Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC1024IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF2023(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 23583-84 of 2022) JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023[Arising out of SLP (C) No.23943 of 2022]. JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals challenge the common judgment and order dated 14th September 2022 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in a bunch of writ petitions which were filed challenging the order dated 10th February 2021 issued by the Secretary, Department of Elementary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun vide which he recalled his earlier order dated 15th January 2021. The High Court, vide the 1 impugned judgment and order, held that the 18 months Diploma in Elementary Education (for short, D.El.Ed.) conducted through the Open and Distance Learning (for short, ODL) mode in elementary education by the National Institute of Open Scho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 2023 INSC1026REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3618 OF2023[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.8658 OF2017 VISHNU KUMAR SHUKLA & ANR. APPELLANTS A1: VISHNU KUMAR SHUKLA A2: VINEETA SHUKLA VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENTS R1: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: RAM KUMAR GARG JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Judgment) passed by 2 the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) in Case U/S482378/407 Cr.P.C. No.4929 of 2017, by which the Order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow rejecting the prayer for discharge of the appellants, who are husband and wife, respectively, has been upheld. THE FACTUAL PRISM:3. In brief, the allegations are that the Complainant/Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC1021NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3512 OF2023Suresh & Ors. Appellants versus State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECT1 The appellants invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) for quashing First Information Report (for short, FIR) registered against them for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the EC Act). By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR. Criminal Appeal No.3512 of 2023 Page 1 of 72) On 7th October 2021, invoices were issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) in the name of MP Bombay Auto Service Petrol Diesel Pump owned by the third appellant for the sale and transportation of 9 Kilolitres each o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC1022IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.339 OF2023NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S. MUDIT ROADWAYS RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami and Mr. Mrinal Kumar Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal challenges the 10.8.2022 order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as, the NCDRC for short), which partially allowed the consumer complaint directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.6,57,55,155/- for a fire insurance claim with 9% interest from Page 1 of 33 claim denial date within 8 weeks, or face 12% interest beyond the stipulated 8 weeks. INSURANCE POLICIES & CLAIM PROCESS3 The respondent purchased the following insurance policies: Sr. Description Date Duration of Sum No.Premium Policy Insured Paid 1 Standard Fire 19.06.2017 19.06.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC1020NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2333 OF2010Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu Appellant versus State of Haryana Respondent JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECTS1 The appellant who is accused No.3, along with two co accused, was convicted by the learned Special Judge under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act) for the offence punishable under Section 15 of NPDS Act. Learned Special Judge held that the prosecution had brought home the charge against the accused that they were found in conscious possession of poppy straw having the quantity of 205 kilograms without any licence or permit. The accused, including the appellant, were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ each. The default sentence was of imprisonment for two years. The conviction of the appellant and two others has been confirmed by the High Court by the impug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC1034REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3598 OF2023@ SLP(CRL.) NO.15192 OF2023DIARY NO.14840 OF2023MARIAPPAN APPELLANT VERSUS STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE RESPONDENT ORDER VIKRAM NATH, J.1. This appeal assails the correctness of the final Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013 whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the present appellant and confirmed the order of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and awarding life sentence passed on 05.10.2012 by the Trial Court. 1 IPC Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 1 of 132. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:2. 1 The case involves the offence of culpable homicide committed by the present appellant. The present appellant was accused no.1 before the Trial Court in S.C.No.177 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Session Judge, E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 2023 INSC1086Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No 443 of 2017 Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas and Anr ... Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors ... Respondents WITH Writ Petition (Civil) No 187 of 2019 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Contents Constitutional Framework .................................................................................................. 3 Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 ............................................................................... 8 Delimitation Act, 2002 ...................................................................................................... 11 Factual Context ................................................................................................................ 14 Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners ........................................................................ 22 Submissions on behalf of the Responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC1013REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1527 OF2022RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LIMITED APPELLANT VERSUS RAVINDRA LOONKAR, RESOLUTION PROFESSION OF ACIL LIMITED & ANR.1 RESPONDENTS R1 : Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Profession(al) of ACIL Limited R2 : Committee of Creditors of ACIL Ltd. 1 Cause-title should correctly include Resolution Professional instead of 'Resolution Profession. 2 JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The present appeal under Section 622 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is directed against the Judgment dated 19.01.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Judgment) passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.845 of 2021 which has upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal3) [hereinafter referred to as the Ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Criminal Appeal No.2791 of 2023 2023 INSC1011NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2791 OF2023NANHE APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J.1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. In an incident which took place on 30.05.2007 at about 3:30 p.m. in the market area, one Mahendra was injured and one Saddam Hussain, son of the informant, Mohd. Ali was killed. Two cases, one crime No.169/2007 under Section 304 and 308 IPC and another case crime No.170/2007 under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 were registered against the accused Nanhe. Page 1 | 15 Criminal Appeal No.2791 of 2023 3. Both the cases were clubbed and were tried as Sessions Trial Nos. 1097 of 2007 and 1212 of 2007 by Special Judge, S.C./S.T.(P.A.) Act,1989. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 14.05.2010 held the accused Nanhe to be guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC1014[NON-REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2664 OF2011WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2665 OF2011Shah Originals Appellant(s) VERSUS Commissioner of Income Tax-24, Mumbai Respondent(s) JUDGMENT S.V.N. BHATTI, J.I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 Shah Originals/assessee is the appellant in the subject Civil Appeals. The Commissioner of Income Tax-24, Mumbai/Revenue, is the 1 respondent. The appeals arise from the orders dated 22.04.2010 in Income Tax Appeal Nos 431 and 996 of 2008 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The subject matter of the Civil Appeals relates to the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The appeals presented before this Court have a similar set of facts and a common question for the decision of this Court and, hence, are disposed of by this common judgment. 1.1 Civil Appeal No.2664 of 2011 has been treated as the lead case. A reference to the circumstances, consideration and conclusions by the High Court and the author...
Tag this Judgment!