Court : Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL No.7580 of 2012 REPORTABLE2023NSC772 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7580 of 2012 DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS . APPELLANTS Versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER . RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT HIMA KOHLI, J.1. The appellants, who are members of the teaching faculty in Homeopathic Medical Colleges situated in the respondent No.1 - State of Kerala1, are aggrieved by the judgement dated 6th August, 2010, passed by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam2, concurring with the judgement dated 19th July, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge3. The relief prayed for by the appellants was for enhancing their age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years by extending the benefit of the Government Order4 dated 14th January, 20105, which increased the retirement age of Doctors in the Medical category under the Medical Education Service from 55 years to 60 years with retrospective effect from 1st May, 2009. The prayer made was not granted. 1 For Short the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2453 OF2011(Arising out of SLP(C) No.35386 of 2010) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2494 OF2011STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. SHIKHA TRADING CO. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.CIVIL APPEAL NO.2453 OF20111. The instant appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment dated 08.12.2010 in CWP No.19909 of 2010 by which the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to have a criminal case registered and duly investigated 1 against an officer of the State, i.e., the Assistant Excise and Taxation, Commissioner (AETC), Ludhiana I. BACKGROUND2 Shikha Trading Company1 preferred a Writ Petition against the illegal sealing of its shop by the officers of the Department of Excise and Taxation, Punjab on 13.09.2010.3. The said petition being CWP No.19909/2010, stood disposed of with two material directions; one, that since...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC770 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2592 OF2023(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018) Central Bureau of Investigation Appellant versus Narottam Dhakad & Anr. Respondents with CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2593 OF2023(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10680 of 2022) Central Bureau of Investigation Appellant versus Sunil Singh & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. Leave granted. FACTUAL ASPECTS2 Under Section 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC), the State Government has the power to determine what shall be, for the purposes of CrPC, the language of each Court within a particular State other than SLP (Crl.) No.5525 of 2018 etc. Page 1 of 19 the High Court. As provided in Section 6 of CrPC, there are various Courts in a State. The said Courts are the Courts of the Session, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, Metropolitan Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 2023INSC781 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 760 OF2022RAM MANOHAR SINGH APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. The appellant is accused No.1. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) simplicitor and the High Court has confirmed the conviction and life sentence of the appellant.2. In brief, the prosecution case is that the dispute arose over plucking mango trees. On 24.04.1982, co-accused-Raja Bhaiya Singh and Bhujwal Singh had gone to pluck fruits from mango trees. They met with an obstruction by Shiv Mohan Singh @ Dadu (the deceased). There was an exchange of hot words. On 25.04.1982 at 03:00 P.M., the incident re-occurred when the two co-accused tried to pluck the fruits which again led to exchange of abusive and filthy words. Further allegation is that at 06:00 P.M., on the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC766 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.11196 OF2011State Bank of India Appellant (s) Versus A.G.D. Reddy ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT K.V. Viswanathan, J.1. The present appeal by the State Bank of India (for short the Bank), calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 20.10.2010 in Writ Appeal No.8085 of 2003. By the said judgment, the Division Bench had dismissed the Appeal of the Bank and confirmed the 1 judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.11.2003. The learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition No.29547 of 1997 filed by the respondent and quashed the order passed by the Appointing Authority and granted consequential benefits to the respondent. The Appointing Authority had, by its order of 31.01.1995, imposed a punishment of reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I as envisaged under Rule 49 (e) of the State Bank...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC767 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.3482 OF2023XXX PETITIONER (S) VERSUS UNION TERRITORY OF ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)No.5192 OF2023WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)No.5131 OF2023AND WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)No.5099 OF2023JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J.1. Special leave to appeal Criminal No.3482 of 2023 has been filed by the victim (redacted as XXX) assailing the correctness of the order SLP(Crl.) No.3482 of 2023 Page 1 of 11 dated 20th February, 2023 passed by the Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench at Port Blair granting bail to respondent No.2 (Jitendra Narain), Ex-Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar Islands for offences u/s 376(D)/ 228A/ 506/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18601. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5099 of 2023 has been preferred by the State/Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands for the same relief as claimed in Spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023NSC765 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1554 OF2015MUKESH SINGH APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) RESPONDENT JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:1. This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of a convict accused and is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.1246 of 2011 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction dated 08.04.2011 and the order on sentence of life imprisonment dated 27.04.2011 resply passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II (North 1 West), Rohini, Delhi in the Sessions Case No.998 of 2009 holding the appellant convict herein guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 394 and 397 resply read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). CASE OF THE PROSECUTION2 The appellant convict along with three other co- accused was put to trial in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2023NSC768 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4658 OF2023M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4659 OF2023CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4660 OF2023CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4661 OF2023CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4662 OF2023JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. All these appeals involve decision on a common question, with respect to the interpretation of a contract condition, which required the measurement of quantities used for payment for embankment construction with soil or with pond ash. The claimants (hereafter the contractors) contended that the measure is one and the same, which is by taking a composite cross section as a whole of the 2 embankment and determining the volume by the average end area method. However, the supervising engineer (hereafter EE) adopted a method, whereby the area of the cross section was bifurcated to account for the area occu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2023NSC764 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. ____________ OF2023(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12601-12602 of 2017) SMT. VED KUMARI (DEAD THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE) DR. VIJAY AGARWAL . APPELLANT VERSUS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER ... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals arise from the judgment and orders dated 07.04.2016 and 04.11.2016 passed in C.R.P No.152 of 2012 and R.P No.487 of 2016 respectively, whereby the High Court has affirmed the order of the Executing Court dated 2 11.09.2012 holding that the decree for possession of immoveable property is not executable against the judgment- debtor.3. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant (since deceased represented through Lrs.) who is the original plaintiff, leased out land measuring 400 sq. yds. out of Khasra No.4/39/1 situated at village Khureji Khas, Abani Radheypuri, Ilaqa Shahdara, Delhi (here...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.5416 of 2012 2023INSC756 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5416 OF2012Smt. Dariyao Kanwar & ors. Appellant(s) VERSUS M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.1. The judgment passed by the High Court1 in an appeal2 filed by the respondents is challenged before this Court. The appellants are the claimants who filed application before the Commissioner3 seeking compensation under the 19234 Act. The application filed by the 1 High Court of Delhi 2 FAO No.346 of 2007 dated 16.09.2009 3 Workmens Compensation Commissioner 4 The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 earlier known as Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 Page 1 of 10 Civil Appeal No.5416 of 2012 appellants before the Commissioner was allowed by him vide order dated 22.03.2007. Compensation of 3,26,140/- (Rupees three lakh twenty six thousand one hundred and forty) with interest @ 12% p.a. was awarded w.e.f. 15.09.2003 till th...
Tag this Judgment!