Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC173IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024[Arising out of SLP (C) No.17973 of 2015]. DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PNDT ACT AND CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER ..APPELLANT VERSUS JASHMINA DILIP DEVDA & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT J.K. Maheshwari J.1. Leave Granted 2. In the present appeal, the issue concerns the interpretation of power of Section 20(1) & (2) and Section 20(3) of the Pre conception and PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as the PC&PNDT Act) for cancellation, suspension or suspension in public interest respectively by the appropriate authority specified in Section 17 of the PC&PNDT Act. 13. The brief facts are that the respondent no.1 is running a hospital at Ahmedabad by the name of Dev Hospital which is a type of polyclinic having doctors from multiple branches like gynecology, general physician and general surgeon treating patien...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC161IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2019 Sita Soren Appellant Versus Union of India Respondent Page 1 of 135 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Reference 4 B. Overview of the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao 8 C. Submissions 14 D. Reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao does not violate the principle of stare decisis 22 E. History of parliamentary privilege in India 34 F. Purport of parliamentary privilege in India 44 I. Functional analysis 44 II. Parliamentary privilege as a collective right of the House 54 III. Necessity test to claim and exercise a privilege 60 G. Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege 65 I. Bribery is not in respect of anything said or any vote given 65 II. The Constitution envisions probity in public life 72 III. Courts and the House exercise parallel jurisdiction over allegations of bribery 76 Page 2 of 135 IV. Delivery of results is irrelevant to the offence of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2024INSC242CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3835 3836 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5741 5742 OF2024 [DIARY No.26172 OF2023 AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED Respondent(s) (PREVIOUSLY NAMED HPEIF HOLDINGS1LIMITED) ORDER1 Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Vikram Nankani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants (Award Debtors). Also heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. Darius Khambata, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent (Award Holder).4. The challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 25.04.2023 in the Arbitration Petition No.833 of 2015 and Notice of Motion No.2475 of 2016 respectively whereunder, the High Court has facilitated the enforcement of the final Award dated 27.09.2014 issued in the SIAC Arbitration No.088 of 2012. The appellants objection to enforcement of the foreign Award, in terms of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC164REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8935 OF2011THANGAM AND ANOTHER Appellant(s) VERSUS NAVAMANI AMMAL Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.1. The issue under consideration in the present appeal is regarding genuineness of the Will dated 09.10.1984, which is a registered document, executed by Palaniandi Udyar in favour of Navamani Amma.2. A suit1 filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and injunction was decreed by the Trial Court2, holding the Will to be 1 O.S. No.402 of 1986. 2 Additional District Munsif Court, Ariyalur. Page 1 of 16 genuine. In appeal3 by the appellants, judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed by the First Appellate Court4. In second appeal5 filed by the respondent the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored by the High Court6.3. Before we embark upon to consider the issues in detail, we deem it appropriate to mentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC168NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1076 OF2024Murari Lal Chhari & Ors. Appellants versus Munishwar Singh Tomar & Anr. ... Respondents JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTS1 The first respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the CrPC) against the appellants. The dispute relates to land bearing Survey Nos.1822 and 1823 having an area of 2 bighas and 1 biswa in Gwalior city (the Suit property). According to the first respondent complainant, about 353 acres of land comprising several survey nos. situated in the adjacent villages has been allotted for the use of the Special Armed Forces (SAF) by the Home Department. The present appellants are officers of SAF. Criminal Appeal no.1076 of 2024 Page 1 of 92. The first respondent filed a civil suit in respect of the said property for a declaration of his title as Bhumiswami and a permanent injunction. The Trial Court dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC165REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7293-7294 OF2010SRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS. Appellant(s) VERSUS V. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.1. The appeals1 filed by the plaintiffs having been partly allowed by the High Court2, the defendant No.7 has challenged the judgment and decree3 of the High Court before this Court. 1 R.F.A. No.1463 of 2007 and R.F.A. No.1782 of 2007 2 High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad 3 Judgement and decree dated 19.12.2008 Page 1 of 21 Facts of the case 2. A suit4 was filed by Kumar Vamanrao alias Alok son of Sudheendra Desai(plaintiff No.1), Kumar Vyas alias Prateek Sudheendra Desai (plaintiff No.2) and Aruna wife of Sudheendra Desai (plaintiff No.3), sons and wife of Sudheendra (defendant No.1) respectively, impleading the parents of defendant No.1 and great grant mother of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2. Kumari Arundhati (defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC163REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7290 of 2023) SHAZIA AMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.Leave granted.2. This Court has been called upon to decide about the issue regarding custody of a minor child in parens patriae jurisdiction.3. The child at present is 14 years of age, living since birth with the appellants and respondent No.10. Page 1 of 194. Aggrieved against the order1 passed by the High Court2 in a Writ Petition3 filed by respondent No.2, who is biological father of the child, for restoration of her custody, namely, Sumaiya Khanam in his favour, the present appeal has been filed.5. The High Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court to recover the child from the custody of appellant No.2 and respondent No.10, particularly from appellant No.1 and respondent No.10 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC159IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7768-7769 OF2023VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRs APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT & OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J.These appeals have been filed by the legal representatives of the opposite party-sole proprietor against the common final judgment and order dated 02.05.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as NCDRC) in Review Application No.26 of 2017 in Review Petition No.3283 of 2008 and Review Application No.27 of 2017 in Review Petition No.2794 of 2008. The NCDRC vide the impugned order dismissed the review applications while affirming its earlier order dated 31.05.2016 1 passed in review petition with reference to the order dated 03.01.2017 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) CC Nos.24515-24516 of 2016 granting liberty to the appellants to resort to remedy of review before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC155IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION No.29 OF2023M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS M/S APTECH LTD. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: - INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX .................................................................................... 2 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER ........................ 15 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ...................... 18 D. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 21 i. ISSUE No.1: Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?. If yes, whether the present petition is barred by limitation?. ............................................................. 22 a. When does the right to apply...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC156REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1427 OF2011KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMAR APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT UJJAL BHUYAN, J.This appeal by special leave takes exception to the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).2. It may be mentioned that the Fast Track Court III Mysore vide the judgment and order dated 06.07.2004 passed in S.C. No.26/2002 convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in 2 default to undergo RI for four months for the aforesaid offence. Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Karnataka, being Criminal Appeal No.1139/2004 (SJ-A) was dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 17.09.2010 by upholding the conviction and sentence imposed ...
Tag this Judgment!