Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IA No.3949 OF2016IN WRIT PETITION (C) No.202 OF1995IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) AND IN THE MATTER OF: M/S. PUNTAMBEKAR MINERALS (THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI DILIP BHAUSAHEB MADAKE) ...Applicant(s) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. When we pronounced our judgment in I.A. No.131377 of 2022 along with connected applications in Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995 on 26th April 2023, we did not anticipate that within a few days, we would be called upon to clarify the position as to whether mining activities would 2 be permissible beyond the distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area, irrespective of the fact that such an area falls under the Eco-Sensitive Zone (in short ESZ) notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF for short).2. We are grateful to the applicant in the present application for giving us this oppo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5392 OF2017State of Rajasthan & Ors. Appellant(s) Versus Dr. Hamir Singh Chouhan (Dead) by LRs & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5393 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.5391 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.5394 OF2017JUDGMENT Civil Appeal No.5392 of 2017 Page 1 of 14 M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writs) No.50 of 2015 and other allied appeals by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said division appeals preferred by the appellant herein State of Rajasthan, which were filed against the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge declaring the respondents herein to be entitled to receive pensionary benefits in essence by treating their lien to be continuing with the State Government upto the date of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2702 OF2023Karnataka Power Transmission ...Appellant(s) Corporation Limited & Ors. Versus Sri. B. G. Manamohana Respondent(s) Priyanka & Ors. JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No.698/2020, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal Page 1 of 11 preferred by the appellant(s) herein and has affirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4667/2015, by which the learned Single Judge directed payment of revised pay scales to the original writ petitioners at the rate of Rs. 9,745/- basic pay per month with effect from the date they entered into service, the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the corporation) & Ors. have preferred the present app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.8716/2012 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8716 OF2012Smt. Sasikala Devi. P Appellant Versus The State of Kerala & Anr. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8717 OF2012JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.1. This order will dispose of two appeals bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 8716 and 8717 of 2012.2. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala passed in W.A. Nos.1904 and 1975 of 2008 is under challenge before this Court. Vide aforesaid judgment, the Single Bench judgment of the High Court passed in O.P. No.38578/2002 and W.P.(C) No.15190/2006 dated 20.02.2008 was reversed. Page 1 of 8 Civil Appeal No.8716/2012 3. The facts are being noticed from Civil Appeal No.8716 of 2012, as common questions of law are involved.4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Grade-II in the University of Calicut on 04.05.1988. She was promoted as Assistant Grade-I on 21.12.1989. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 309 OF2023P. V. NIDHISH & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. The present appeal1 was heard finally, with the consent of counsel for parties. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of the Kerala High Court2 rejecting their petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereafter Cr. PC). They had, through those proceedings, sought a direction to quash a criminal complaint instituted against them. I2 The appellants urge that one P.M. Mammu Haji leased two shop rooms (numbered as municipal numbers VII/214 and VII/215- hereafter the premises), 1 Crl. A. No.309 / 2023. 2 Dated 03.03.2016 in Crl. MC No.5072/2015. 2 long ago (in 1916), before the coming into force of the Wakf Act. Norman Printing Bureau (hereafter the Bureau) was a concern of Achuthan Nair; it was functioning in the premises. A partnership ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Page 1 of 14 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.12656 OF2022 VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (RUN BY VEENA VADINI SAMAJ KALYAN VIKASH SAMITI) Appellant Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant before this Court is a training institute, run by a registered society by the name of Veena Vadini Samaj Kalyan Vikash Samiti. Inter-alia the institute trains teachers for B.Ed and M.Ed courses. One of the courses, which is run by the appellant- institute in Gwalior, State of Madhya Pradesh, is called B.Ed (Part time), which is designed to impart B.Ed training to in service teachers. We have also been told at the Bar that the appellant- institute is only one of the three institutes in the State of Madhya Pradesh which has been given permission to run this course, i.e. Page 2 of 14 B.Ed (Part time). We are presently ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NOS. 7628-7630 OF2017 STATE THROUGH CENTRAL .. APPELLANT BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VERSUS HEMENDHRA REDDY & ANOTHER. ETC. .. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:1. Leave granted.2. Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are the same those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.3. The principal question of law that falls for the consideration of this Court in the present litigation is whether the High Court was justified in quashing the entire prosecution instituted by the CBI against the accused persons for the alleged offences on the ground that the CBI could not have undertaken further investigation under sub section (8) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the CrPC) and filed a 2 chargesheet having once already submitted a final report under sub secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2352-2353 OF2019JAGDISH TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition No.4858 of 2008 preferred by the appellants herein, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present Appeals. The subsequent order passed by the High Court dismissing the review application is also the subject-matter of the present Appeals. Page 1 of 82. The facts leading to the present Appeals in a nut shell are as under: - i) That a search was conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax, Act, 1961 (for short the Act) on the business premises as well as the residence of the partners. ii) Notices under Section 153A wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2927 OF2023M/S. ASIAN AVENUES PVT LTD. APPELLANT versus SRI SYED SHOUKAT HUSSAIN ... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTS1 The present appeal is by the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent. The respondent-plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property, more particularly described in the plaint. There was a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (for short, the Development Agreement) executed on 23rd October 2008 by and between the appellant and the respondent. By the Development Agreement, the appellant was granted permissive possession for the purposes of carrying out development work on the property subject Civil Appeal No.2927/2023 Page 1 of 5 matter of the Development Agreement. There was a dispute between the parties, which led to the respondent cancelling the Development Agreement. The respondent issued a legal notice to the appellant calling upon him to exec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3151 OF2023(@ SLP (C) No.8733 OF2023 (@ DIARY No.42715 OF2022 Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr. Appellant(s) Versus Dinesh Kumar & Anr. 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.4954 of 2016, 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 Page 1 of 6 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013), the Govt. of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) has submitted that in the present case the possession of the disputed land in question was taken on 31.12.2013 and therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!