Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6776 OF2022The Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector, Salem ...Appellant(s) Versus S. Arichandran & Ors. ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 29.10.2021 in Writ Appeal No.2735 of 2021 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent original writ petitioner into service and pay arrears payable to him, the District Collector, Salem District, Tamil Nadu has preferred the present appeal. 12. That a departmental inquiry was initiated against the respondent, who was a Panchayat Assistant, for having committed the misconduct of misappropriation of funds pertaining to Samuthram Panchayat in connivance with the erstwhile President...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2021 OF2022Union of India and Ors. Appellant(s) Versus G.R. Meghwal Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCWP No.740 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal allowing the O.A. No.430 of 2011 by directing the Department to call for a review meeting of the Screening Committee to re-assess his suitability for the purpose of grant of SAG and while doing so to exclude the ACR of 2007-2008, Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:- 1 2.1 The respondent herein, who belonged to the cadre of Indian Telecom Group A was sent on deputation to BSNL. He was poste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6744-6758 OF2022Harpal Singh and Anr. Etc. Etc. Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab Etc. Etc. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6740-6743 OF2022Nasib Singh and Anr. Etc. Etc. Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Etc. Etc. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6734-6739 OF2022Mehar Singh and Anr. Etc. Etc. Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab Etc. Etc. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT1M.R. SHAH, J.1. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of appeals, all these appeals are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012 / 02.03.2009 / 09.11.2009 passed in the respective first appeals, the particulars of which are as under:- Sl. Particulars RFA No.Date of Section 4 No Order Notification . date 1. Harpal Singh and Anr. 3941/2007 01.05.2012 21.11.2002 Vs. State of Punjab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6676 OF2022Smt. Kalavati & Ors. .. Appellants Versus Mirza Kaisar Baig & Anr. ..Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL No.6677 OF2022Smt. Chandrakala & Anr. .. Appellants Versus Mirza Kaisar Baig & Anr. ..Respondents JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the High 1 Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench passed in respective First Appeals, the original claimants have preferred the present appeals and have prayed to enhance the amount of compensation. Civil Appeal No.6676 of 2022 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the High Court in M.F.A. No.200507 of 2018 by which the High Court has enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.10,70,000/ as awarded by the learned Tribunal to Rs.15,98,120/ only, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal. 2.1 The i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2576 OF2010M/s. Munjal Showa Ltd. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Delhi IV) Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5608 OF2011M/s. Friends Trading Co. Appellant(s) Versus Union of India and Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.U.S.A.P. No.27 of 2008 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant 1 assessee M/s. Munjal Showa Ltd. filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act and has confirmed the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) confirming the demand of Customs Duty with interest, the original assessee - M/s. Munjal Showa Ltd. has preferred the present Civil Appeal No.2576 of 2010. 1.1 Feeling aggrieved ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6733 OF2022Balram Singh Appellant Versus Kelo Devi Respondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No.330/2001, by which the High Court has dismissed the second appeal and has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit passed by the learned trial Court, the original defendant has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: That the respondent herein original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the original plaintiff) instituted Original Suit No.696 of 1997 before the learned trial Court for permanent injunction only. The said suit was 1 filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996. The origin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No... OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) No.5029 OF2021 AMINUDDIN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant, at whose behest FIR No.438 of 2019 dated 10.07.2019 came to be registered at Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 352 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601, has preferred this appeal by permission and by special leave, in challenge to the order dated 03.12.2020, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.20894 of 2020. 2.1. By order impugned, the High Court has granted the concession of bail to one of the accused persons (respondent No.2 herein), essentially 1 IPC, for short. 1 on the consideration that identically placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail. The appellant has, inter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.of 2022 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.14996 of 2021) Arjun Murmu Appellants Versus The State of Odisha & Ors. Respondents With Civil Appeal No.of 2022 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.17933 of 2021) Radhamohan Hembram & Ors. Appellants Versus State of Odisha & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.1. Leave granted.2. These Appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 14.07.2021, passed by the High Court of Orissa at Page 1 of 12 Cuttack in I.A. No.1000 of 2021 in Writ Appeal (W.A.) No.612 of 2020. The Appeal arising from SLP(C) No.14996 of 2021 is filed by the Appellant in W.A. No.612 of 2020 and he is Respondent No.7 in the Appeal arising from SLP(C) No.17933 of 2021 filed by third parties to the stated interlocutory application and also the stated Writ Appeal. As a matter of fact, the Appellants in the Appeal arising from SLP(C) No.17933 of 2021 are not parties even to W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.7696 of 2021 etc. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1656 OF2022[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7696 of 2021]. Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Appellant v. State of Gujarat Respondent WITH Criminal Appeal No.1657 OF2022[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7609 of 2021]. WITH Criminal Appeal Nos.16581659 OF2022[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.76787679 of 2021]. AND Criminal Appeal No.1660 OF2022[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7758 of 2021]. JUDGMENT Abhay S. Oka, J.Leave granted. 2 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.7696 of 2021 etc. FACTUAL ASPECTS2 The appellants are the accused in FIR No.112020082021862020 registered with Jamnagar City A Division Police Station in Gujarat for the offences under Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5), and 4 of The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 (for short the 2015 Act). Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) has been amended in relation to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2022(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.19173/2021) Patel Kodarbhai Mohanbhai Appellant Versus Sonata Ceramica Pvt. Ltd. and Others Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Leave granted.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Application No.1/2021 in First Appeal No.479/2021, by which the High Court has allowed the said Civil Application preferred on behalf of respondent No.1 herein permitting it to be impleaded in First Appeal No.479/2021 filed by the State of Gujarat and Others, the original claimant original landowner (respondent No.4 in Civil Application) has preferred the present appeal. 13. The appellant herein was the original owner of the land in question acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1894). The Land Acquisiti...
Tag this Judgment!