Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE2023INSC1050IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.494/2023 MAHALAKSHMI & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Appellant No.1 - Mahalakshmi is the sister of accused No.1 - Sarvan Kumar, former husband of informant/respondent No.2 Rekha Bhaskaran. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Maharani T.S. and Ranjanavadhan, respectively, are cousins of accused No.1 Sarvan Kumar. Appellant No.4 Archana is the wife of appellant No.3 Ranjanavadhan. Accused No.1 Sarvan Kumar and the informant/respondent No.2 - Rekha Bhaskaran got married on 29.06.2015. Rekha Bhaskaran made a written complaint, pursuant to which First Information Report1 No.92 of 2016 dated 26.11.2016, was registered at Police Station Halasurgate Women, District Bangalore City, Karnataka for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Sections ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2023INSC1041IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF2023(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.26867-68 OF2019 SEBASTIAN DOMINIC Appellant(s) VERSUS K.HARRIS & OTHERS ETC. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant herein was working as Reference Assistant in the University1. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Librarian vide order dated 06.04.2010 w.e.f. 23.07.2008 as he had requisite qualifications, i.e., MLISC2 and M.Phil in Library Science from VMU3. M.Phil degree was obtained by him in December 2007. A decision was taken by the Academic Council of the University on 03.04.2013 holding that the degrees acquired through Distance Education from VMU cannot be considered for promotion under University Grants 1 Kerala Agricultural University 2 Masters Degree of Library & Information Sciences 3 Vinayak Missions University 1 Commission Scheme. The Executive Council endorsed the decision of the Academic Council...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC1044IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF2023(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2652 OF2023 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR & ANOTHER Appellant(s) VERSUS URMILA G. & OTHERS Respondent(s) JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J.Leave granted.2. Despite service, no one had appeared for the respondents.3. The appellants have challenged the order1 passed by the High Court2, whereby the Writ Petition3 filed against the order4 passed by Upa Lokayukta5 in the complaint6 filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed. 1 Order dated 10.10.2022. 2 High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 3 Writ Petition (C) No.39299 of 2016 4 Order dated 18.10.2016 5 Kerala Upa Lokayukta 6 Complaint No.866 of 2016 1 4. Briefly the facts, as available on record, are that respondent No.1 filed a complaint with the Lokayukta narrating long history of the revenue record pertaining to the land with a grievance that the revenue record was not being corrected and for a direction be issued to the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC1042IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.. OF2023(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) No.8292 OF2021 M/s BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER Appellant(s) VERSUS ATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the High Court1, vide which the application filed by the appellants/defendants under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. in the suit2 filed by the respondent-plaintiff, was dismissed. 1 High Court of Judicature at Madras 2 Civil Suit (Commercial Division) No.62 of 2020 1 3. Briefly, the facts as available on record are that the respondent-plaintiff is presently the absolute owner of the property in dispute. It was originally owned by T. Padmanabhan, T. Sethuraman and T. Gopinath. At that time, M/s Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. had taken the property on lease with effect from 01.01.1958 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7747 OF2012Dr. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERS Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondent(s) JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J.1. The present appeal questions the legality of the order1 passed by the High Court2, vide which the orders3 passed by the Tribunal4 were upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. FACTS2 The appellant No.1 joined the Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology5 as a Research Assistant (later redesignated as 1 Dated 15.07.2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3791 of 2011 2 High Court of Delhi 3 Dated 01.06.2010 in O.A.No.1762/2010 and Dated 03.08.2010 in Review Application No.203/2010 4 The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi 5 Hereinafter referred to as CSTT. 1 Assistant Scientific Officer) on 03.01.1990. The recruitment was made in terms of the Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment Rules, 19806.3. The 1980 Rules were amend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2023INSC1083CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1163/2018 CHANDRASEKHAR PATEL APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SURESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1164/2018 JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. Heard the learned senior counsel and the learned counsel for the respective parties.2. The incident, which is the subject matter of these Appeals, is of 6th March, 1996. There were five accused, who were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC). One of them was also prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 302 of the IPC. The offence alleged was of committing the murder of one Siddhnath Patel.3. In an appeal preferred by the convicted accused, the High Court passed an order of acquittal, which is challenged by way of these two Appeals before us. Criminal Appeal No.1163/2018 is preferred by the son (Chandrasekhar Patel) of the deceased, who i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2023INSC1040IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.3322 of 2015 BANI AMRIT KAUR APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J.1. The successor-in-interest of the plaintiff is before this Court challenging the judgment and decree1 of the High Court2 in Second Appeal.3 Vide aforesaid judgment, the judgments and decrees of the courts below were reversed. 1 Judgement and decree dated 08.10.2004 2 Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh 3 Regular Second Appeal No.1584 of 1980 1 2. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant- Sukhjit Singh (deceased) filed a Suit4 challenging the first sale deed5, which was got registered by his father-Gurinder Singh (now deceased). The first sale deed was registered for the land measuring 166 kanals and 15 marlas in favour of Harjit Singh, who subsequently sold 118 kanals and 06 marlas to the State of Punjab (now falling in the State of Haryana), vide second reg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC1032REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7700 OF2023DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR. ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of the exposition, this judgement is divided in the following parts: - INDEX A. Factual Matrix ...................................................................................... 4 i) Notification dated 27.10.2021 constituting the Selection Committee ... 5 ii) Notification dated 01.11.2021 inviting applications for selection of Vice-Chancellor .................................................................................... 6 iii) Letter of the Minister for Higher Education / Pro-Chancellor dated 22.11.2021 recommending reappointment of the Respondent No.4 .... 7 Page 1 of 72 iv) Notification dated 22.11.2021 withdrawing the Notification dated 01.11.2021 inviting applications from the elligible candidates ...........
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC1043REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.. OF2023(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.19465 OF2021 ELDECO HOUSING AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED Appellant(s) VERSUS ASHOK VIDYARTHI AND OTHERS Respondent(s) JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J.1. Leave granted.2. Aggrieved against the order1 passed by the High Court2 in Review Application3 in Civil Revision4, the plaintiff is in appeal before this Court. Vide aforesaid order, the application filed by respondent 1 Order dated 27.09.2021. 2 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 3 Review Application No.192 of 2021 4 Civil Revision No.28 of 2020 1 No.1- defendant before the Trial Court5 under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. was allowed and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed.3. Briefly stating, the facts available on record are that a Memorandum of Understanding6 was entered into between the appellant and respondent No.1 on 31.08.1998, regarding sale of the property in question. It was specifically m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4422/2023 2023 INSC1056REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4422/2023 HARI BABU THOTA Appellant(s) VERSUS Respondent(s) JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. Shree Aashraya Infra-Con Limited went into CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [for short the Code]. and the appellant before us was appointed as the Resolution Professional. The Resolution Professional presented a plan before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru as propounded by the promoters and approved by the Committee of Creditors [COC]. but in terms of the order dated 28.02.2023, the application was dismissed on the ground that the promoters could not have presented the plan. It is the say of the appellant before us that this has far reaching consequences for him and his role as the Resolution Professional as: a) the appellant is ineligible to continue as a Resolution Professional; 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4422/2023 b) the applicant is ineligible...
Tag this Judgment!