Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(Arising out of SLP (C) No.9855/2022) Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Appellant Versus Ajinkya Arun Firodia Respondent JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA J.Leave granted.2. Indian Law has proceeded on the assumption that parents are persons who beget a child or who assume the legal obligations of parenthood through formal adoption of child. Under the Indian legal spectrum, a husband is strongly presumed to be the father of a child born to his wife. Thus, there is a strong presumption regarding the paternity of a child. This presumption can be overcome only by evidence precluding any procreative role of the husband, such as by showing that the husband and wife had no access to each other at the relevant time of possible conception. In the absence of proof of non-access, the law considers the husband's paternity to be conclusively established if they cohabited when the child was likely to have been conceived. By allowing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No 152 of 2023 Shelly Oberoi & Anr .... Appellant(s) Versus Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors ....Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has been invoked for seeking diverse reliefs pertaining to the constitution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi following the elections which took place on 4 December 2022. These elections were held to elect 250 Councillors. The first petitioner is a prospective candidate for the post of Mayor. Though over two months have elapsed since the date of the election, the election of the Mayor has not be held. 2 Chapter II of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 19571 deals with the establishment of Corporations. Section 35(1) provides that a Corporation shall at its first meeting in each year elect one of its members to be the Chairperson, who is known as the Mayor, and an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1811-1812 OF2015M/s IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited Appellant Versus T. Muruganandam & Others Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.05.2012 in Appeal No.17/2011 and judgment and order dated 10.11.2014 in Appeal No.50/2012 passed by the National Green Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the NGT), M/s IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited has preferred the present appeals.2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under: The appellant herein has been incorporated in the year 2006 to implement the Project for establishing a 2x600 MW and 3x800 MW (aggregating to 3600 MW) imported coal based thermal power plant at village Kottatai, Ariyagoshti, Villianallur and Silambimangalam in Chidambram Taluk, District Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu. Now the appellant 1 company is under the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SLP(C) No.4428 OF2016S.M. Pasha & Ors. ...Petitioner(S) Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent(S) With SLP(C) NO... CC No.4922 OF2016ORDER M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.6142/2014 and Writ Petition No.5490/2014, the present Special Leave Petitions (SLP) have been preferred by some of the tenants in occupation of the premises in question. 12. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners in Special Leave Petition (C) No.4428/2016 except petitioner No.4. Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners in Special Leave Petition (C) NoCC No.4922/2016. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the present office bearers. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.944 OF2023(@ SLP (C) No.18982 of 2022) Delhi Development Authority Appellant(s) Versus MGS (India) Private Limited & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.947 OF2023(@ SLP (C) No.3167 of 2023) (@ Diary No.1203 of 2023) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Secretary Land & Building Department & Anr. Appellant(s) Versus MGS (India) Private Limited & 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 Delhi at New Delhi dated 20.07.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No.910 of 2015 by which the High Court 1 has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013), the Delhi D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.413 OF2023National Technical Research Organization & Others ..Appellants Versus Dipti Deodhare ..Respondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the National Technical Research Organization and others, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.10867/2021, by which the High Court, while allowing the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and setting aside order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing O.A. No.1 170/1318/2019, has directed that the order dated 12.02.2019 issued by the appellant(s) shall be read as an order of discharge simpliciter and that she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the benefit of past service th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.945 OF2023(@ SLP (C) No.3119 of 2023) (@ Diary No.28000 of 2022) Land and Building Department and Anr. Appellant(s) Versus Manish Sethi and 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 Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.6060 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013), the Land and Building Department and the Land Acquisition Collector have preferred the present appeal. 12. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it is apparent that the High Court has allowed the said writ petition a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.942 OF2023(@ SLP (C) NO.3116 of 2023) (@ DIARY NO.28432 OF2022 Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Appellants Versus Dhannu & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.3158 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein original writ petitioner (now represented through his heirs) and has 1 declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.9221 OF2018RAM GOPAL S/O MANSHARAM .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.70/2000 has been sought to be challenged by the petitioner-accused by way of present petition. The said appeal was dismissed by the High Court confirming the judgment and order dated 17.01.2000 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (hereinafter referred to as the Sessions Court) in ST No.205/1996, whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life 1 imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.2. The petitioner-accused Ramgopal alias Gopal was the Ex- Sarpanch of the village ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.943 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No.3117 of 2023) (@ Diary No.32553 of 2022) Delhi Development Authority ..Appellant Versus Jagan Singh & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3164 1 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 2013), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even as per the finding ...
Tag this Judgment!