Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC901REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.../2023 [ARISING OUT of SLP (CIVIL) DIARY No.21319/2022]. UNION OF INDIA APPELLANT VS. UZAIR IMRAN & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.1. Leave granted.2. The challenge in this appeal by the Union of India (appellant, hereafter) is to the judgment and order dated 4th April, 2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (High Court, hereafter) dismissing a Writ Petition1 of the appellant as well as the judgment and order dated 10th December, 2021 of the High Court dismissing its Review Application2. By the judgment and order dated 4th April, 2017, the High Court 1 No.1822 of 2000 2 C.M. Application No.105840 of 2017 1 affirmed the judgment and order dated 6th May, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, hereafter) allowing an Original Application3 under section 19 read with section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as wel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 2023 INSC902REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023 ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.16238 OF2017 ) BICHITRANANDA BEHERA APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS R1: State of Orissa represented through the Commissioner- cum- Secretary, State of Orissa School and Mass Education Department R2: Director, Secondary Education R3: Inspector of Schools, Puri Circle, Puri R4: Managing Committee, Gram Panchayat High School, Sailo R5: Pramod Kumar Mohanty S/o Narayan Mohanty R6: The State of Odisha Board of Secondary Education R7: Judhistir Khuntia S/o Late Kulamani Khuntia R8: Kanhu Chaan Nayak S/o Late Khanduri Nayak JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 22. Leave granted.3. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 18.01.2017 in F.A.O. No.497 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Judgment) passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (hereinafter referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC903NonReportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3168 OF2023(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11331 of 2019) State of Rajasthan Appellant versus Gautam s/o Mohanlal Respondent JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. Leave granted. FACTUAL ASPECTS2 This is a case which shocks the conscience of the Court. The only issue in this case is regarding the enhancement of the sentence imposed on the respondentaccused.3. As the issue is confined to the quantum of sentence, it is not necessary for us to go into the correctness of the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. As far as the factual details are concerned, we are reproducing the facts set out in the impugned judgment, which read thus: SLP (Crl.) No.11331 of 2019 Page 1 of 11 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. The material facts briefly leading to filing of the appeal are required to be noted....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC899 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1991 OF2019NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED APPELLANT VERSUS ROYAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LTD. RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2528 OF2019ROYAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED RESPONDENT CIVIL APPEAL NO.001991 OF2019ETC. Page 1 of 15 JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J.1. These two appeals have been filed under Article 134A read with Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India by the rival parties before the High Court of Delhi in EFA (OS) No.19 of 2017. The High Court, by the impugned order, certified that the case involved the following substantial question of law of general importance which required a decision by this Court. In terms of the agreement dated 29th June 1982 between the parties and in light of the judgment dated 24th February 2015 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 2543-44/2015...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE2023INSC926IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(arising out of SLP (C) No.30335 of 2018) RAM KISHAN & ANOTHER ..... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DAYA NAND(D)THR. LRS & OTHERS ..... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(arising out of SLP (C) No.31904 of 2018) ORDER Leave granted. The present appeals take exception to the common judgment dated 31.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.2241 of 1991 titled Ram Kishan and another v. Daya Nand and others and R.S.A. No.2242 of 1991 titled Siri Bhagwan and others v. Daya Nand and others. The High Court by the impugned judgment has upheld the judgment of the first appellate court, decreeing the suit for pre-emption filed by the plaintiffs, Daya Nand (deceased) and others. Aggrieved, the defendant - purchasers, Ram Kishan and another; and Siri Bhagwan and others have preferred the present appeals. Trial court vide judgment dated 31.10.1990 had dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC890 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.of 2023 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12 of 2020) Siby Thomas Appellant Versus M/s. Somany Ceramics Ltd. Respondent JUDGMENT C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.1. Leave granted.2. This Appeal by accused No.4 in the complaint filed by the respondent herein under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the NI Act) is directed against the order dated 06.12.2019 in CRM-M No.52299 of 2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. As per SLP (Crl.) 12 of 2020 Page 1 of 21 the impugned order the High Court declined to quash the complaint qua the appellant in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.PC).3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.4. Virtually, the appellant set up twin grounds to seek quashment of the complaint aga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC1064REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) No.7277 OF2020SYNDICATE BANK ..... Petitioner VERSUS N.R. BHAT ..... Respondent ORDER1 The Petitioner-Bank is aggrieved by an order dated 17th June, 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in an Intra Court Appeal1 whereby, while taking on record the Joint Memo dated 17th June, 2019 filed by the parties, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent-employee that he would be submitting a request to the petitioner-Bank for opting for pension. The respondent- employee was permitted to exercise the option of availing retiral benefits and making a written request to the petitioner-Bank to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks thereafter.2. Before adverting to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, a brief reference to the relevant facts is necessary:3. The respondent-employee joined the services of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC896 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2045 OF2011DR. NIRMAL SINGH PANESAR APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MRS. PARAMJIT KAUR PANESAR @ AJINDER KAUR PANESAR RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. Should the irretrievable breakdown of marriage necessarily result in the dissolution of marriage in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, when such is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955?. - is the question posed before us. 12. The appellant is a qualified doctor, and was Commissioned Air Force Officer. He retired on 30.04.1990 as Wing Commander. The respondent is also a qualified teacher, who was working in a Central School, and has retired now. The appellant had filed the Divorce proceedings on 12.03.1996 before the District Court, Chandigarh on two grounds, namely cruelty and desertion as contemplated in Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) respectively of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 2023 INSC916Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF2023(Arising out of SLP (C) No 21920 of 2018) Solaris Chem Tech Industries Ltd Appellant Versus Assistant Executive Engineer Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board & Anr Respondents ORDER1Leave granted. 2 This appeal arises from a judgment dated 18 June 2018 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at the Dharwad Bench. The Division Bench has dismissed a Writ Appeal and thereby affirmed the correctness of an order dated 27 February 2018 of a Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 3 The appellant set up a factory in 1975 for the manufacture of Caustic Soda at Village Binaga in North Kanara District, Mysore. On 5 July 1971, an agreement was entered into between the Government of Mysore and the appellant for the continuous supply of water at concessional rates for the operation of the factory. The agreement was valid for a period of 20 years...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023NSC895 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1578 OF2012KAMAL PRASAD & ORS. APPELLANT(S) Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH) RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL J., 1. This appeal calls into question the correctness of a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.596 of 1992 by which the guilt of the accused and the sentence of imprisonment imposed in Sessions Trial No.198 of 1988 vide a judgment dated 11.05.1992 stands confirmed. 1- [Cr. A No.1578 OF2012 2. Challenging their conviction, before us are three convict(s) - appellants, namely, Kamal Prasad (A-3); Shersingh (A-6); and Bhavdas (A-9).3. The convict-appellants stand convicted of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, Indian Penal Code, 18601 and Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 under which the sentence awarded varies from rigorous i...
Tag this Judgment!