Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3904 OF2023(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10447 of 2019) MAMTA DEVI & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUS THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT ARAVIND KUMAR, J.Leave granted.1) A challenge is laid to the correctness and legality of the judgment dated 01.10.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.777 of 2014 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereunder, the appeal filed by the claimants assailing the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Deputy Labour 1 Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, in CWC No.24 of 2011 allowing the claim petition in part, directing the opposite party No.1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (first respondent herein) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,31,671/- has been set aside, on the ground that the dispute raised was a contested case and it is coram-non-judice.2) We have heard the arguments of Mr. Atil Inam, le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1595 OF2022MANSI KHATRI Petitioner(s) VERSUS GAURAV KHATRI Respondent(s) JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH,J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This Transfer Petition has been filed by the Petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the Divorce Petition No.802 of 2022, filed by the Respondent- husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled Gaurav Khatri versus Mansi Khatri pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, Madhya Pradesh to the Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. 23. The parties married on 12.12.2016 and separated on 29.10.2021 without the birth of any child. Although the present Petition, as filed, is limited to the transfer of the aforesaid Divorce Petition viz. No.802 of 2022, filed by the Respondent, but the petitioner's father, Mr Shyam Krishna Mehrotra, has also filed a First Information Report No.0234 of 2022 registered at Polic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION No.51 OF2022M/S GLOCK ASIA-PACIFIC LTD. ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd.22. Facts: The Ministry of Home Affairs (Procurement Division)3 floated a single party tender on 02.02.2011 for supply of 31,756 Glock Pistols. The bid was confirmed in favour of the applicant and a Tender of Acceptance was issued by the respondent on 31.03.2011. Clause 64 of the Tender of 1 Hereinafter referred as the Act 2 Hereinafter referred as applicant 3 Hereinafter referred as respondent. 4 6. Performance Security Deposit- You will submit performance bond of 10% of value of contract i.e. US$ 13,29,093/- (US dollars thirteen lakh twenty nine thousand and ninety three only) in the shape of bank guarantee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF2023@SLP (C) NOs. 34255-34256 OF2015THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M. RAMA RAO & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) ORDER VIKRAM NATH, J.Leave granted 2. Despite service of notice, none of the respondents have put in appearance as such the matter has been heard ex parte.3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has assailed the correctness of judgments and orders dated 12.06.2014 and 29.04.2014 passed by Division 2 Bench of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh whereby the writ petitions were allowed and the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in a batch of applications (leading case O.A.No.283 of 2010) was set aside upholding the validity of Government orders which had been set aside by the Tribunal.4. The State of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms. No.3 dated 10.01.2000 providing f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 2109-2110 of 2004 K C Ninan ... Appellant versus Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. Respondents With Civil Appeal No 2108 of 2004 With Civil Appeal Nos 5312-5313 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 5314 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 6587 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 7303 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 6579 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 6593-6594 of 2022 With 1 Civil Appeal No 3018 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No 7169 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6591 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6595 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 6879-6881 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6592 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 7103-7104 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6828 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 7064 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6590 of 2022 And with Civil Appeal No 3640 of 2022 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Overview 4 B. Regulatory Regime 5 C. The position in law 10 D. Issues 14 E. Submissions 15 F. Analysis 25 G....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3062 OF2023Arising out of SLP(C) No.12635 of 2020 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SMT. BHARATHI S. ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER1 This Civil Appeal by the State of Karnataka impugns the judgment of the High Court directing appointment of the Respondent to the post of Assistant Teacher, as her name appears in the Additional List (Wait List) of candidates. Having considered the rules and the principles that govern the services, we have held that enlistment of name in the Additional List neither creates a right nor a co-relative obligation for appointment. For reasons that follow, we have allowed the appeal filed by the State and set aside the directions of the High Court. Facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:- 2. Pursuant to a notification issued by the Department of Public Instructions, the Respondent applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Scho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.643/2015 All India Judges Association Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents With Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6471-6473/2020 With Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 711/2022, 36/2023, 37/2023, 38/2023, 39/2023, 40/2023, 848/2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.643/2015 1 JUDGMENT INDEX2 The SNJPCs Report and the Orders of this Court.........................63. Submissions of Counsel.............................................................84. Principles Evolved for Judicial Pay, Pension and Allowances.......11 I. Uniformity in Designations and Service Conditions.....................11 II. Separation of Powers and Comparison with Political Executive. .12 III. Independence of the District Judiciary is Part of the Basic Structure....................................................................................15 IV. Judicial Independence and Access to Justice Ensures Implemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8996 OF2019CENTRAL GST DELHI - III APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2465 OF2020CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4751-4753 OF2021JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. In all these appeals, orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal1 (hereafter CESTAT) are impugned by the service tax authorities (hereafter the revenue), who argue that user development fee levied and collected by the airport operation, maintenance and development entities (i.e., the Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi International 1 Final Order No, ST/A/50064/2019-CUIDBI dated 18/01/2019 [by the Principal Bench, CESTAT, New Delhi].; Final Order No.A/88830- -88832/16/STB dated 28.01.2016 [by the Western Zonal Bench, CESTAT, Mumbai].; and Final Order No.A/30739/2019 dated 16.09.2019 [by the CESTAT Regional Bench at Hyderabad].. 2 Airport Pvt. Ltd., and the Hydera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3180-82 OF2016K.J.Somaiya Medical College and Research Centre & Anr. Appellants versus Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & Ors. etc. ... Respondents with CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3183-85 OF2016JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECTS1 Civil Appeal Nos.3180-3182 of 2016 take exception to the common judgment and order dated 17th April 2007 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in three separate writ petitions filed by the appellants. Civil Appeal Nos.3183-3185 of 2016 have been filed for challenging the order Civil Appeal Nos.3180-82 of 2016 Page 1 of 12 rejecting review petitions seeking review of the judgment and order dated 17th April 2007. Respondent No.5 in these appeals are Dr Medha V Joshi, Mrs Anjali Khavnekar, and Dr (Mrs) Smita Karandikar. The appellants are running a Medical College. The educational qualifications of Dr Medha V Joshi are B.Sc. (Microbiology, Che...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO/2023 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) No.1249/2023]. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya APPELLANT VS. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.Leave granted.2. The present appeal, by special leave, questions the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (High Court, hereafter) dismissing an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 1 Application u/s 482 No.38374 of 2018 1 (Cr. PC, hereafter) instituted by the appellant seeking quashing of the charge-sheet as well as the pending criminal proceedings2.3. In a nutshell, the prosecution's case is that on 14th January, 2016, at about 7.00 am, the appellant was engaged in an altercation with the second respondent (complainant, hereafter) over the issue of drainage of water. It is alleged that during this altercation, the appellant verb...
Tag this Judgment!