Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC78IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.202/1995 IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT P.C.1. This judgment is in the context of institutionalisation and reconstitution of the Central Empowered Committee.1 The CEC was originally directed to be constituted by an order of this Court dated 09.05.2002.2 Almost for a period of two decades, the CEC was functioning as an ad hoc body. We noticed that the present composition of the CEC also consisted of persons who are more than 75 years of age and some of whom are also residing outside India. We also noticed that much water had flown when the CEC1Hereinafter CEC. 2 In IA No.295 in WP(C) No.202/1995 reported as T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC198 Pursuant to the said direction, a notification dated 17.09.2002 was issued by the Central Government constituting the CEC as a statutory authority under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2024INSC112CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6395/2023 HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SUBHASH CHAND & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. Despite service, none appears for the second and the third respondents.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent.3. The appellant-Haryana Staff Selection Commission published an advertisement on 28th June, 2015 inviting applications for the posts of (PGT)-H.E.S.II (Group-B Services). The closing date for the submission of online applications was 21st September, 2015. The last date for the deposit of fee by the candidates was 24th September, 2015. The advertisement itself specifies the posts reserved for various categories, including SBC (5%) and EBPGC (5%). The first respondent specifically applied under the SBC category for the post of PGT in Political Science. It appears that on 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC77REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.523 OF2024 ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.6562 OF2021) BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIA APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. RESPONDENTS R1: STATE OF BIHAR R2: MAHARAJ KUMAR MAN VIJAY SINGH JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. The present appeal arises out of the Final Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2021 (hereinafter 2 referred to as the Impugned Judgment) passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.42776 of 2013 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) by which the prayer for quashing First Information Report No.87 of 2011 dated 19.03.2011 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR) registered at Dumraon Police Station, Buxar, Bihar under Sections 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), has been dismissed. THE BRIEF FACTS:4. The informant/respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC88IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.722 OF2016GOVERNMENT OF GOA ...Appellant(s) THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY Vs. MARIA JULIETA DSOUZA (D) & ORS. ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.1. This is an appeal against the final judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa allowing the first appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court dated 25.07.2007 that dismissed the suit filed by the respondent herein.2. The suit came to be filed by the respondent(s) herein for declaration of title and injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on two grounds: first, the plaintiff could not establish her title by way of a clear document of title in her favour. Second the suit is itself barred by limitation.3. In appeal, the High Court considered the matter in detail and in so far as the first ground is concerned, the High Court referred to various documents including deeds evidencing the presence of title in favour of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 2024 INSC89REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 1865-1866/2022 VEENA GUPTA & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.1. These appeals arise out of two orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (Tribunal for short). The main order arises out of an ex parte order in suo motu proceedings holding the appellants to be guilty and directing payment of compensation. The second order is the dismissal of the review petition filed by the appellant No.2 alleging that he had not been given an opportunity before an adverse order was passed against him. For the reasons to follow, we set aside the orders and remand the matter back to the Tribunal to issue notice to all the affected parties, hear them and pass 2 appropriate orders.2. The relevant portion of the order impugned1 is as under: 7.Even though no notice was issued by the Tribunal to the PP in absence of parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC79Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF2024ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.16487 OF2023VITHAL APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT ORDER1 Leave granted.2. This appeal was heard for admission, as a fresh case on 13.12.2023. While reserving orders, we had required Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant to submit written brief by 05.01.2024. The same has since been filed.3. Prima facie, we were inclined to dismiss the appeal, however, after considering the submissions, we feel that this appeal raises a substantial question which needs to be SLP(CRL.) No.16487 OF2023Page 1 of 5 addressed and decided by this Court. Since we had heard the matter at length and, also considered the written brief, we are referring to the brief facts of the case and the substantial question which arises in this appeal so that it may be of assistance at the time of final hearing of the matter.4. Four acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC75REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.14585/2023 SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.14572/2023) JAIPAL MANIKRAO HIRE & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VIJAYKUMAR VISHWANATH DHAWALE & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 14734- 14735/2023) SANJAY NATHMAL JAIN & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) SLP(Crl.) No.14585 of 2023 & Ors. Page 1 of 10 AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.15433/2023) DR.SANJEEV RAMRAO CHAVAN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.15294/2023 DR.SANJEEV RAMRAO CHAVAN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J.1. The premises in question were in the possession of three tenants. However, for the present, we are concerned with only ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NONREPORTABLE2024INSC166IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.8373 of 2019) SAFIYA BANO ALIAS SHAKIRA AND OTHERS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. In spite of being served, none appears for the wiferespondent No.2.3. This appeal challenges the order dated 24th July 2019, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Writ Petition (M/B) No.17636 of 2019, vide which the petition filed by the present appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the FIR No.321 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 494, 377 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) against the 2 present appellants is rejected.4. While issuing notice on 20th September 2019, this Court had granted time to the appellants to file additional documents with regard to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC332REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos.22241-42 OF2016 VINOD KUMAR & ORS. ETC. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) ORDER VIKRAM NATH, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.03.2016, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42688 of 2001 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42692 of 2001, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the SLP(C) Nos.22241-42 OF2016Page 1 of 9 judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated 21.11.2001 were dismissed. The Tribunal's judgment negated the appellants' plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of 'Accounts Clerk' against which they were temporarily appointed. Despite being appointed for what was termed a temporary or scheme-based engagement, the appellants have been continuously working in these positions from 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC74IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.577/2007 GULSHAN BAJWA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. ..RESPONDENT(S) With M.A. 256/2017 in CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.64/2007 With SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.9689/2018 With DIARY No.44408/2018 ORDER1 The Criminal Appeal No.577/2007 arises out of the common judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi (High Court) dated 19.10.2006 in Criminal Contempt Case Nos. 16 of 2006 and 17 of 2006.2. By virtue of the impugned order, the High Court exercising its suo motu contempt jurisdiction, convicted the sole appellant herein, a practising advocate and a former army personnel, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act) and sentenced him to civil imprisonment of three months which was to run concurrently and a fine of Rs. 2,000, each in both the contempt cases. 13. Facts in the lead matter: On 17.08.2006, in a writ petition before the High Court, the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!