 of 2022) M/S PRIME PROPERTIES .....Appellant(s) VERSUS SANA LAKSHMI DEVI (DIED) THROUGH HER LRS & ORS. .....Respondent(s) JUDGMENT DINESH MAHESHWARI,J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2022 as passed by the High Court for Telangana at Hyderabad in CRP No.204 of 2022, whereby the High Court has disapproved the order dated 29.12.2021 passed by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, allowing the review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. While allowing the review application, the Trial Court has taken the subsequent pleadings filed by the plaintiff in the form of rejoinder on record, in supersession of its earlier order dated 29.11.2021, whereby such a permission was declined.3. The matter essentially relates to filing of pleadings but...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 5802 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 12612 of 2022) X ... Appellant versus The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Table of Contents A. Background ................................................................................................... 4 B. Submissions ................................................................................................. 7 C. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 and the rules framed thereunder ............................................................................................................ 9 D. Barriers to accessing safe and legal abortions ....................................... 16 i. RMPs fear of prosecution ...................................................................... 16 ii. Social stigma surrounding unmarried women ...........
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10834 OF2010SUKHBIRI DEVI & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.1. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment and order in RSA No.79/2007 dated 25.08.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi. The appellants were plaintiffs in Suit No.410 of 2000 on the file of the Court presided over by Shri Vidya Prakash, Civil Judge, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court), filed seeking reliefs mainly against the 5th Respondent. The Trial Court framed a preliminary issue on the question of limitation, evidently, upon forming the opinion that case may be 2 disposed of on an issue of law and that it warrants postponement of settlement of other issues until after that issue has been determined and to deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. Accordingly, the Trial Court framed a preliminary question as to whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.556 OF2006MUNILAL & ORS. Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ANR. Respondents ORDER This petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India inter alia prayed that some of the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act, 2005 (the Reservation Act for short) and the Rules framed thereunder be declared illegal and unconstitutional. The matter has been pending in this Court for the last 16 years. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General has invited our attention to the factual developments which have taken place after 2006 including certain amendments to the provisions of the Reservation Act. In view of the developments which have taken place since the filing of the writ petition, we permit the petitioners to withdraw the instant writ petition, with further liberty to take or initiate appropriate proceedings in a manner known to law. 2 With these observations, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SUIT NO.5 OF2003STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Plaintiff VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. Defendants ORDER The instant Suit was filed in the year 2003 praying for following reliefs: 1. grant injunction restraining Defendant No.1 State of Karnataka from constructing the Paragodu Project on the Chitravathi river in Pennar basin and impounding water therein, till resolution of the water disputes under the provisions of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.2. grant injunction restraining Defendant No.1 State of Karnataka from constructing, executing, implementing, giving effect to or impounding water, till resolution of the water disputes under the provisions of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, in the anicut across Pennar river near Gowribidnur Village, Teeta Project in Tumkur District, the Tank at Pasalaparthi village of Bagepalli taluk, Kolar District, the Nagarkare tank in Gowribidnur village, the new...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5463-5464 OF2015GYANDENDRA KUMAR & ORS. Appellants VERSUS BIHAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, PATNA & ANR. ETC. Respondents ORDER The instant appeals arise out of the order of disqualification issued by the then Speaker of 15th Bihar Legislative Assembly. The term of said Assembly was from 20.11.2010 till 20.11.2015. One of the orders passed by the Speaker on 01.11.2014, in its operative part, directed as under: 27. I have reached this conclusion that due to proved acts, conduct and attitude of the above four Honble Members they have been disqualified from the membership of Bihar Assembly under the para 2(1)(a) of the tenth schedule of Constitution.28. Therefore I am hereby declaring Sh. Gyanendra Kumar Singh, Sh. Rahul Kumar, Sh. Ravindra Rai and Sh. Neeraj Kumar Singh as disqualified from the membership of Bihar Assembly and issuing instructions to delete the names of above four members from the list of members. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2022(Arising out of SLP (C) No.14948 of 2016) KARN SINGH YADAV Appellant VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents ORDER Leave granted. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 07.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.55 of 2013. We are presently concerned with the process of selection issued vide advertisement dated 30.08.2007 for the posts of AGrade Staff Nurse, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The appellant had offered his candidature as a person belonging to Other Backward Class. His candidature was however rejected by the Authorities inter alia on the ground that the documents certifying him to be belonging to that community were not filed before the cut-off date. The challenge raised by the appellant to such rejection did not meet with any success and the High Court by the order presently under challenge rejected the writ petition in limine. 2 It must be stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1693 OF2022[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.10353 OF2018 ANJU GARG & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DEEPAK KUMAR GARG RESPONDENT JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1) Leave granted.2) The appellants herein are the wife and the son of the respondent. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th September 2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.05/2017, whereby the High Court has dismissed the Revision application filed by the appellants, challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Family Court-1, Faridabad, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Family Court). The Family Court vide order dated 09.12.2016 had dismissed the Maintenance Petition filed by the appellants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., qua the appellant No.1 -wife 1 (original applicant No.1) and her daughter Ms. Megha Garg (original applicant No.2), and had allowed th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4258 OF2022RAM KUMAR ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 21st February 2019 thereby allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.9 herein, setting aside the order dated 18th November 2017 passed by the Deputy Collector, Rasoolabad cancelling the fair price shop licence of respondent No.9 and the order dated 20th July 2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), 1 Kanpur Division, Kanpur, (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority) dismissing the appeal of respondent No.9 and restoring the Fair Price Shop licence to the respondent No.9 forthwith.2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:2. 1 Respondent No.9 herein-Kiran Devi (the original writ petitioner) was granted a licence for running a fai...
Tag this Judgment!