Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.739 OF2023(@ SLP (C) No.2491 OF2023 (@ DIARY No.9638 OF2021 Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Appellant(s) Versus Shakeel Ahmed & 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.3539 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 land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1894) with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under 1 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 and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.2. From...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8583-8584 OF2010G.T.C. INDUSTRIES LTD (NOW KNOWN AS GOLDEN TOBACCO LIMITED) THR. MANAGER LEGAL AND ANR. APPELLANTS VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND ORS .RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8581-8582/2010 CIVIL APPEAL No.8585/2010 JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.These appeals, by special leave, challenge the judgment and order dated 28th August, 2009 rendered by the Delhi High Court (hereafter the High Court, for short) while disposing of 5 (five) writ petitions, viz. WP(C) Nos. 1854 and 1895 to 1898 of 1992.2. The High Court, for the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment, declared section 9-D of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereafter Excise Act, for short) as intra vires while dismissing the writ petitions. 23. In course of hearing before us, Mr. S.K. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, did not even attempt to assail the reasons assigned by the High Court for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.733 OF2023(@SLP (C) No.2478 OF2023 (@ DIARY No.6958 of 2018) North Delhi Municipal Corporation Appellant(s) Versus Ram Chander Singh 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.9333 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein 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, 1 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013), the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) has preferred the present appeal.2. In the present case, the lands of village Chowkri Mubarakbad were acquired vide Notification under Section 4 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.735 OF2023(@SLP (C) No.2486 OF2023 (@ DIARY No.23396 of 2022) Delhi Development Authority Appellant(s) Versus Narvada Devi 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.3383 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 herein 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, 1 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.2. Before the High Court, the respondent No.1 original writ petitioner claimed the relief for a declaration that the acquisition proc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF2023(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.18428-18432, 18434-18438, 18440-18454, 18456-18494, 18496, 18498-18501, 18503-18509, 18511-18572 & 18574-18584/2021) Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Others Appellants Versus Satpal & Others Etc. Etc. Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in the respective first appeals, by which for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 for villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi, the High Court has 1 HSIIDC v. Satpal & Others Etc. enhanced the compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre and for the land acquired vide notification dated 05.03.2007 for the aforesaid villages, the High Court has assessed and awarded the compensation @ Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre, the Haryana State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION D.No.5112 of 2023 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.59/2013 ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT SHRI RAM CHANDRA MUNDRA S/O LATE MURLIDHAR MUNDRA & ORS. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY GENERAL & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION D.No.5236 of 2023 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.59/2013 AND MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION D.No.5645 of 2023 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.59/2013 AND REVIEW PETITION (C) D. Nos. 5450, 5075 AND5065OF2023(Upon being mentioned today, Taken on Board) ORDER Petitioner No.4, the Union of India as well as the State of Sikkim have filed applications seeking correction of certain phrases in paragraphs 10(a) and 77 of my contd..-. 2 - judgment (B.V. Nagarathna, J) disposing of Writ Petition (C) NO.59/2013 along with the connected writ petition on 13.01.2023. It is noted that, in the said writ petition(s), there was an amended writ p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.10519 OF2020 VIBHUTI SHANKAR PANDEY APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant who is aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2020, by which a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.06.2019, which had granted the benefit of regularization to the present appellant.3. The case of the appellant is that he was engaged in 1980 as a Supervisor, on daily rated basis, under a project of the State Water Resources Department of Madhya 2 Pradesh. The appellant sought regularization on the post of Supervisor/Time Keeper. Admittedly, the minimum qualification for the said post was matriculation with mathematics; a qualification which the appellant did not possess. These qualifications were relaxed by a Government Circular dated 31.12.201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3504-3505 OF2010M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED APPELLANT Versus M/S. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORP. LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. M/s Gas Authority of India Limited (for short GAIL), the appellant herein, is a Government of India undertaking, incorporated on 16.08.1984, engaged primarily in the activity of providing services for the utilisation of natural or associated gas. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (for short IPCL), respondent no.1 herein, formerly a public sector undertaking, is engaged in the manufacture of petrochemicals. It ceased to be a public undertaking w.e.f. June 2002, when 26% of its shares were sold to Reliance Petroinvestments Ltd. in line with the Governments disinvestment policy. 1 Respondent No.2 is a shareholder of IPCL and respondent No.3 is the Union of India. Background 2. On 01.01.1999, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4769 OF2022NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. APPELLANT Versus THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. The non-application of the general strict liability principle, in case of an insurance policy, is sought to be questioned, where an expanded meaning has been given to the relevant term of the insurance policy in order to grant insurance claim, now assailed before us by the insurance company, the Appellant herein, in view of the order dated 03.10.2017 passed by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in favour of Respondent No.1 herein. The original claim was made by a writ petition filed by the prospective beneficiary i.e. Respondent No.2 herein, but while granting the benefits to 1 the beneficiary, a liability was placed on Respondent no.1 and not on the insurance company, which aspect was reversed by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 03.10.2017 fastenin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6391 OF2021ITC LIMITED APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AASHNA ROY RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH,J.1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 assails the correctness of the order dated 21st September, 2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 in Consumer Complaint No.1619/18 between Aashna Roy versus Yogesh Deveshwar and another. The NCDRC by the said order allowed the complaint filed by the sole respondent herein and awarded compensation of Rs.2 crores to be paid by the 1 the NCDRC 1 Opposite Party No.2 before the NCDRC i.e. the present appellant.2. The background giving rise to the filing of the complaint by the respondent is briefly stated herein:2. 1 The respondent visited the saloon of the Hotel ITC Maurya, New Delhi on 12.04.2018 for hair styling so that she would have a clean and groomed appearance before the interview panel where she was to appea...
Tag this Judgment!