Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC641IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9927 OF2024(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.17102 of 2021) MHABEMO OVUNG & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUS M. MOANUNGBA & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9928 OF2024(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.1136 OF2022 THE STATE OF NAGALAND & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUS M. MOANUNGBA & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.1. Leave granted. Page 1 of 112. The issue under consideration in the present appeals is regarding inter se seniority of the incumbents appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer.3. Final seniority list of Junior Engineers was circulated on 26.03.2018 showing the seniority position of the incumbents manning the posts from two different sources. Aggrieved against the seniority list, Sectional Officers, Grade-I, who were redesignated/upgraded as Junior Engineers chall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC637IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2024(@ SLP (Crl.) No.5416/2024) PREM PRAKASH APPELLANT(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT RESPONDENT(s) JUDGMENT K.V. Viswanathan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal challenges the judgment dated 22.03.2024 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in B.A. No.9863 of 2023. By the said judgment, the High Court dismissed the bail application of the appellant. The appellant sought for regular bail in connection with ECIR Case No.5 of 2023 in ECIR-RNZO/10/2023 (hereinafter referred to as ECIR Case No.5 of 2023) registered for the offence 1 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA) and pending before the Court of Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi. Brief Facts 3. The predicate offence on the basis of which ECIR No.5 of 2023 was recorded on 07.03.2023 is an FIR bearing Sadar P.S. Case No.399 of 2022 r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2024INSC656IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos.of 2024 ARISING OUT OF DIARY No.17948 OF2024NAVIN KUMAR & ORS. PETITIONERS Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENTS WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10295 OF2024WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(s). OF2024(ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.20149 OF2024 WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(s). OF2024(ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.20848 OF2024 WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.13756 OF2024WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(s). OF2024(ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.36283 OF2024 WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(s). OF2024(ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.37276 OF2024 2 ORDER1 In Devesh Sharma v. Union of India1 (delivered on 11.08.2023), there was before us a challenge to the judgement of the Rajasthan High Court dated 25.11.2021 where it was held that for appointment of primary school teachers (i.e., teachers of Class I to Class V), the essential qualification is D.El.Ed. (i.e., Diploma in Elementary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9059-9061 OF20222024 INSC659REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9059-9061 OF2022V.S. PALANIVEL . APPELLANT Versus P. SRIRAM, CS, LIQUIDATOR, ETC. . RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT HIMA KOHLI, J.A. BACKDROP1 The appellant - V.S. Palanivel (shareholder/former Managing Director of M/s Sri Lakshmi Hotel Private Limited) has filed the present appeals against the judgment and order dated 16th September, 2022, passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench1 in three Company Appeals2 preferred by him. The details of the said Company Appeals are (i) Company Appeal No.336 of 2021 (subject matter of Civil Appeal No.9059 of 2022) filed against the common judgment dated 17th November, 2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench3 rejecting an application4 1 In short Tribunal 2 Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins} No.336 of 2021; Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.339 of 2021 and Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2024INSC636IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3573 OF2024 [ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.3945 OF2022]. MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS VITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.Leave granted.2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 13.10.20211 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order), passed by 1 Operative portion pronounced in Open Court on 13.10.2021, however the detailed Order was uploaded on the High Courts official website on 30.10.2021. 2 a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) in Criminal Application (BA) No.867/2021, whereby and whereunder respondent no.1 was released on bail in connection with Crime No.217/2019 registered with Police Station Kotwali, Nagpur for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC631REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7595 of 2021 BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS HIREHALLI SOLAR POWER PROJECT LLP & OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.7608 OF2021WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.6386 OF2021Table of Contents Facts: .......................................................................................................................................... 2 KERCs order: . ........................................................................................................................ 5 APTELs impugned order:. .................................................................................................... 6 Submissions:. ......................................................................................................................... 10 Scope of Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Act:13. Analysis on merits:. ................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC632IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2024[Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.10778 of 2024]. KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2024[Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.10785 of 2024]. JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application Nos.1675 and 1739 of 2024, vide which the learned Single Judge has refused to grant bail to the appellant herein.3. Though the matter has been argued at length by Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri D.S. Naidu and Shri Vikram Chaudhri, learned Senior Counsel 1 appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Shri S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General of India (for short, ASG) for the respondent(s), at length; learned ASG has suggested that this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC629IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.858 OF2023OMKAR REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS KUSHALRAJ LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J.1. This is a statutory appeal under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 20191.2. The challenge in the appeal is to the judgment and order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2 in Consumer Complaint No.141 of 2020. NCDRC by the said judgment and order has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent and 1 hereinafter referred to as the Act 2 in short NCDRC 1 directed the appellant to refund within 2 months an amount of Rs.7,16,41,493/- (Rupees Seven Crore Sixteen Lakh Forty One Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Three only) along with delay compensation @ 6% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till its payment, failing which the rate of interest payable would stand increased to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC623IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1659-1660 OF2024M/S. KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHER ..APPELLANTS Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..RESPONDENT INDEX S. No.Details Paras No.Page No.1. A. PREFACE12 1 2. B. FACTUAL BACKDROP33.10.5 2 3. 3.1 Joint Venture Agreement 3.1.1 3.1.4 3-9 4. 3.2 Correspondence 3.2.1 3.2.3 9-13 5. 3.3 Fuel Supply Agreement 3.3.1-3.3.3 13-18 6. 3.4 Memorandum of Understanding 3.4.1 3.4.2 18-21 7. 3.5 Washability Report of the Central 3.5.1 21-22 Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Nagpur 8. 3.6 Revised Mining Plan 3.6.1 3.6.2 22-23 9. 3.7 Information submitted by KECML to 3.7.1 3.7.2 23-25 the Coal Controller 10. 3.8 Audit Objection raised by the CAG38.1 3.8.3 25-29 11. 3.9 Preliminary Enquiry registered by 3.9.1 3.9.2 29-31 respondent CBI12 3.10 Litigation between KPCL and 3.10.1 -3.10.6 31-33 KECML13 C. SUBMISSIONS14 4. Arguments by Counsel for the 4.1 4.17 33-42 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC628REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 9781-9782 of 2024 @ SLP (C) Nos. 8128 -8129 of 2021 PAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.1. Leave granted.2. State of West Bengal, respondent herein, issued a notice inviting tenders on 08.09.2010, for the widening and strengthening of Egra Bajkul road under the Tamluk Highway Division in Purbo Medinipur District and accepted appellants offer, leading to grant of a Work Order for the project to be completed within 18 months from 23.12.2010. The project got delayed by about five months, but the work was completed by 09.11.2012. 13. The appellant raised a bill for Rs. 77,85,290 and that was in addition to seven other claims under different heads, owing to alleged delays on part of the Respondent. As the respondent denied any liability, the dispute was referred to Arbitration for resolut...
Tag this Judgment!