Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRA-ORDINARY/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 3006 of 2023 (D No 2490 of 2023) Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd .... Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Ors ....Respondent(s) WITH Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 3007 of 2023 (D No 3314 of 2023) Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 3008 of 2023 (D No 5164 of 2023) Writ Petition (Civil) No 95 of 2023 Writ Petition (Civil) No 142 of 2023 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions granted. 2 Delay condoned. 3 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 3006 of 2023 arises from an interim order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 7 March 2022. In Writ Petition (Civil) Nos 95 of 2023 and 142 of 2023 under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to challenge the validity of a notification dated 19 January 2023 issued by the State of Maharashtra. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos 3007 and 300...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.12 OF2023RANA AYYUB PETITIONER VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR RESPONDENT JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. Challenging a summoning order issued by the Court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI Court No.1, Ghaziabad, on a complaint lodged by the respondent under Section 45 read with Section 44 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 20021, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.2. We have heard Ms. Vrinda Grover, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India for the respondent. 1 For short, PMLA or the Act, as the case may be. 13. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pandemic, she initiated crowdfunding campaign through an online crowdfunding platform named Ketto and ran three campaigns from April 2020 to September 2021. In co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.891 OF2021Anushka Rengunthwar & Ors. . Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Ors. . Respondent(s) WITH Writ Petition (C) No.503/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.35/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.246/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.155/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.347/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.380/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.322/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.629/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.740/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.706/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.741/2022, Civil Appeal No.812/2023 (arising out of SLP(C) No.16306/2022) Writ Petition (C) No.22/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.1070/2022, 1 Writ Petition (C) No.1230/2021, Writ Petition (C) No.1186/2021, Writ Petition (C) No.838/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.1032/2021, Writ Petition (C) No.961/2022, Writ Petition (C) No.1123/2021, Writ Petition (C) No.1128/2021, Writ Petition (C) No.1125/2021, Writ Petition (C) No.1150/2021, Writ Petition (C) No.1129/2021, Writ Petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
WPC9672017 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No 967 of 2017 Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Petitioner Versus Union of India and Another Respondents JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI1The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act 19511. 1 Act of 1951 WPC9672017 2 2 Apart from the above challenge, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Central government and the Election Commission of India to take appropriate steps to restrict any person from contesting an election for the same office from more than one constituency simultaneously. 3 At this stage, it would also be material to note that the third prayer, prayer (c), which sought a direction to the Union government and the Election Commission to take appropriate steps to discourage independent candidates from contesting the Parliamenta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.6182-6183 of 2009 Baini Prasad (D) Thr. LRs. Appellants Versus Durga Devi Respondents JUDGMENT C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.1. The respondent in R.S.A. No.276 of 1996 who was the defendant in Civil Suit No.70 of 1988 on the file of Subordinate Judges Court, Kullu in Himachal Pradesh, is the original appellant in these appeals by special leave. Subsequent to his death the legal heirs got themselves impleaded as appellants 1(a) to 1(g). The former appeal is Page 1 of 26 directed against the judgment and final order in R.S.A. No.276 of 1996 dated 27.12.2007 and the later appeal is directed against the order dated 27.03.2008 in Civil Review Petition No.4 of 2008, in the said Second Appeal, passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The respondent herein (plaintiff) filed Civil Suit No.70 of 1988 for possession of land measuring 11 Biswancies comprised in Khasra No.994/1-A/1 as per Talima by demolition o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 778 OF2023[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.1902 OF2019 MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. Special leave to appeal granted. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally.2. What is involved in this case, is the fixation of date for the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations, when applied to the respondent Corporation. That framing a policy concerning fixation of pay 2 for the salaries of its employees, the extent of its revision, and even the date of its implementation, are matters of undoubted exclusive executive decision making powers. However, the manner of its implementation, the timing of applicability of a scheme, and its impact, especially where it results in exclusion of a certain section of public e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.352 OF2022IN CIVIL APPEAL No.5808 OF2017SNEHASIS GIRI AND ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SUBHASIS MITRA RESPONDENT(S) WITH Conmt. Pet. (C) No.513/2022; Conmt. Pet. (C) _____/2023 [@Diary No(s). 26444/2022].; Conmt. Pet. (C) _____/2023 [@Diary No(s). 26491/2022].; Conmt. Pet. (C) _____/2023 [@Diary No(s). 26494/2022].; Conmt. Pet. (C) _____/2023 [@Diary No(s). 28769/2022].; Conmt. Pet. (C) _____/2023 [@Diary No(s). 31083/2022].; Conmt. Pet. (C) _____/2023 [@Diary No(s). 31438/2022].; Conmt. Pet. (C) _____/2023 [@Diary No(s). 30666/2022].; Conmt. Pet. (C) _____/2023 [@Diary No(s). 30680/2022].; Conmt. Pet. (C) _____/2023 [@Diary No(s). 26487/2022].; Conmt. Pet. (C) _____/2023 [@Diary No(s). 26469/2022].; Conmt. Pet. (C) _____/2023 [@Diary No(s). 26467/2022].; Conmt. Pet. (C) No.514/2022; Conmt. Pet. (C) No.515/2022; Conmt. Pet. (C) No.498/2022; Conmt. Pet. (C) No.516/2022; Conmt. Pet. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.765 OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.2542 OF2023 SHYAM KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SHUBHAM JAIN RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal, by the legal representatives of deceased defendant in the civil suit bearing No.1 of 2015 for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment, is directed against the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in the petition bearing No.3536 of 2022, whereby the High Court has declined to interfere with the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act)-II, Raebareli, rejecting an application under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.03.2016/16.03.2016.3. Shorn of unnecessary details and briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2023(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL) NO.7099/2018) B V SESHAIAH ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2023(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL) NO.7100/2018) B VAMSI KRISHNA ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF TELENGANA & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KRISHNA MURARI, J.Leave Granted.2. The present Appeals have been filed by the Appellants herein against the impugned order and judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1678/2014 and 1679/2014. 13. For the purpose of these Appeals, briefly, the facts of the present case are that on a private complaint initiated by the Respondent No.2, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were initiated against the Appellants herein. These proceedings led to the conviction of the Appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5393 OF2010M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. APPELLANT(S) VS. THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER- CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.This appeal, by special leave, registers a challenge to an order dated 12th October, 2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereafter the High Court, for short) dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.9191 of 2009 presented by the appellant and relegating it to the remedy of an appeal under section 33 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereafter the VAT Act, for short).2. Two questions emerge for decision on this appeal. First, whether the High Court was justified in declining interference on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of appeal to the appellant under section 33 of the VAT Act, which 2 it had not pursued. Should the answer to the first question be in the negative, we would next be required...
Tag this Judgment!