[Civil Appeal No. 1928 of 2019 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24690 of 2018]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Regular First Appeal No.876 of 2016. The appellants had booked a residential plot whereupon a villa was to be constructed by the respondent in a project called "Cloud-9 Hill Town" in village Khabrar, Ramgarh, District-Nainital, Uttarakhand. An agreement in that behalf was executed on 14.04.2004 in terms of which the total consideration for the villa was Rs.15,65,000/- and the villa was to be completed within 30 months. Later, sale deed in respect of the plot was registered in favour of the appellants on 14.05.2004.
↧
Sanjay Singh Vs. Central Himalayan Land Development Company Ltd. [21/02/19]
↧
Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata Vs. APL India Pvt. Ltd. [21/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 3910 of 2013]. These appeals, arising out of a reference to the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, raise an important question on the meaning, interpretation and applicability of Section 6 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'the PP Act'). The issue revolves around the right of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the "Port Trust") to seize and dispose of goods and materials lying on the "public premises" which goods may not necessarily belong to the erstwhile tenant/licensee of such "public premises" under the PP Act. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under:
↧
↧
Jagdish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [21/02/19]
[Review Petition (CRL.) No.591 of 2014 in Criminal Appeal No.338 of 2007]. Petitioner Jagdish was tried for the murder of his wife and five children. He was convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 24.04.2006 and sentenced to death. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by the High Court on 27.06.2006 and the death sentence was confirmed. Thereafter, he filed Criminal Appeal in this Court which was dismissed and again death sentence was confirmed vide judgment dated 18.09.2009. The petitioner filed mercy petition before the jail authorities on 13.10.2009, which came to be rejected by the President of India on 16.07.2014. The petitioner has filed Writ petition (Crl.)No.197 of 2014 challenging the rejection of his mercy petition and the main ground is that there is a delay of almost 5 years in deciding the mercy petition and this itself is a ground to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.
↧
Mahendran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [21/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2010]. The Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2010 preferred by Mahendran (Accused No. 3), and Criminal Appeal No. 1260 of 2010 preferred by Ravi (Accused No. 1), Singaravelu (Accused No. 2), Iyappan (Accused No. 4), Rajendran (Accused No. 5), Selvaraj (Accused No. 6), Karunakaran (Accused No. 7), Arunachalam (Accused No. 8) and 1 Sundaramoorthy (Accused No. 9) arise out of a common judgment by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 26.09.2008. The High Court has acquitted Mohan (Accused No. 10), Ravi (Accused No. 12), P. Mohan (Accused No. 13), Palanivel Thevar (Accused No. 14) and Kannan (Accused No. 15) from all charges by granting them benefit of doubt. The accused are referred to with reference to their status before the trial court.
↧
Riya George Vs. Kannur Medical College [21/02/19]
[Writ Petition (Civil) No.1247 of 2018]. The petitioner, who is a student of Medicine, has instituted these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the first respondent to compensate her for the loss of an academic year. In Sankalp Charitable Trust v Union of India1 , this Court issued a direction on 28 April 2016 to the effect that admissions to MBBS/BDS courses shall be conducted through the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test2 . On 9 August 2016, the Union government directed all States and Union Territories to conduct combined/centralised counselling for the 2016-17 MBBS admissions, consistent with the judgment of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh.
↧
↧
Lullu Vas (D) through LRS. Vs. State of Maharashtra [22/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No.1973 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) 15944 of 2018]. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 07.06.2018, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1507 of 2011 with Notice of Motion No.206 of 2018, wherein the High Court allowed the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and set aside the order of the HighPower Committee (hereinafter referred to as "HPC") dated 5.02.2011 along with the consequential orders of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter referred to as "SRA") (respondent no. 3). Further, the High Court also directed respondent no. 3 to undertake necessary actions for the redevelopment of the suit property.
↧
Sanjay K. Dixit Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [22/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No.1961 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 31539 of 2012].All the above Appeals pertain to the selection and appointment to the post of Technician Grade-2 (Apprenticeship Electrical) in the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation. An advertisement was issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up 2,974 posts of Technician Grade-2 (Apprenticeship Electrical) by the Electricity Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh on 4th March, 2011. The eligibility criteria according to the said advertisement was that a candidate should have two years National/State level professional certificate in Electrician Trade with High School from Board of Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh or equivalent with Science and Math subjects. In addition, production of Course on Computer Concept (CCC) certificate given by the Department of Electronics Accreditation of Computer Courses (DOEACC) (hereinafter referred to as 'DOEACC certificate'), at the time of interview was compulsory. 16,712 persons applied for selection to 2,974 posts which were advertised. Out of 13,576 candidates who appeared in the written examination conducted on 7th August, 2011, 6,218 persons qualified. 5,687 persons appeared for the interviews which were conducted from 28th November, 2011 to 28th December, 2011.
↧
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar [22/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No.336 of 2019 arising from SLP (Criminal) No.9859/2013]. As common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 8.4.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Miscellaneous Criminal Petition No. 2572/2013, by which the High Court has allowed the said application preferred by the respondents herein/original accused (hereinafter referred to as the 'Accused'), and in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has quashed the proceedings against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 294 and 34 of the IPC, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.
↧
Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India [22/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 1958 of 2019 @ SLP (C) No. 32810 of 2018]. This appeal arises from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 3 January 2018 in a Letters Patent Appeal1. The father of the appellant, Lalan Pandey, had constructed a two storied house together with a part of a third floor on Plot No. 1844, appurtenant to Khata No. 228, admeasuring 0.06 acres, situated at Mauza-Pakri, Ara in the District of Sasaram in Bihar. The land over which the residential house was constructed was acquired in 2006 for the Ara-Sasaram Railway Project. On 7 June 2008, the Collector Bhojpur, Ara submitted a list of persons displaced in consequence of the project undertaken by the Railways. The name of the appellant's father occurred at serial no. 8 in the list of persons whose residential houses had been fully demolished.
↧
↧
Raju Vs. State of Haryana [22/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2014]. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1830SB of 2003, by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant herein challenging the judgment of conviction under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dated 08.11.2002 and order of sentence dated 11.11.2002 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, in Sessions Case No. 5/2001. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal are that an FIR was lodged against the Appellant Raju s/o Rajendar Singh, and two other persons, viz. Raju s/o Bhim and Raja @ Raj Kumar s/o Makhsi, alleging that the three persons had intercepted the prosecutrix when she was passing by some fields along with her oneyearold brother and had taken her to a field nearby, whereupon Raju s/o Bhim and Raja @ Raj Kumar s/o Makhsi engaged in the gangrape of the prosecutrix, while the Appellant stood outside the field.
↧
Vinod Jain Vs. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital [25/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No.2024 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No.32721/2017]. The sad demise of the wife of the appellant on 31.10.2011 has resulted in the legal proceedings being initiated by the appellant on a belief that the cause of her death was medical negligence. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short 'State Commission') found in favour of the appellant vide order dated 11.5.2016, but the said order was upset in appeal in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short 'NCDRC') vide order dated 1.8.2017. We are, thus, faced with the present appeal. Late Mrs. Sudha Jain was the wife of the appellant, who was suffering from various diseases - oesophageal cancer (past history of colon and breast cancer), hypertension and type diabetes.
↧
K. Amarnath Reddy Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. [25/02/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 2049-2158 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15001-15110 of 2013]. The validity of appointment to the posts of Junior Linemen in the Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (A.P. TRANSCO) and the four Andhra Pradesh Distribution Companies (DISCOMS) in the erstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh is in issue in these appeals. On 07.06.2006, the Special Chief Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh permitted the Chairman & Managing Director, A.P. TRANSCO and the Chairpersons, Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee (APPCC) to fill up 7114 posts of Junior Linemen on contract basis in the four DISCOMS duly following the rule of reservation.
↧
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHBVNL) Vs. Adani Power Ltd. [25/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 5865 of 2018]. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 5865 of 2018 are Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. [collectively referred to as the "Haryana Discoms"], which are distribution licensees in the State of Haryana. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6190 of 2018 is the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. ["GUVNL"], which has been assigned with the task of procuring power 1 by the State of Gujarat. The respondent, Adani Power Ltd., is a generating company in terms of Section 2(18) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and has a 4620 MW coal-fired power plant at Mundra, District Kutch, Gujarat. On 23.06.2005, the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 ["SEZ Act"] was enacted. Section 26 of this Act provides that every Developer shall be entitled to various exemptions, such as duty leviable under the Customs Act, 1962, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Central Excise Act, 1944, etc. The Government of India approved the respondent as a Co-Developer (which is included within the term "Developer").
↧
↧
Subhash Chand Vs. State of Punjab [25/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1827 of 2009]. In this appeal, the appellant-accused has called in question the order dated 18.04.2009 in Criminal Revision No. 621 of 2009 whereby, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh has upheld his conviction for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). The accusation against the appellant had been that on 10.03.2000, at around 07:30 a.m., while driving a truck bearing registration No. HPS 5716 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of a heavy traffic area at Mall Road, Patiala (near Malwas Cinema), he caused an accident which resulted in the demise of the rider of an unnumbered Hero 1 Puck Moped. It was further alleged that the appellant immediately fled from the scene with his vehicle.
↧
Deep Narayan Chourasia Vs. State of Bihar [25/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No.180 of 2019]. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.77 of 1994 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein. In order to appreciate the short question involved in this appeal, a few relevant facts need mention infra. Five persons, namely, (1) Lukho Prasad Chourasia, (2) Birendra Prasad Chourasia, (3) Binod Prasad Chourasia, (4) Deep Narayan Chourasia and (5) Kanhai Prasad Chourasia were tried for commission of offence of murder of Kaushalya Devi on 06.02.1992 under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and Section 27 of the Arms Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 264/1992.
↧
Shri Revansiddeshwar Pattan Sahakari Bank Niyamit Vs. Taluka Tokrekoli (Ambiga Samaji C. Vikas Sangh Indi) (Earlier Gangamath Sangha) [25/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.23249 of 2018]. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi in Writ Petition No.203932 of 2015 whereby the High Court partly allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein. A few facts need mention infra for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short question. The appellant is defendant No. 2, respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff and respondent No. 2 is defendant No. 1 in O.S. No.445/2013 before the Court of Civil Judge, Indi at Indi. Respondent No. 1 has filed a civil suit against respondent No. 2Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur (defendant No. 1) and the appellant (defendant No. 2). The suit is for a declaration and injunction in relation to the suit land as detailed in the plaint.
↧
Murugan Vs. Kesava Gounder (D) through LRS. [25/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No.1782 of 2019 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21091 of 2010]. This is the plaintiff's appeal challenging the judgment of Madras High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants. Brief facts of the case are:- The suit property belongs to one Petha Gounder. Petha Gounder had two sons namely Kannan and Balaraman and three daughters. Sengani Ammal was wife of Petha Gounder. On 17.05.1971 Petha Gounder executed a Will bequeathing life interest to his sons Kannan and Balaraman and thereafter to the two male 1 heirs of his both the sons, who were to take the property absolutely. Will further stipulated that in event, there is no male heir to one of his sons, the male heirs of other son will take the property. Petha Gounder died on 28.11.1971 leaving behind his wife, two sons Balaraman and Kannan and three daughters. Petha Gounder's wife Sengani Ammal died on 02.02.1982. Balaraman had one son namely Palanivel.
↧
↧
Union of India Vs. Ankur Gupta [25/02/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 2017-2020 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.1476-1479 of 2019]. The contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 having appeared through caveat, we have heard counsel for the parties and proceed to decide the matter finally. Union of India and Central Adoption and Resources Agency, Ministry of Women & Child Development is in appeal questioning the Division Bench judgment dated 04.09.2018 in Writ Appeal No. 2259 of 2018 and Writ Appeal No.2675 of 2018. Two other appeals have been filed by two other appellants questioning a common order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the High Court in C.C.C. No. 1690 of 2018 and C.C.C. No. 1691 of 2018. We first take the Civil Appeal filed against the Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No.2259 of 2018 and Writ Appeal No.2675 of 2018. The brief facts giving rise to the appeal as has been noted by the Division Bench of the High Court are to the following effect:-
↧
Vijay Hathising Shah Vs. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi [25/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 2012 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1873 of 2012]. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 08.01.2008 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.6737 of 2007 whereby the High Court allowed the Special Civil Application filed by respondent No.1 herein and while setting aside the order dated 23.02.2007 of the Trial Court allowed the application for amendment of the plaint filed by respondent No.1 herein. The appeal involves a short point for its disposal as would be clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow. The appellants are the proposed defendants whereas respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and other respondents are the defendants in Civil Suit No.6170 of 1990 pending in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.
↧
M/s. Model Economic Township Ltd. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector [26/02/19]
[Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.618 of 2018]. In the present case, pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) issued on 19.05.2008, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 26.05.2008 in respect of 136 acres of land, award was declared on 21.12.2009 granting compensation @ 25,00,000/- per acre. Applications seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act were preferred by many landholders but the petitioner (formally known as M/s. Reliance Haryana SEZ Limited) holding about 15 acres of land did not prefer any such application. The Reference Court by order dated 16.11.2011 raised compensation to Rs.41,81,500/- per acre, whereafter an application was preferred by the petitioner on 01.2.2012 seeking redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A(1) of the Act. Said application was allowed on 06.03.2014 granting to the petitioner same benefits in terms of the order of the Reference Court.
↧