https://www.advocatekhoj.com/ Subscribe to the latest Supreme Court judgments with complete details of case numbers, parties name, judge names and headnotes. en-us Copyright 2020 AdvocateKhoj Sat, 26 Dec 2020 06:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Dec 2020 06:00:00 +0530 AdvocateKhoj Feed Generator 144 43 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/ https://www.advocatekhoj.com/images/site/logo.jpg [Civil Appeal No. 4096 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C)No. 15044 of 2020]. Leave granted. These appeals filed against the common judgment dated 14.08.2018 of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench raise the issues of seminal importance pertaining to a Scheduled Tribe namely "Gond Govari" in the State of Maharashtra included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 as applicable in the State of Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court vide judgment dated 14.08.2018 allowed four writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 1742 of 2007, Writ Petition No.4779 of 2008, Writ Petition No. 4032 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.1680 of 2012. We may notice in brief the claim of the writ petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions. Keshao Vishwanath Sunone (hereinafter referred to as "Sunone") claimed himself to belong to Gowari caste. The petitioner's claim in the writ petition is that Sunone belong to Gowari caste, which comes under the Scheduled Tribes as there is no Gond Govari caste in existence. Sunone was appointed as Technical Assistant on 29.08.1983. The caste certificate of Gond Govari Scheduled Tribe was issued to Sunone on 03.07.1986. The caste certificate of Sunone was sent for verification of caste. Fri, 18 Dec 2020 07:00:45 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13361 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13361 [Miscellaneous Application No. 2641 of 2019 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23223 of 2018]. This Miscellaneous Application has been preferred by Ms. Sonam Tomar and Ms. Reeta Rani who had participated in the Selection Process initiated for filling up posts of Constables in U.P. Police and secured 276.5949 and 233.1908 marks respectively. They had applied in the categories of OBC-Female and SC-Female respectively. It is submitted by them that their claim has been rejected by the State Government despite directions issued by this Court in its Order dated 24.07.2019 in I.A. No.10394 of 2018 (Ashish Kumar Yadav and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others) and that candidates with lower marks have been selected in General Female category disregarding their claim. The basic facts relevant for the purposes of this Miscellaneous Application, as stated in said order dated 24.07.2019 are as under: - "In the year 2013, selection process was undertaken to fill up 41,610 posts of Police Constables [U.P. Civil Police/Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC)/Fireman]). After the requisite examination, results were declared on 16.07.2015, in which 38315 candidates were successful. Thus, as on that date there were 3295 vacancies which were not filled as no suitable candidates were available. Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:56:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13360 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13360 [Civil Appeal No._________of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12766 of 2020]. Leave granted. In this appeal, the Inspector General of Police, Kashmir Zone, Zonal Police HQR's Kashmir, Srinagar ["ZPHS"], being Respondent No. 4 before us, invited online tenders (e-tenders) vide e-N.I.T. No. 01 of 2020 dated 18.02.2020 ["N.I.T."] from reputed transporters, registered firms/associations for the supply of various types of commercial vehicles (without fuel) for the carriage of troops and equipment for the Financial Year 2020-2021. Pursuant to the N.I.T., 4 parties, namely, M/s Associated Contractors; M/s Quareshi Transport Co.; M/s Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers ["Appellant"]; and M/s New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors ["JK Roadways"] submitted their bids for consideration and the same were uploaded through an e-tendering system. Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:52:49 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13359 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13359 [Civil Appeal No. 611 of 2020]. An interesting but important question of far-reaching consequence arises for consideration in these appeals. It is this. "Whether the vote cast by a Member of the Legislative Assembly in an election to the Rajya Sabha, in the forenoon on the date of election, would become invalid, consequent upon his disqualification, arising out of a conviction and sentence imposed by a Criminal Court, in the afternoon on the very same day?" We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The brief facts sufficient for answering the issue arising for consideration in these appeals are as follows: - By a notification dated 05.03.2018, the Election Commission of India notified the biennial elections for two seats in the Council of States from the State of Jharkhand; Three candidates by name Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia, Samir Uraon and Dhiraj Prasad Sahu, filed their nominations on 12.03.2018. It is stated that the first two candidates belonged to the Bharitya Janata Party (BJP), and the third candidate belonged to the Indian National Congress (INC). Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:48:35 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13358 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13358 [Civil Appeal Nos. 4102-4103 of 2020 arising from S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 14215-14216/2020]. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 18.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 in First Appeal No. 1543 of 2020 and the subsequent order dated 30.09.2020 passed in Misc. Civil Application (for modification of order) No. 2 of 2020 in First Appeal No. 1543 of 2020, permitting the original claimants to withdraw 50% of the 80% of the amount, as awarded by the learned Reference Court, without furnishing any security, the appellant herein - the appellant/applicant before the High Court has preferred the present appeals. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court enhancing the amount of compensation for the land acquired, the appellant herein has preferred the first appeal before the High Court being First Appeal No. 1543 of 2020. In the said appeal, the appellant filed Civil Application (for Stay) no. 1 of 2020 praying to stay the judgment and order passed by the learned Reference Court. Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:44:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13357 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13357 [Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7 of 2020]. We have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General for India and learned counsel appearing for various States. By our order dated 27.11.2020 passed in this proceeding we have taken suo motu cognizance of the incident which happened in Rajkot, Gujarat on 26.11.2020 resulting in death of Covid patients in the Covid Hospital. The Court has also taken notice of earlier incidents of fire in Covid Hospitals. Learned Solicitor General had submitted that immediate steps shall be taken and the report will be submitted. State of Gujarat was also directed to submit the report. Affidavits have been filed by Union of India on 30.11.2020 and 11.12.2020. The Union of India in its affidavit dated 30.11.2020 has brought on record the letter dated 28.11.2020 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The Government of India issued advisory to all the States to prevent the recurrence of fire incident in Covid Hospitals and Nursing Homes. Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:40:16 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13356 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13356 [Arbitration Petition (Civil) No(s). 08/2020]. The petitioner has instituted this petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act, 1996' for short) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for resolving the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the SubLease deed dated 14.11.2018. The property bearing No.154B, Block 'A' Sector 63, PhaseIII, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. having been initially allotted and leased by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ('NOIDA' for short) under a Lease dated 26.03.2003 had changed hands and the lease was ultimately transferred in favour of the petitioner under a Transfer Memorandum dated 13.04.2011. The petitioner thus having acquired absolute longterm leasehold right of the land and building referred supra has SubLeased the same to the respondent under the SubLease Deed dated 14.11.2018. In respect of the SubLease entered into between the parties, certain disputes are stated to have arisen which is to be resolved. Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:36:24 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13355 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13355 [Civil Appeal No. 4083 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11431 of 2020]. Leave granted. This appeal is at the instance of an Australian company, Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty. Ltd. ["Appellant"], which produces and exports certain types of coal. By a Long Term Agreement dated 07.03.2007 ["LTA"], between the Appellant and MMTC Ltd. ["Respondent"], the Appellant, referred to as the "seller" in the LTA, agreed to supply certain quantities of freshly mined and washed "German Creek", "Isaac" (Blend of 65% Moranbah North and 35% German Creek coking coals) and "Moranbah North" coking coal to the Respondent. Clause 1 of this LTA is material and states as follows: The SELLER shall sell and the PURCHASER shall buy, a) The base quantity during the currency of the contract shall be 466,000 (Four hundred Sixty Six thousand) metric tons (of one thousand kilograms each) firm. b) During the First Delivery Period (1st July, 2004 to 30th June, 2005), a quantity of 464,374 (Four Hundred Sixty Four Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Four) metric tons (of one thousand Kilograms each) firm quantity of freshly mined and washed "Isaac", "Moranbah North" and "German Creek" coking coals. Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:08:46 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13354 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13354 [Civil Appeal No. 4079 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8088 of 2020]. Leave granted. This civil appeal is filed by the Karnataka University, at Dharwad, through its Registrar and another, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02.01.2020, passed in writ appeal No.100436 of 2019, by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. By the aforesaid Order, Division Bench of High Court has dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the appellants herein, calling in question the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 100353 of 2018 (S-PRO) dated 13.03.2019 allowing the writ petition and declaring that the effective date of "Career Advancement Scheme" (for short 'CAS') promotion of the first respondent-writ petitioner was 01.01.2009 and also directed to grant all consequential benefits to him, as flow from such fixation. In fact, the CAS promotion was already given to the first respondent- writ petitioner and pay fixation has already been made, but it was from the date of 28.10.2013. Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:04:29 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13353 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13353 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 872-873 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4935-4936 of 2020]. Applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ("CrPC") were filed by four out of five persons who have been named as accused in Case Crime No. 0623 of 2020 registered at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra under Sections 498A, 304-B, 323, 506 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The husband of the deceased1 is in custody. The applicants for anticipatory bail are the parents-in-law2, brother-in-law3 and sister-in-law4 of the deceased. A Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the applications and granted them anticipatory bail. The father of the deceased is in appeal. The marriage between the deceased (Deepti) and Sumit Agarwal took place on 3 November 2014. Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13352 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13352 [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4206 of 2020]. Our order dated 04.12.2020, records: "Having heard Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner for some time, when the Court pointed out that under Section 376(2)(f) the minimum punishment is 10 years, Mr. Basant pointed out that the charge was only under Section 376(1) and not under Section 376(2). This being the case, we allow Mr. Basant to produce the order where charges have been framed. List after one week." We have since perused the charges that have been framed. The charge was not only under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, as was sought to be argued by Mr. R. Basant, but was under Section 376, which includes Section 376(2). Be that as it may, we find that there is a concurrent finding of fact that the victim, who was only 6 years old, was raped by the petitioner. Quite apart from the victim's testimony, there is also the testimony of her mother, who was an eye witness to the incident. It was found that the petitioner is over 18 years old and was found to be potent. His lungi was recovered and he himself absconded, having been captured after 15 days of the incident. Both courts have recorded the argument of the accused that he has only one hand, as a result of which it would be physically impossible to have committed an act of rape. Both courts have dealt with this aspect of the case and we agree with them - there is no such impossibility. Wed, 16 Dec 2020 06:04:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13351 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13351 [Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5299 of 2020]. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.2 on which application the High Court directed the trial court to expedite the criminal trial and conclude the same at the earliest. The appellant is an accused in FIR No.02/2006, Vigilance Department, Lucknow under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A & 120B IPC and Section 13(1) C/D read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Vigilance Department of State of Uttar Pradesh commenced an inquiry on a complaintfiled by one R.K. Choudhary. Writ Petition No.45047 of 2005 was filed by the appellant in the High Court challenging the Vigilance Inquiry initiated against him. The High Court directed on 22.08.2005 that unless complainant R.K. Choudhary is examined first no inquiry can be proceeded with against the appellant. On 08.12.2005, the Secretary, Vigilance, U.P. directed lodging of an FIR against the appellant and five others. On the basis of which FIR No.02/2006 was registered against the appellant. Wed, 16 Dec 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13350 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13350 [Civil Appeal No. 3822 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29760 of 2019]. The present dispute arises out of an application filed by the Second and Third respondents against the appellant, who is their daughter-in-law. The Second and Third respondents are the parents of the Fourth respondent, who is the estranged spouse of the appellant. The Second and Third respondents filed an application under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 20071, and inter alia, sought the appellant and her daughter's eviction from a residential house in North Bengaluru2. The Assistant Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner in appeal, allowed the application under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 and directed the appellant to vacate the suit premises. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant unsuccessfully pursued a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution before a Single Judge, and in appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 17 September 2019 held that the suit premises belonged to the mother-in-law (the Second respondent) of the appellant and the remedy of the appellant for maintenance and shelter lies only against her estranged husband (the Fourth respondent). Tue, 15 Dec 2020 06:12:35 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13349 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13349 [Civil Appeal No. 3100 of 2020]. The present appeal is at the instance of an Informant who describes himself as an independent practitioner of the law. The Appellant/Informant, by an Information filed on 13.08.2018 ["the Information"], sought that the Competition Commission of India ["CCI"] initiate an inquiry, under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 ["the Act"], into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ["Ola"], and Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd., Uber B.V. and Uber Technologies Inc. [together referred to as "Uber"], alleging that they entered into price-fixing agreements in contravention of section 3(1) read with section 3(3)(a) of the Act, and engaged in resale price maintenance in contravention of section 3(1) read with section 3(4)(e) of the Act. According to the Informant, Uber and Ola provide radio taxi services and essentially operate as platforms through mobile applications ["apps"] which allow riders and drivers, that is, two sides of the platform, to interact. A trip's fare is calculated by an algorithm based on many factors. The apps that are downloaded facilitate payment of the fare by various modes. Tue, 15 Dec 2020 06:08:14 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13348 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13348 [Civil Appeal No. 4041 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 26415 of 2019]. Leave granted. These appeals arise out of a judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 10.10.2019 by which a Single Judge's order dated 14.01.2019 transferring a winding up proceeding pending before the High Court to the National Company Law Tribunal ["NCLT"] was upheld. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals are as follows: A winding up petition under sections 433(e) and (f), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, being Co. Pet. No.731 of 2016 was filed by one Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited (Respondent No.1 herein), seeking winding up of the appellant company inasmuch as for goods supplied to the appellant company, a sum of Rs.4.55 crore was still due. The learned Company Judge in the Delhi High Court passed the following order in the aforesaid petition on 27.08.2018: This petition is filed under sections 433(e) and (f), 434 and 439 of the Company Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking winding up of the respondent company. Tue, 15 Dec 2020 06:04:46 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13347 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13347 [Civil Appeal No. 4049 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15293/2020 Diary No. 19638 of 2020]. The application seeking permission to file special leave petition is allowed. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homeo Pharmacy aggrieved by the part of Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court dated 21.08.2020 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.9459 of 2020. The appellant, who was not party in the writ petition feeling aggrieved by certain directions issued by the High Court have come up in this appeal. We need to notice the contents and prayers of the writ petition filed in the Kerala High Court by respondent No.4 (proforma respondent). The writ petition was filed by respondent No.4, an Advocate praying for writ of Mandamus or for any other writ or order directing the Secretary, Department of AYUSH, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum to ensure that the Homeopathic practitioners are immediately allowed to perform in accordance with the Exhibit-P1 notification (Guidelines dated 06.03.2020 issued by Secretary, Department of AYUSH (Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa and Homeopathy) (AYUSH, New Delhi). Tue, 15 Dec 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13346 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13346 [Civil Appeal No. 2402 of 2019]. This judgment decides the reference to three Judges made vide order dated 28th February, 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 2402 of 2019 titled Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation,1 as it doubts the legal ratio expressed in Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia2 that landlord-tenant disputes governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, are not arbitrable as this would be contrary to public policy. A deeper consideration of the order of reference reveals that the issues required to be answered relate to two aspects that are distinct and yet interconnected, namely: meaning of non-arbitrability and when the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of being resolved through arbitration; and the conundrum - "who decides" - whether the court at the reference stage or the arbitral tribunal in the arbitration proceedings would decide the question of non-arbitrability. The second aspect also relates to the scope and ambit of jurisdiction of the court at the referral stage when an objection of non-arbitrability is raised to an application under Section 8 or 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the 'Arbitration Act'). Mon, 14 Dec 2020 06:08:39 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13345 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13345 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6951 of 2018]. One Shri Ram Bihari Chaubey, the father of the petitioner, was shot dead at his residence in Village Shrikanthpur, Chaubepur, Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh, on 04.12.2015 at around 7.15 AM. An F.I.R. No. 378/2015 under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C. was registered the same day at Chobepur Police Station at 11.15 AM. Four unknown assailants were stated to have come on a motor cycle. Two of them entered the residence and shot the deceased, while the two others waited outside, after which they all escaped. The petitioner, son of the deceased, approached the Allahabad High Court complaining of the lackadaisical manner in which the police was investigating because some powerful political personalities were also involved. The investigating officers were also being changed with regularity seeking a mandamus for a proper inquiry into the murder of his father including by the C.B.I. The High Court called for a progress report and also required the Chief Secretary to file his affidavit in the matter. Mon, 14 Dec 2020 06:04:29 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13340 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13340 [Civil Appeal No. 1725 of 2010]. The plaintiffs are in appeal against the concurrent findings by two courts, rejecting their plaint seeking the relief for permanent injunction. The suit was initially dismissed. R.F.A. No.116/1990 preferred by the appellants was allowed by the High Court. The order was set aside by this court in C.A. No. 2072/2000 on 22.07.2004 and the matter was remanded to the High Court. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the respondents had no concern with the suit property no. 44/6, ad measuring 90 ft. x 110 ft. situated on the J. C. Road in Bangalore. The respondents were the owner of property bearing no. 42, at a distance of 103 ft., with intervening properties also. The respondents illegally attempted to encroach on the appellants property on 10.02.1974 by dumping bamboo and other construction materials, compelling the appellants to institute the present suit. Mon, 14 Dec 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13339 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13339 [Civil Appeal No. 4016 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11482 of 2020]. Leave granted. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court directing the Vice Chancellor of the University to reconsider the application for affiliation of a new B.Tech course, submitted by the first respondent, which is a selffinancing Engineering College, solely on the basis of the extension of approval granted by the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "AICTE"), the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, which is a State University and its Vice Chancellor have come up with this appeal. We have heard Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellantUniversity, Mr. S. Krishnamoorthy, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondentCollege, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondentState and Mr. Anil Soni, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent-AICTE. Thu, 10 Dec 2020 06:04:39 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13336 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13336 [Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2011]. These two criminal appeals, which have been heard through video conferencing, are directed against the judgment dated 15.03.2010 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby conviction of Rohtas and Sanjay (appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2011) and Bijender (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 775 of 2011) under Sections 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") has been upheld, though the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat has been reduced to five years, with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh) payable as compensation to the victimcomplainant. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows. A complaint was lodged with the police by the victimRanbir Singh (PW1) on 26.01.1998 stating that two days ago while on his way to irrigate his agricultural field, he was stopped by Rohtas, Sanjay, Bijender (the present three appellants) and Om Prakash (since deceased) who collectively threatened him with death if he were to return to his fields for irrigation. Thu, 10 Dec 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13335 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13335 [Transfer Petition (Civil) No(s). 2849-2859/2019]. These transfer petitions have been filed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India under Article 139-A(1) of the Constitution of India read with Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 for transfer of several writ petitions pending in the Kerala High Court, Madras High Court and Calcutta High Court. Notices were issued in the transfer petitions. A counter affidavit has also been filed by one of the respondents, i.e., respondent No.1. We have heard Shri Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel and other counsel appearing for respondents. In the writ petitions, which are sought to be transferred, writ petitioners have challenged validity of Chapter VI of Guidelines No.1- CA(7)/02/2008 dated 08.08.2008 issued by the Council of petitioner Institute on the ground that the same is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The said Chapter VI of the Guidelines dated 08.08.2008 stipulates that a member of the Institute in practice shall not accept, in a financial year, more than the "specified number of tax audit assignments", which is at present 60 under Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Wed, 09 Dec 2020 06:56:39 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13338 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13338 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1213 of 2020]. This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 as Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner prays for following relief in the writ petition: "A. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the decision taken by Respondent Nos. 4 to 38 of affixing posters outside residences of Covid-19 positive persons who are under home isolation; Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos.4 to 38 to issue appropriate Orders to ensure that its authorities put an end to the practice of affixing posters outside residences of Covid-19 positive persons who are under home isolation; Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos.4 to 38 to issue appropriate Orders to ensure that its authorities and officials do not disclose the names of Covid-19 positive persons to any person or resident welfare associations/neighbourhood welfare groups/ apartment block groups etc.; During the pendency of this Writ Petition, direct Respondent Nos. 3 to 38 to issue appropriate Orders to forthwith stop the circulation of names of Covid-19 positive persons in any Whatsapp Group belonging to resident welfare associations/ neighbourhood welfare groups/apartment block groups etc.; and Pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require thought fit by this Hon'ble Court." Wed, 09 Dec 2020 06:52:13 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13337 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13337 [Review Petition (Crl.) No. 593 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2018]. We have heard Shri Abhilash M.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Nishe Rajen Shonker, learned counsel for the respondent. We find sufficient ground to review the judgment dated 16.05.2018. The order of this Court dated 16.05.2018 is recalled. The review petition is allowed. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16.11.2017 of the Kerala High Court by which the High Court has allowed Criminal M.C. No.2720 of 2017 filed by the respondent by quashing proceedings in C.C. No.706 of 2016. The Deputy Range Forest Officer aggrieved by judgment of the High Court has come up in this appeal. The facts of the case briefly are: On 25.07.2016 from the respondent, Titty alias George Kurian a Turtle was seized by Rani Forest Flying Squared Range Staff at Karumbanakulam. The offence under Section 2, 9, 39A, 49A and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was registered. A charge-sheet was submitted by the Forest Officer. Wed, 09 Dec 2020 06:48:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13334 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13334 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10678 of 2020]. As against a common order passed by the High Court of Kerala throwing out 2 election petitions filed by the petitioner herein, on the ground of incurable defects, the election petitioner has come up with the above Special Leave Petition. This SLP arises out of Election Petition No.4 of 2019. Another Election Petition filed by the very same petitioner against the very same common order, but arising out of Election Petition No.3 of 2019 was dismissed by this Court on 02.11.2020 for nonprosecution. Therefore, this order covers Election Petition No.4 of 2019. Heard Ms. D. Geetha, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the elections held to the Lok Sabha in AprilMay, 2019, the petitioner filed her nomination on 04.04.2019 in the Ernakulam Constituency. The petitioner was to contest as an independent candidate. Wed, 09 Dec 2020 06:44:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13333 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13333 [Civil Appeal No. 3966 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9611 of 2019]. The present appeals are directed against the common order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, whereby, the review of the dismissed writ petition filed by respondent No. 11 was allowed and the order passed by the School Tribunal dated 1.1.2016 was set aside. The appellant2 herein was appointed with Shri Samarth Shikshan Sanstha3 on a temporary basis on 16.7.1985. At that time, she possessed graduation and B.Ed. degrees and was accordingly placed in Category 'C' of Schedule 'F' of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 19814. However, she was not appointed against regular vacancy. Chagan was thereafter appointed as Assistant Teacher at the School on 1.8.1985 for teaching the students of Vth to VIIth standards, possessing qualification of Senior Secondary Certificate and Diploma in Education at the time of appointment. He was placed in Category 'E' of Schedule 'F' of the Rules. Both Madhavi and Chagan were appointed for teaching the same section. The School later approved their appointments against regular vacancies on 5.9.1986 w.e.f. 2.5.1986. Wed, 09 Dec 2020 06:40:52 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13332 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13332 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3976-3977 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 13384-13385/ 2019]. Leave granted. These appeals emanate from the common judgment and order1 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras2 holding the notifications issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 19563 for acquisition of specified lands for development/construction of ChennaiKrishnagiriSalem (National Corridor) 8 Lanes new National Highway4 (NH179A and NH179B) being part of the larger project " Bharatmala Pariyojna - Phase I5", as illegal and bad in law on the grounds stated in the impugned judgment. The Project (Bharatmala Pariyojna Phase I) has been conceived as a new umbrella program for the highways sector that focuses on optimising efficiency of freight and passenger movement across the country by bridging critical infrastructure gaps through effective interventions like development of Economic Corridors, Inter Corridors and Feeder Routes (ICFR), National Corridor Efficiency Improvement, Border and International connectivity roads, Coastal and Port connectivity roads and Greenfield expressways, traversing across around 24,800 kms in PhaseI. Wed, 09 Dec 2020 06:16:28 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13331 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13331 [Civil Appeal Nos. 4010-4011 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 32011-32012 of 2018]. Leave Granted. These two appeals, which have been heard through video conferencing, are directed against the judgment dated 23.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur whereby the first appeal preferred by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's (hereinafter, "Tribunal") award dated 01.09.2012 was allowed and the Claim Petition was rejected, whereas the appeal filed by the appellantclaimants for enhancement of compensation was consequently dismissed. Sandeep Sharma (deceased), was a resident of District Sikar in Rajasthan. He was travelling in a car bearing registration no. UP 65 AA 7100 from Ghazipur to Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) on the night of 25.03.2009 along with his friend Sanjeev Kapoor (Respondent No. 2) and two other occupants. Sanjeev Kapoor, who was also its owner, was driving the car when at about 10:20PM near village Atroli, a truck coming from the opposite side struck the car as a result of which all the occupants suffered injuries. Wed, 09 Dec 2020 06:12:37 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13330 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13330 [Miscellaneous Application No. 2140 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3559 of 2020]. By majority judgment dated 28.10.2020, (hereinafter referred to as the Judgment) Civil Appeal No.3559 of 2020 was dismissed with certain directions. Paragraphs 20 to 22 of the Judgment, for facility, are quoted hereunder:- "20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we consider it just and appropriate that the custody of Aditya Vikram Kansagra is handed over by his mother Smriti Madan Kansagra, to the father Perry Kansagra, subject to the following directions, which will take effect in supersession of the Orders passed by the Courts below: We direct Perry Kansagra to obtain a mirror order from the concerned court in Nairobi to reflect the directions contained in this judgment, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of this judgment. A copy of the Order passed by the court in Nairobi must be filed before this Court; After the mirror order is filed before this Court, Perry shall deposit a sum of INR 1 Crore in the Registry of this Court, which shall be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit account (on auto-renewal basis), for a period of two years to ensure compliance with the directions contained in this judgment. Wed, 09 Dec 2020 06:08:43 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13329 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13329 [Civil Appeal No. 4002 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8496 of 2020]. Leave granted. These appeals pertain to a notice inviting tender ["N.I.T."] dated 02.12.2019 by the State of Madhya Pradesh, Public Works Department ["PWD"]. The N.I.T. was for the construction of an Elevated Corridor (Flyover) from LIG Square to Navlakha Square (Old NH 3) A-B Road in Indore district in the State of Madhya Pradesh of a length of 7.473 kilometers. The work was for an estimated cost of Rs. 272.66 crores, to be completed within a period of 24 months including the rainy season. Various parts of the N.I.T. are important and are referred to hereunder: Under Section - 2, entitled "INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS", under clause A, entitled "GENERAL", sub-clause 2.1.4 reads as follows: "2.1.4 The BID shall be furnished in the format exactly as per Appendix-I i.e. Technical Bid as per Appendix IA and Financial Bid as per Appendix IB. BID amount shall be indicated clearly in both figures and words, in Indian Rupees in prescribed format of Financial Bid and it will be signed by the Bidder's authorised signatory. In the event of any difference between figures and words, the amount indicated in words shall be taken into account. Wed, 09 Dec 2020 06:04:16 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13328 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13328 [Civil Appeal No. 4002 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8496 of 2020]. Leave granted. These appeals pertain to a notice inviting tender ["N.I.T."] dated 02.12.2019 by the State of Madhya Pradesh, Public Works Department ["PWD"]. The N.I.T. was for the construction of an Elevated Corridor (Flyover) from LIG Square to Navlakha Square (Old NH 3) A-B Road in Indore district in the State of Madhya Pradesh of a length of 7.473 kilometers. The work was for an estimated cost of Rs. 272.66 crores, to be completed within a period of 24 months including the rainy season. Various parts of the N.I.T. are important and are referred to hereunder: Under Section - 2, entitled "INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS", under clause A, entitled "GENERAL", sub-clause 2.1.4 reads as follows: "2.1.4 The BID shall be furnished in the format exactly as per Appendix-I i.e. Technical Bid as per Appendix IA and Financial Bid as per Appendix IB. BID amount shall be indicated clearly in both figures and words, in Indian Rupees in prescribed format of Financial Bid and it will be signed by the Bidder's authorised signatory. In the event of any difference between figures and words, the amount indicated in words shall be taken into account. Wed, 09 Dec 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13327 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13327 [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 160 of 2020]. Applications for intervention are allowed. The writ petitioner, Amish Devgan, is a journalist who, it is stated, is presently the managing director of several news channels owned and operated by TV18 BroadcastLimited, including News18 Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand, News18 Madhya Pradesh/ Chhattisgarh and News18 Rajasthan. The petitioner hosts and anchors debate shows 'Aar Paar' on News18 India and 'Takkar' on CNBC Awaaz. On 15th June, 2020, at around 7:30 p.m., the petitioner had hosted and anchored a debate on the enactment1 which, while excluding Ayodhya, prohibits conversion and provides for maintenance of the religious character of places of worship as it existed on 15th August, 1947. Some Hindu priest organisations had challenged vires of this Act before the Supreme Court, and reportedly a Muslim organization had filed a petition opposing the challenge. Post the telecast as many as seven First Information Reports (FIRs) concerning the episode were filed and registered against the petitioner in the States of Rajasthan, Telangana, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Mon, 07 Dec 2020 06:12:21 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13325 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13325 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3649-3650 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 20512-20513 of 2019]. Leave granted. Mr. Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Meena, the Appellants herein, have filed SBCWP No.10992 of 2019 in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench aggrieved by their non-selection to the post of Senior Teacher (Grade II) in Social Science. By an order dated 10.07.2019, the High Court stayed the appointments to the post of Senior Teachers (Social Science) pursuant to the Advertisement dated 13.07.2016 till further orders. The said order was challenged by some of the candidates who were selected. By an order dated 24.07.2019, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the interim order dated 10.07.2019. While doing so, the Writ Petition filed by Mr. Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Meena was disposed of along with a connected Writ Petition filed by Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma and others. The Appellants challenged the said judgment of the Division Bench dated 24.07.2019 in the appeals. Mon, 07 Dec 2020 06:08:32 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13324 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13324 [Civil Appeal No. 3940 of 2020]. Aggrieved by the denial of admission to 1st year Post-Graduate Medical Specialty course of MS (General Surgery) for the academic year 2020-2021, the Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Appellant-National Medical Commission/ Medical Council of India to create or sanction one seat in MS (General Surgery). A further direction was given to Respondent No.2- Kamineni Academy of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Hyderabad to grant admission to the Respondent No. 1 in MS (General Surgery) course. The judgment of the High Court is challenged in the above Appeal. The Respondent No.1 passed the final year MBBS Examination in January, 2019. She completed the oneyear Compulsory Rotary Internship as a Resident Intern from 28.03.2019 to 27.03.2020 at Malla Reddy Narayana Multispecialty Hospital. Mon, 07 Dec 2020 06:04:16 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13323 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13323 [Miscellaneous Application No(s). 1270/2020 in Civil Appeal No(s). 11435/2018]. These Miscellaneous Applications have been filed in Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018 decided by this Court vide judgment dated 28.11.2018. Civil Appeal No. 11435 of 2018 was filed against the common judgment dated 02.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.17994 of 2015 and other connected writ petitions. The High Court vide its judgment dated 02.02.2018 decided the bunch of writ petitions raising the dispute pertaining to allocation of the employees of the power sector undertakings in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The disputes arose in the wake of the division of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into two States, namely, the State of Telangana and the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh by Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. Mon, 07 Dec 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13322 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13322 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 961 of 2018]. The petitioner, an authorized agent, for sale and distribution of lotteries organized by State of Punjab has filed this writ petition impugning the definition of goods under Section 2(52) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and consequential notifications to the extent it levies tax on lotteries. The petitioner seeks declaration that the levy of tax on lottery is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. We need to notice certain background facts which has given rise to this writ petition. The Parliament enacted the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 to regulate the lotteries and to provide for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Section 2(b) of the Act defines lottery which provides that "lottery" means a scheme, in whatever form and by whatever name called, for distribution of prizes by lot or chance to those persons participating in the chances of a prize by purchasing tickets. Thu, 03 Dec 2020 06:24:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13317 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13317 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 824825 of 2020 arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 2640-2641/ 2020]. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 11.05.2020 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.Cr.C No. 49338/2019 and M.Cr.C. No. 49972/2019, the original petitioner as well as the State of Madhya Pradesh have preferred the present appeals. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the aforesaid applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the respective FIRs for the offences under Sections 379 and 414, IPC, Sections 4/21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MMDR Act') and under Rule 18 of the M.P. Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the '2006 Rules'). The facts in nutshell are as under: On a surprise inspection, the respective Mining Inspectors checked the tractor/trolleys of the private appellants along with the minor mineral (sand/storage/yellow soil etc.) loaded in them. They handed over the tractor/trolleys to the concerned police stations to keep them in safe custody. Thu, 03 Dec 2020 06:20:06 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13316 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13316 [Civil Appeal No(s). 3904-3905 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No(s). 20553-20554 of 2013]. These present batch of appeals have been instituted by the unsuccessful appellants being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 20th March, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in LPA No.02/2011 and LPA No.04/2011 and placing reliance on its judgment dated 12th March, 2013, cognate LPAs at a later stage were disposed of. The case has a chequered history and in order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, it will be necessary to glance through the relevant background facts. It is the third round of litigation arising out of the selection process held pursuant to an advertisement (No.Pers/Rectt/SI/EX99/ A405) dated 25th February, 1999 issued by the 2nd respondentDirector General of Police, J&K State inviting applications for the post of SubInspector of Police (Executive), the post which is included in the Schedule appended to the J&K Police (Executive) Rules to be filled by open selection in terms of the procedure prescribed under the Rules. Thu, 03 Dec 2020 06:16:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13315 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13315 [Civil Appeal No. 3837 of 2020 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 23877 of 2014]. The present appeals are directed against a common order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 09.04.2014 whereby the intra-Court appeals filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board were allowed and the order of Learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petitions for the grant of 9/16 years' time bound revised promotional scale to the appellants was set aside. The facts of the appeals are similar but for the sake of reference, facts are taken from the appeal preferred by Inderjit Singh Sodhi and others. The appellants herein have claimed time bound promotional scale while working as Assistant Engineers. They were promoted to the said post from the post of Junior Engineer. The services of the appellants are governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Civil) Regulations, 19651. Thu, 03 Dec 2020 06:12:34 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13314 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13314 [Criminal Appeal No. 1229 of 2017]. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 14.09.2016/19.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2014, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the State and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the appellant herein - original accused for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and consequently has convicted the appellant - accused for the aforesaid offences and has sentenced him to undergo seven years R.I. with fine of Rs. 10,000/and in default of payment of fine, further six months R.I. under Section 376 IPC and four years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/and in default of payment of fine, further three months R.I. under Section 506 IPC, the original accused has preferred the present appeal. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: The prosecutrix told her mother that threefour months ago, accused had sexual intercourse with her forcibly and without her consent. That the accused threatened the prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to anyone. Thu, 03 Dec 2020 06:08:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13313 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13313 [Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2020 arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4336/2020]. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 26304 of 2020, by which the application submitted by the appellant herein for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 77 dated 06.05.2020 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, lodged with Police Station City Mataur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali has been dismissed, the original petitioner - accused has preferred the present appeal. That one Palwinder Singh Multani, brother of one Balwant Singh Multani (deceased) has lodged an FIR against the appellant at Police Station City Mataur initially for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 201, 344, 219 and 120B of the IPC, and subsequently the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC has been added. Thu, 03 Dec 2020 06:04:46 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13312 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13312 [Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2020 arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 6232 of 2020 @ Diary No. 6991/2020]. Having heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, the delay caused in preferring the appeal is condoned. 1a. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2015, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant - original accused and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, convicting the appellant - original accused for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act') and sentencing him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/( Rupees one lakh), the original accused no.1 has preferred the present appeal. Thu, 03 Dec 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13311 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13311 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1512-1513 of 2017]. The appellants, who were charged with the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") stood acquitted of the said charge by learned sessions judge, Haridwar. However, in appeal carried by the complainant/respondent No.2 herein, the verdict of acquittal was set aside and the appellants after conviction under section 304-B of IPC stand sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. We heard Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel for the appellants. Shri Krishnam Mishra, learned counsel for the first respondent-state and Shri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the second respondent. On the basis of the complaint, by second respondent dated 23.01.2011 at 5.00 pm, an FIR was lodged. This led to the appellants finally being charge sheeted for having committed the offence under Section 304B of the IPC. Th e facts stated in the FIR read inter alia as follows: The daughter of the second respondent was married to the first appellant on 10.12.2009. After few days of the marriage the appellants who are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of his deceased daughter started harassing her for dowry. Wed, 02 Dec 2020 06:12:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13310 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13310 [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3543 of 2020]. We have heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India, Ms. Madhvi Divan, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, Shri Siddhartha Dave, learned Senior Advocate (appointed as Amicus Curiae, vide Order dated 16.7.2020), Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective States and Union Territories. This Court, vide Order dated 03.04.2018 in SLP (Crl) No. 2302 of 2017, reported as Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311, directed that a Central Oversight Body (hereinafter referred to as the "COB") be set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs to implement the plan of action with respect to the use of videography in the crime scene during the investigation. This Court, while considering the directions issued in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal & Others (2015) 8 SCC 744, held that there was a need for further directions that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish a report of its observations thereon. The COB was further directed to issue appropriate instructions in this regard at the earliest. Wed, 02 Dec 2020 06:08:34 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13306 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13306 [Civil Appeal Nos. 4434-4435 of 2010]. The appellant is engaged in the business of providing private security guards to its clients on payment basis. The appellant is registered under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2005"). The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the High Court, affirming the order dated 28.07.2008 of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kanpur under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the EPF Act") holding the appellant liable for compliance with the provisions of the EPF Act and to deposit statutory dues within 15 days. The dues of the appellant as quantified by order dated 15.04.2009 are Rs.42,01,941/, and statutory interest under Section 7Q at Rs.30,44,224/. Shri S. Sunil, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not covered by G.S.R. No.805 dated 17.05.1971 issued under Section 1(3)(B) of the EPF Act, since it was not engaged in rendering any expert services. It merely facilitated in providing Chowkidars to its clients at the request of the latter. Wed, 02 Dec 2020 06:04:16 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13305 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13305 [Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2011]. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2010, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 176 of 2001, whereby the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Trial Case No. 235/1998; 45/1998 dated 09.05.2001 and upheld the conviction of the appellantaccused under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC along with other accused persons. The present appeal pertains to Nimay Sah, accused no.3, who is the elder brother of the deceased's husband, Gora Sah, accused no.1. The present appellantaccused has suffered conviction along with accused no.1, Gora Sah, husband of the deceased and accused no.2, Nitai Sah, fatherinlaw of the deceased. The deceased, Asha Kumari had been married to accused no.1, Gora Sah, and had been living in her matrimonial home. As per the prosecution story, she was harassed for demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/( Rupees Ten Thousand Only) by the accused persons. Wed, 02 Dec 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13304 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13304 [Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 2020 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 11488 of 2020]. The present appeal has been filed to challenge an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, setting aside an order dated 23.03.2020 transferring the suit under Section 22(4) of the Design Act, 2000 1 to the Calcutta High Court. It is the said order which was set aside by the High Court on 1.9.2020 directing that the Commercial Court, Indore is itself competent to decide the suit in terms of the Commercial Courts Act, 20152. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from either directly or indirectly copying, using or enabling others to use the plaintiff's design of Container and Lid registered under Design Application Nos. 299039 and 299041 respectively. In the said suit, the defendant/appellant had filed a written statement along with the counter-claim before the Commercial Court, inter alia seeking cancellation of the abovementioned registered designs for the reason that the said designs were not new or original and hence could not be registered in terms of Section 4(a) of the 2000 Act. Tue, 01 Dec 2020 06:04:29 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13303 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13303 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3860-3862 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14156-14158 of 2020]. Leave granted.This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand. While allowing a petition instituted by the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Division Bench: struck down the last paragraph of a notification dated 8 January 2015 issued by the State government in its Department of Commercial Taxes, giving prospective effect to the rebate/deduction from electricity duty offered under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 20121; directed that the notification shall be deemed to be in effect from 1 April 2011, when the Industrial Policy 2012 was enforced with retrospective effect; and upheld the claim of the respondent that it was entitled to a rebate/deduction from electricity duty in terms of the representation held out in the Industrial Policy 2012, and that the denial of the exemption by the State government for FYs 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 was contrary to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The State is in appeal to challenge the judgment dated 11 December 2019. Tue, 01 Dec 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13302 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13302 [Civil Appeal No. 9037 of 2019]. A lot of noise but no music! The present case is a classic one where multiple proceedings have been initiated but have resulted in no culmination over a period just short of a decade. And this is not so because of any interdicts from the courts in preventing these legal proceedings, yet the proceedings have hardly moved. The result is that the culpability of the first two respondents herein has not been determined - thus, a cloud hangs over their conduct and that is all. We now turn to The Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'; since repealed by the Finance Act, 2015),as the proceedings against the first two respondents herein emanated from the powers exercised under the said Act. The said Act aimed to regulate certain matters relating to forward contracts, prohibition of options in goods and for other connected matters. A reading of the statement of objects and reasons shows that the said Act was a sequitur to the initial prohibition of forward trading in certain commodities as a result of the Central Government issuing orders under Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules during the war period. Fri, 27 Nov 2020 06:16:52 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13300 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13300 [Civil Appeal No. 3840 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12891 of 2020]. Leave granted in the special leave petitions and the Writ Petition is admitted. Writ Petition No.20256 of 2020 was filed by Dr. Bilu B.S., the Respondent No.1. in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.12891 of 2020 in the Kerala High Court seeking implementation of reservation to 40 per cent of the seats in Super Specialty Medical Courses for in-service Doctors in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India (2020) SCC Online P. 699. The said Writ Petition was taken up along with Writ Petition No.20135 of 2020 filed for the same relief. By an order dated 05.10.2020, a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court refused to grant stay of counselling to the 40 per cent seats for in-service quota. Aggrieved thereby, the first Respondent filed the Writ Appeal which was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala by an order dated 07.10.2020. The Division Bench directed the preparation of a list of candidates eligible for admission as in-service candidates, which was to be sent to the Directorate of Medical Education, New Delhi by 05.00 PM on 08.10.2020. The Director General, Health Services was directed to consider the candidates for admission in Super Specialty Medical Courses in the State of Kerala under in-service quota. Fri, 27 Nov 2020 06:12:34 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13299 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13299 [Writ Petition (C) No. 804 of 2020]. This Court is once again, within the span of a year, called upon to decide the constitutionality of various provisions concerning the selection, appointment, tenure, conditions of service, and ancillary matters relating to various tribunals, 19 in number, which act in aid of the judicial branch. That the judicial system and this Court in particular has to live these déjà vu moments, time and again (exemplified by no less than four constitution bench judgments) in the last 8 years, speaks profound volumes about the constancy of other branches of governance, in their insistence regarding these issues. At the heart of this, however, are stakes far greater: the guarantee of the rule of law to each citizen of the country, with the concomitant guarantee of equal protection of the law. This judgment is to be read as a sequel, and together with the decision of the Constitution Bench in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited1. The core controversy arising for this Court's consideration is the constitutional validity of the "Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities [Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members] Rules, 2020" (hereinafter referred to as "the 2020 Rules"). Fri, 27 Nov 2020 06:08:25 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13298 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13298 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 825 of 2020]. By this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for directions declaring the notification dated 27.03.2020 issued by Reserve Bank of India as ultra vires to the extent it charges interest on the loan amount during the moratorium period. The petitioner's case and the pleadings in the writ petition briefly noted are:- The petitioner has availed a home loan of amount of Rs.37,48,000/- from the ICICI Bank. After declaration of Coronavirus (COVID-19) as a pandemic by World Health Organisation, the National Disaster Management Authority exercising the jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to take effective measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 across the country and for mitigation of the threatening disastrous situation has issued notification dated 27.03.2020 directing the Ministry, Departments of Government of India, State Governments and the State authorities to take measures for ensuring social distancing so as to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the country. Necessary guidelines were also issued under Section 10(2)(1) by the National Executive Committee. Fri, 27 Nov 2020 06:04:36 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13297 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13297 [Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5598 of 2020]. While invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"), the appellant sought three substantive reliefs: A writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming that he had been illegally arrested and wrongfully detained by the Station House Officer ("SHO") at Alibaug Police Station in the district of Raigad in Maharashtra in relation to a First Information Report1 ("FIR") registered on 5 May 2018 under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") in spite of an earlier closure report which was accepted by the Magistrate; The quashing of the above"mentioned FIR; and The quashing of the arrest memo on the basis of which the appellant had been arrested. These three reliefs2 are reflected in prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the petition before the High Court. Pending the disposal of the petition, by an interim application in the proceedings3, the appellant sought his release from custody and a stay of all further proceedings including the investigation in pursuance of the FIR. Fri, 27 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13296 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13296 [Civil Appeal No. 8607 of 2010]. The appellant, which was granted special leave, challenges a judgment of the Bombay High Court1. It urges that the impugned judgment is erroneous because it concludes that proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter "the Act") can be maintained to challenge a foreign award, defined as one, under that enactment. The appellant company (hereafter "NV Engineering" or "the appellant") was at the relevant time, incorporated under Italian law and involved in the setting-up and construction of plants for production of synthetic fibers, polymers and ascorbic acid. The respondent (hereafter "Jindal") is a public limited company incorporated under relevant Indian law. In1994, Jindal negotiated with a company - Engineering Chur AG of Sagenstrasse 97, 7001 Chur, Switzerland (hereafter,'Enco') and, on 30.01.1995 entered into four related agreements with Enco to set up an ascorbic acid plant in India. Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:08:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13295 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13295 [Civil Appeal No(s). 3832-3833 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No(s). 26669-26670/2018]. Leave granted. With consent of all the counsel for parties, the appeals were heard finally and judgement was reserved on 24th January 2020. These appeals challenge the common judgement of the Rajasthan High Court1. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgement set aside an order made by the learned single judge of that court and held that the present Appellants (hereafter referred to as "direct recruits" or "DRs") were not entitled to claim seniority over and above the respondents, hereafter called "departmental promotes" or "DPs"). The DRs had approached the High Court in the first instance, claiming that the seniority list, showing the DPs in earlier positions, was untenable; the single judge allowed that petition. The Division Bench has, however, allowed the appellants to question the eligibility of DPs to be recruited. Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:04:52 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13294 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13294 [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4931 of 2020]. Aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to quash a First Information Report (FIR for short) registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 and 406 IPC, the petitioner has come up with the above Special Leave Petition. We have heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appears for the 3rd Respondent, who is the de facto complainant. The petitioner is a Company headquartered in Pune and is engaged in the business of manufacture, import and sale of passenger vehicles in India. It is claimed that the petitioner has been formed by the amalgamation of three Companies by name Skoda Auto India Private Limited, Volkswagen India Private Limited and Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited. The petitioner claims that they are responsible for the business operations of five automobile brands namely, Skoda, Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche and Lamborgini. Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13293 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13293 [Civil Appeal No. 3820 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 32580 of 2017]. Leave granted. The issue which has arisen for our consideration is the validity of the Judgment passed by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction to set aside the order of compulsory retirement passed by the statutory authorities against the respondent, and substituting it by an order of re-instatement with all consequential benefits, and 50% backwages. The Respondent was appointed in 1984 as a Constable with the Railway Protection Force (R.P.F) in Jhansi. On 28.02.2006, he was posted as SIPF(Adhoc) Sub-Inspector at the Pulgaon Railway Station, Maharashtra (Outpost). On 11.12.2006, the Respondent was placed under suspension with immediate effect pending enquiry. On 04.01.2007, a charge sheet was issued for major penalty under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 by the Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner R.P.F. The charges framed were. Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:08:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13291 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13291 [Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 452 of 2019]. These petitions are filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the CrPC") read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules seeking transfer of Trial of criminal cases pending before the Courts at Bhatinda, Moga and Faridkot districts to competent Court in Delhi or to any nearby State, out of Punjab. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the matters relate to alleged sacrilege of the holy book, Shri Guru Granth Sahibji in different places in Punjab, deep anguish and bitterness is generated amongst a particular religious group, who form majority of the population in the State of Punjab and therefore the accused who are members of the Dera Sacha Sauda sect, are facing bias and prejudice and are unlikely to get a fair trial in the face of strong presumption of culpability. Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:04:23 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13290 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13290 [Civil Appeal No. 3821 of 2020 arising from S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10613/2020]. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 6284 of 2020, by which the High Court has not entertained the said writ petition at this stage and consequently has dismissed the said writ petition without deciding the issue involved in the writ petition on merits, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal. That the appellant herein - original writ petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition before the High Court challenging the validity of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioner that the amount which is deductible in computing the income chargeable in terms of the Income Tax Act is not being allowed under the garb of the aforesaid provision. According to the original writ petitioner, the said provision is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as there are many Central Government undertakings which have not been subjected to any such computation of income tax and are enjoying exemption. Wed, 25 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13289 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13289 [Civil Appeal No. 3807 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No(s). 28244 of 2015]. Leave granted. With consent, the appeal was heard. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 24.07.2015. The respondent (hereafter "Asiatic Steel") had filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking refund of contract consideration of Rs. 3,61,20,000/- paid by them to the appellant (hereafter "the Board"). The High Court allowed the writ petition, in view of its earlier interim order, and directed the Board to pay interest for the period from 08.11.1994 to 19.05.1998. The brief facts that arise for consideration are as follows. The Board issued a tender notice on 02.08.1994 for allotment of plots at Sosiya (near Bhavnagar, Gujarat) for ship-breaking of 'very large crude carriers/ultra large crude carriers' (VLCC/ULCC). Asiatic Steel made the highest bid, which was accepted and confirmed by the Board on 08.11.1994, for Rs. 3, 61, 20,000/- (hereafter the 'Principal'). Asiatic Steel was allotted Plot V-10. The bid payment was made on 22.03.1995 in foreign currency, to the tune of $1,153,000, while the earnest money deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid on 08.11.1994. Tue, 24 Nov 2020 06:08:02 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13288 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13288 [Civil Appeal No. 2100 of 2020]. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Allahabad High Court in Election Petition No. 17 of 2019 allowing the respondent's application under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') read with Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and thereby dismissing the Election Petition filed against him. The said application was filed in the Election Petition questioning the election of the respondent Shri Narendra Modi to the 17th Lok Sabha from 77th Parliamentary Constituency (Varanasi), held in April - May 2019. In the Election petition the appellant had prayed for declaring the election of the respondent to be void on the ground that the appellant's nomination was improperly rejected and further that the nomination of the respondent was wrongly accepted for want of disclosure of certain facts. Further, that the election was vitiated on account of misuse of official power by the Returning Officer and the Election Observer. Tue, 24 Nov 2020 06:04:38 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13287 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13287 [Civil Appeal No. 1460/2010]. This appeal by special leave questions a judgment of the Karnataka High Court1. The High Court rejected the appellants' claim to direct the respondent (hereafter called "the Union") to vacate their lands, leaving it open to the latter to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of certain lands (which belonged to the appellants). Parliament, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Union, enacted the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable properties Act, 1952 (hereafter called "the Requisitioning Act"). It was brought into force on 15.03.1952.2 The object of the Act was to enable the Union to requisition or acquire immovable property if the competent authority was of the opinion that any property was necessary for a public purpose. By Section 1(3), the Requisitioning Act was to be in force for six years. Section 3 clothed the Union with the power to requisition properties for any public purpose; Section 7 provided the procedure to requisition (or acquire) lands. Tue, 24 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13286 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13286 [Civil Appeal No. 2690 of 2009]. These appeals under Section 22F of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 19561 take exception to the judgment and order passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai2 in Appeal No. 84 of 2009 dated 13.01.2009 and in Appeal No. 118 of 2015 dated 04.06.2019. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment/order dated 13.01.2009 of the Tribunal wherein it had upheld the order of expulsion against the appellant, from the membership of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited3 Respondent 1. The said order was passed in the aftermath of the withdrawal of trading facilities of the appellant on 13.10.1997 and consequent closing out of all outstanding positions on 14.10.1997 by the National Securities Clearing Corporation Limited4 Respondent 2. The appellant herein, desirous of functioning as a stock broker in the stock market, registered itself as a Trading Member with NSE/Exchange in November, 1994. Fri, 20 Nov 2020 06:08:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13284 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13284 [Criminal Appeal No. 800 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4500 of 2019]. Leave granted. This criminal appeal is filed by the accused/A1 to A3, in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2004, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc)- 1, Kottayam Division, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.04.2004 and the judgment dated 23.02.2018 in criminal appeal No. 711 of 2004, passed by the High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam. The appellants/accused A1 to A3, were tried for offence punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). On conclusion of trial, by appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 20.04.2004, convicted them for the aforesaid offences. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each, for the offence under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and for offence under Section 326 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years each. Fri, 20 Nov 2020 06:04:37 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13283 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13283 [Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1452/2019]. Leave granted. These three appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 30.11.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.10524 of 2018 filed by the respondent before the High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2018, the petition filed by respondent Under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been allowed cancelling the bail granted to the appellants by order dated 12.07.2018 by Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The facts and issues in these appeals being similar, it shall be sufficient to refer to the pleadings in Criminal Appeal arising out SLP (Crl.) No.1452 of 2019- Venaktesan Balasubramaniyan Vs. The Intelligence Officer for deciding all these appeals, brief facts of which are as under:- On 11.01.2018, car bearing No. KA 39 M 2117 was intercepted by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as "D.R.I."), Hyderabad at toll plaza, Kamkole Village, Munnipalli Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana in which appellants (driver and two men) were travelling. Fri, 20 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13282 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13282 [Criminal Appeal No. 590 of 2015]. On the fateful day of 24.8.1999, one Sahodara Bai was found dead on a cot in her matrimonial home located in village Uslapur, District Rajanandgaon, M.P. (now Chhattisgarh). A marg intimation was lodged with the police at the behest of her brother, one Kishore Kumar, who alleged that he had returned to village Uslapur to see his sister, where he was informed by her in-laws that she had died. He related a prior incident from a few days ago alleging that on 19.8.1999, the deceased had returned to her maternal home to village Baiharsari stating that she had been harassed at the hands of her in-laws for the last 6-7 months. The cause for harassment was stated to be that the appellant herein (her husband) had a brother who lived separately and the in-laws would beat and harass her if she attempted to speak to the wife of the brother of the appellant herein. Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:04:13 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13280 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13280 [Civil Appeal No. 3735 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 5452 of 2020]. Leave granted. Aggrieved by an order passed by the Company Court (High Court of Allahabad), refusing to transfer the winding up petition pending therein, to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT for short), a financial creditor has come up with this appeal. Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondentcorporate debtor and Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the official liquidator. One M/s Girdhar Trading Co., the 2nd respondent herein, filed a petition in Company Petition No.24 of 2015 before the High Court of Allahabad under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the winding up of the first respondent company, on the ground that the Company was unable to pay its debts. The Company Court ordered notice to the 1st respondent herein, but the 1st respondent failed to appear before the Company Court. Thu, 19 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13279 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13279 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2981-2982 of 2020]. These statutory appeals have been instituted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India1 under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 19922. The appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal3 on 27 June 2020 and 23 July 2020. The Tribunal set aside an interim order dated 15 June 2020 passed by the Whole Time Member of SEBI under Section 19 read with Sections 11(1), 11(4)(d), 11(4A), 11(5) and 11B of the SEBI Act read with Regulation 10 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations 2015. By the interim order, the Whole Time Member quantified an amount of Rs 3,83,16,230.73, being the notional loss sought to be avoided on account of trades carried out by the respondent in the scrips of Dynamatic Technologies Ltd over unpublished price sensitive information. The respondent was directed by the Whole Time Member to credit the amount into an Escrow Account. Wed, 18 Nov 2020 06:04:43 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13292 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13292 [Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6841 of 2020]. Except Special Leave Petition (Civil) D.No.13142 of 2020: (i) permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted in all the concerned matters; and (ii) Special Leave to Appeal is granted in all matters. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated 06.05.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court1 in Special Appeal No.207 of 2019 and all connected matters whereby the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1188(SS) of 2019 and other connected matters. These appeals, inter alia, deal with the extent of rights of Shiksha Mitras and benefits conferred upon them by the decision of this Court in State of U.P. and another vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and others2. Wed, 18 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13278 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13278 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 760-764 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 8342-46 of 2019]. Leave granted. All these appeals challenge the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dated 14th August 2019. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as under:- On 18th October 2007, Coal India Limited had introduced a new policy, whereunder the Fuel Supply Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'FSA') was required to be entered into by coal companies and purchasers of coal. In pursuance of the said policy, on 30th April 2008, an FSA was entered into between the appellants in appeals arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 8342-46 of 2019 and the Coal India Limited. On 25th March 2011, a joint surprise raid was conducted by the CBI in factory premises of Fertico Marketing and Investment Private Limited and it was found that the coal purchased under the FSA was sold in the black market. It was further found by CBI that this was done in connivance with the unknown government officials which led to loss of Rs.36.28 crore to the Central Government. Tue, 17 Nov 2020 06:04:52 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13277 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13277 [Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 798 of 2020]. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 23rd July, 2020 passed by the first respondent relegating the petitioner after serving as member of the Bihar Administrative service for almost 15 years to Bihar Education Service without affording an opportunity of hearing to him in alleged compliance of the order of this Court stated 23rd October 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 3307 of 2015 left with no option with the petitioner to approach this Court for redressal of his grievance. The brief facts of the case led to filing of this petition are that Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") published an advertisement dated 29th December, 2001 in various newspapers inviting applications from eligible candidates for conducting the 45th Combined Competitive Examination. The petitioner had participated in the selection process and after being finally selected and as per his placement in the order of merit, was appointed into Bihar Administrative Service vide order dated 21st March, 2005 and after successful period of probation, became a substantive member of Bihar Administrative Service (BAS). Tue, 17 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13276 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13276 [Civil Appeal No. 3687 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14228 of 2019]. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 2778 of 2019. By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition and has upheld the validity of the order dated 09.01.2019 passed by respondent no.1, namely Food Corporation of India (for short 'the Corporation') through its Deputy General Manager (Personnel), who is respondent no. 2 herein, to terminate a contract of service with the appellant and to blacklist the appellant from participating in any future tenders of the Corporation for a period of 5 years. The Corporation had issued a Bid Document on 25.11.2016 inviting bids for appointment of a recruitment agency to conduct the process of recruitment for hiring watchmen for the Corporation's office. Mon, 16 Nov 2020 06:08:43 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13272 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13272 [Civil Appeal No. 8971 of 2010]. The present appeal has been preferred by Defendant No. 4, against the concurrent findings of three Courts arising out of a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs, now represented as respondent Nos. 1 and 2, filed a suit for permanent injunction on 31.7.1971 claiming that Khasra No. 238 measuring 4 Bighas 3 Biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Basai Darapur, Delhi is owned and possessed by them. Earlier, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration challenging the vesting of the said land in Gaon Sabha in a suit filed on 20.7.1959. The said suit was decreed on 7.10.1960 holding that the plaintiffs are owners and Bhumidars of land comprising in Khasra No. 238. The Union of India had filed an application under Section 161-B of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 19541 for setting aside the said decree dated 7.10.1960 but such application was dismissed by Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi on 24.5.1968. Mon, 16 Nov 2020 06:04:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13271 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13271 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3681-3682 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 21326-21327 of 2019]. Leave granted. These appeals take exception to the common Judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1, dated 27.05.2019 in R.S.A. Nos. 2901/2012 and 3881/2012, whereby the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court and decreed the suits of the plaintiff. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in Civil Suit No. 11/2001 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur2. The admitted factual position in the present cases is that one Harbans Singh had married Gurbachan Kaur and fathered Joginder Kaur (plaintiff - now deceased) in the wedlock. After the demise of Gurbachan Kaur, Harbans Singh married Piar Kaur and in that wedlock, he fathered Gurdial Singh (defendant No. 3), Rattan Singh (defendant No. 4), Narinder Pal Singh (defendant No. 5) and Surjit Singh (defendant No. 6). Mon, 16 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13270 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13270 Pending the appeals against the final order passed by Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'TDSAT'), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'TRAI'), which is the appellant in the appeals, has come up with this application for an interim direction to the respondents to disclose information/details sought by the appellant regarding segmented offers. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General for the applicant/appellant namely TRAI, Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned senior counsel for respondent. Fri, 06 Nov 2020 06:08:34 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13269 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13269 [Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 444 of 2020 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10686 of 2020]. While the Contempt Petition arises out of an order passed by this Court on 16.07.2019 by consent of parties in SLP(Crl)No.10686 of 2018, the Special Leave Petition arises out of an interim order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, staying the trial of a criminal complaint, during the pendency of a criminal petition arising out of an order of the Trial court refusing to reopen and recall PW1 to PW4. We have heard Mr. Marlapalle, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Fri, 06 Nov 2020 06:04:13 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13268 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13268 Leave granted. The appellant is aggrieved by indefinite order of blacklisting dated 08.09.2009. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, only on the ground of delay, as having been preferred ten years later. Ms. Shobha Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that it holds a valid licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Drugs Act') in Form 28 (Rule 76) issued by the Drugs Control Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh. M/s Palak Pharmaceuticals Private Limited had obtained supplies from the appellant in the year 2007, and in turn had supplied it to the respondent under a tender notice dated 04.10.2006. The label 'XYO701' on the injection was an inadvertent human error. The brand name of the medicine was correctly mentioned as "OXY125". The composition of the medicine was also correctly mentioned as "Oxytetracycline IP Vet 125 mg". The generic word "Hcl" was only missing on the label, and it was written as "OXYTETRACYCLINE INJ. I.P. VET" in place of "OXYTETRACYCLINE HCL INJ. I.P. VET". It was therefore a case of bonafide inadvertent printing error which resulted in misbranding. The product was not substandard or spurious veterinary medicine. Fri, 06 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13265 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13265 [Writ Petition (C) No. 560 of 2020]. This Writ petition filed in the public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks direction to forthwith ban on spraying of all kinds of disinfectants on human beings which is being done supposedly for protecting the human beings from the Novel Coronavirus disease 2019(Covid19). The World Health Organisation(WHO) declared novel coronavirus disease, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Covid19) as a Pandemic on 11.03.2020. All countries including India after spread of the pandemic had taken and are still taking different measures to contain the disease and protect its citizens from Covid19. On 29.03.2020, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, released guidelines on disinfection of common Public places including Offices. The scope as contained in the guidelines is to the following effect: " Scope: This document aims to provide interim guidance about the environmental cleaning/decontamination of common public places including offices in areas reporting COVID19. Coronavirus Disease 2019(COVID19) is an acute respiratory disease caused by a novel Cornavirus (SARSCoV2), transmitted in most instances through respiratory droplets, direct contact with cases and also through contaminated surfaces/objects. Thu, 05 Nov 2020 06:16:21 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13264 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13264 [Civil Appeal No. 3441 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12381 of 2020 Diary No. 46087 of 2019]. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court of 19.7.2019, whereby it was held that Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 20021 mandating the District Magistrate to deliver possession of a secured asset within 30 days, extendable to an aggregate of 60 days upon reasons recorded in writing, is a directory provision. The High Court held as under: "18. The primary question in these Writ Petitions, namely, whether the time limits in section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are mandatory or directory should be answered in light of the principles enumerated above. As stated above, the object and purpose of the said time limit is to ensure that such applications are decided expeditiously so as to enable secured creditors to take physical possession quickly and realise their dues. Thu, 05 Nov 2020 06:12:52 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13263 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13263 [Civil Appeal No. 3630 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18375 of 2018]. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed questioning the Division Bench judgment of Patna High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1265 of 2017 dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal of the appellant. Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 04.08.2017 by which Writ Petition No.5999 of 2014 filed by her late husband in which she was substituted after death of her husband was dismissed by learned Single Judge on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Brief facts of the case for deciding this appeal are: 3.1 The husband of the appellant Shri Bashishtha Narayan Mishra was employed in Coal India Limited. He was working at Moira Colliery, Bankola Area, District Burdwan, West Bengal. Ministry of Coal, Government of India in exercise of power under Section 3E of Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 and in supersession of the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971 notified a Family Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 dated 05.03.1998. Thu, 05 Nov 2020 06:08:34 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13262 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13262 [Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3585 of 2020]. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on 20.7.2020 whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 for quashing the charge-sheet as well as the summoning order dated 25.6.2020 was dismissed. The FIR No. 173 in question was lodged by the respondent No. 2 on 11.12.2019 at 23:24 hours in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on 10.12.2019 at 10:00 hours against the appellants and others. The FIR was lodged for the offences under Sections 452, 504, 506 and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19892. The said FIR, when translated, reads as under: Respected SHO with respect of registering of FIR, the complainant is presently resident of Gram New Bajeti Patti Chandak Tehsil & District Pithoragarh. I am constructing my house on my Khet No. 6195, 6196 & 6199 but Banshilal, Pyarelal S/o Late Har Lal, Hitesh Verma S/o Sh. Pyarelal, Pawan Verma S/o Banshilal, Uma Verma w/o Pyarelal and their Nepali Domestic help Raju from past 6 months are not allowing the applicant to work on her fields. Thu, 05 Nov 2020 06:04:46 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13261 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13261 [Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 578 of 2020]. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur on 9.1.2020 whereby the revision filed by Shri Nirmal Sen, appellant/Nominated Officer (Incharge) of the Hindustan Unilever Limited1, was allowed, however the matter was remitted back to the trial court to revisit the evidence adduced by both the parties, so far it relates to the appellants, Nirmal Sen and the Company. The operative part of the order reads thus: If the company-Hindustan Lever Limited is acquitted of the charges, the said benefit will also directly go to the applicant. In view whereof, this Court finds a glaring and patent defect in the judgment of the trial Court as well as in the judgment of the appellate Court, thus, this Court, in these premises, finds it fit to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401(1) of Cr.P.C., hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the applicant being a nominated person of the company and remitted back the matter to the trial Court for passing fresh judgment considering the company-Hindustan Lever Limited that had already been arrayed as an accused along with the applicant. Thu, 05 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13260 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13260 [Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9503 of 2018]. Leave granted. The present Criminal Appeal arises out of an application for Interim Maintenance filed in a petition u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. by the Respondent-wife and minor son. The Respondent No.1-wife left the matrimonial home in January 2013, shortly after the birth of the son-Respondent No.2. On 02.09.2013, the wife filed an application for interim maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of herself and the minor son. The Family Court vide a detailed Order dated 24.08.2015 awarded interim maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month to the Respondent No.1-wife from 01.09.2013; and Rs.5,000 per month as interim maintenance for the Respondent No.2-son from 01.09.2013 to 31.08.2015; and @ Rs. 10,000 per month from 01.09.2015 onwards till further orders were passed in the main petition. The Appellant-husband challenged the Order of the Family Court vide Criminal Writ Petition No.875/2015 filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition vide Order dated 14.08.2018, and affirmed the Judgment passed by the Family Court. Wed, 04 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13267 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13267 [Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28150 of 2017]. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Review Petition No.465 of 2015 in First Appeal No.241 of 2005, by which the High Court has allowed the said review petition filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 hereinoriginal defendants nos. 1 and 2, and has reviewed the judgment and order dated 10.12.2013 passed in First Appeal No.241 of 2005 and has deleted the observations made in para 20 of the said judgment and order more particularly with respect to the observations made in para 20 as regards the possession of the disputed house, which were in favour of the appellants the original plaintiffs, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. Tue, 03 Nov 2020 06:16:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13258 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13258 [Civil Appeal Nos. 4883-4884 of 2017]. These civil appeals are filed, by the plaintiffs in the Original Suit No. 107/2010, pending on the file of Civil Judge (J.D.) Saidpur, Gazipur, aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2013, passed in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 37415/2013 and 37416 of 2013. The writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 37415/2013, filed before High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, was directed against the order dated 22.02.2013, passed by the Trial Court on an Application No. 97-C in O.S. No. 107/2010 and the order of the Revisional Court dated 02.07.2013, passed in Revision No. 85/2013, passed by the District Judge, Gazipur. W.P. (C) No. 37416/2013 was filed against the order dated 10.05.2013, in the same suit, passed on Application No. 109-C, as confirmed by the Revisional Court in Civil Revision No.82/2013 vide order dated 02.07.2013. The appellants herein are plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No. 107/2010, filed on the file of Civil Judge (J.D.) Saidpur. In the said suit, the appellants have questioned the adoption deed, executed by late Sudama Singh, who was father of the first plaintiff executed in favor of defendant no.1 registered before Sub-Registrar, Jakhaniya, District Gazipur. Tue, 03 Nov 2020 06:12:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13257 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13257 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3603-3605 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10294-10296 of 2020]. Leave granted. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 17.08.2020 in Writ Petition Nos.726 of 2020, 8377 of 2020 and 9557 of 2020. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment has allowed Writ Petition Nos. 8377 and 9557 of 2020. The State of Tamil Nadu aggrieved by the impugned judgment has come up in these appeals. The brief facts of the case to be noted for deciding these appeals are: The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board is a statutory body governed by the Waqf Act, 1995. The term of earlier Waqf Board expired on 14.06.2017 and thereafter the State of Tamil Nadu reconstituted Tamil Nadu Waqf Board by order dated 10.10.2017. Tue, 03 Nov 2020 06:08:41 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13256 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13256 [Criminal Appeal No. 1648 of 2019]. The appellants Rajesh alias Sarkari and Ajay Hooda have been convicted, together with a co-accused1 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the India Penal Code2 and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. On 26 December 2006, a ruqqa3 was received at the Police Post, PGIMS from PGIMS, Rohtak about Sandeep Hooda, son of Azad Singh Hooda, having been brought dead there. ASI, Meha Singh met Azad Singh, the complainant, at the emergency ward in PGIMS, Rohtak. Azad Singh made a statement which was reduced into writing upon which a First Information Report4 being FIR No. 781 was registered under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code5 at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak. The complainant stated that his elder son Sandeep was studying in the final year of the LLB degree course in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak6. On 26 December 2006, Sandeep had gone to the law department in the University to prepare for the exams. Tue, 03 Nov 2020 06:04:36 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13255 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13255 [Civil Appeal No. 3602 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8343 of 2020]. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Appeal No. 278 of 2019, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 19261 of 2016, by which the learned single Judge allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and directed the appellant Bank to allow the respondent herein - original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon as per the appointment order dated 03.10.2016, the employer - Punjab National Bank has preferred the present appeal. Applications were invited by the appellant Bank for the post of Peon by publishing an advertisement in the local newspaper. Tue, 03 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13254 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13254 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985]. In this appeal, the appellant New Delhi Municipal Council is assailing the order dated 18.12.2018 in OA.No.1047/2018 and the order dated 18.01.2019 passed on Review Application No.12/2019 in OA.No.1047/2018 by which the application filed by the appellant seeking direction to the Transport Authority to register the water tanker/trucks for essential services was rejected. In the pending appeal an application in I.A.No.61047/2020 is also filed by the appellant seeking that the Transport Department of GNCTD be directed to register 20 number of BSIV Compliant Diesel driven water tankers purchased by the appellant. This appeal is filed by the Delhi Cantonment Board assailing the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the NGT in M.A.No.160/2019, MA.No.167/2019 and MA.No.171/2019 in OA.No.21/2014 dismissing the application filed by the appellant seeking to direct the Transport Department to register the water tankers purchased by the appellant which are BSIV Compliant diesel vehicles purchased on 31.10.2018. Mon, 02 Nov 2020 06:12:14 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13266 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13266 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 763-764 of 2016]. These appeals by Special Leave challenge the common judgment and order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2015 and Criminal Confirmation Case No.1 of 2015 affirming the judgment and ord+er dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Trial Courtin Special Case (POCSO Act) No.11 of 2013 and confirming the Death Sentence awarded to the Appellant on two counts i.e. under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) and under Section 376A of IPC. The victim in the present case was a girl of two and half years of age and the First Information Report was lodged at 09.25 p.m. on 11.02.2013 by her father with Parwa Police Station, Yavatmal as under:- "By coming to the Police Station, I lodge an oral report that since one year I am residing with my family at Zatala. I have two daughters and one son. The victim, aged 2 years is my daughter No.-2. I reside in the neighbourhood of my father-in-law. Mon, 02 Nov 2020 06:08:34 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13259 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13259 [Civil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020 @ Civil Appeal Diary No. 9796/2019]. These appeals under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the CP Act") are directed against the common judgement and order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") in Consumer Case Nos.3011, 3012, 3013, 3014, 3015, 3016, 3017, 3018, 3019 and 3020 of 2017. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid Consumer Cases are almost identical and for the present purposes the facts leading to the filing of Consumer Case No.3011 of 2017 are set out in detail and the appeal arising therefrom is taken as the lead appeal. The connected appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Commission in Consumer Case No.1605 of 2017 and raises same issues of fact and law. Delay in filing these appeals is condoned. Mon, 02 Nov 2020 06:04:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13253 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13253 [Civil Appeal No. 6264 of 2013]. The West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 contemplates, in substance, return of land to a small landholder in a situation such a landholder conveys the same to raise funds to tide over financially distressed condition. For restoration of the conveyed land, the concerned landholder is required to make an application to the authority prescribed under the said statute. We shall refer to that statute henceforth as the 1973 Act. This legislation lays down certain parameters within which a landholder ought to come to invoke the provisions relating to restoration of the land already conveyed by him. The nature of land to which the said Act applies is defined in Section 2 (2) of 1973 Act. Under the said provision, land means agricultural land and includes homestead, tank, well and water channel. To be eligible for the protective umbrella of this statute, the aggregate holding of the transferor cannot exceed two hectares. Mon, 02 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13252 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13252 [Civil Appeal No. 3564/2020 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 11626/2020]. Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments - an aspect repeatedly emphasized by this Court. The problem is compounded where the result is known but not the reasons. This deprives any aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal in the next tier of judicial scrutiny. A Constitution Bench of this Court as far back as in the year 1983 in the State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi - 1984 (1) SCC 596 drew the attention of the High Courts to the serious difficulties which were caused on account of a practice which was increasingly being adopted by several High Courts, that of pronouncing the final orders without a reasoned judgment. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: "30. We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment. Thu, 29 Oct 2020 06:20:52 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13251 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13251 [Criminal Appeal No. 1392 of 2011]. The present Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 15.2.2008 of the Chhattisgarh High Court, whereby the Criminal Appeal No.513/2002 was disposed of upholding the conviction of the appellant in terms of the conclusion reached by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar (hereinafter referred to as, "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No.149/2001. The trial Court convicted the appellant and co-accused Jagan Ram, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each and for the conviction under Sections 201/34 IPC three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each was ordered. The co-accused Jagan Ram was however acquitted by the High Court. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.6.2001 at 1900 hours when the deceased Laxman was returning from Tamta market to Pandripani village, the appellant Chunthuram and the co-accused Jagan Ram assaulted him with axe and stick, and Laxman died on the spot. Thu, 29 Oct 2020 06:16:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13250 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13250 [Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2013]. These Appeals and Special Leave Petitions arise by virtue of a reference order of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC 31. The facts in that appeal have been set out in that judgment in some detail, and need not be repeated by us. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court recorded that the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013 had challenged his conviction primarily on three grounds, as follows: The conviction is based solely on the purported confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act which has no evidentiary value inasmuch as: The statement was given to and recorded by an officer who is to be treated as "police officer" and is thus, hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. No such confessional statement could be recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. This provision empowers to call for information and not to record such confessional statements. Thus, the statement recorded under this provision is akin to the statement under Section 161 CrPC. Thu, 29 Oct 2020 06:12:45 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13245 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13245 [Transfer Petition (Civil) No(s). 1034 of 2020]. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has filed the above Transfer Petitions under Article 139 (A) read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India seeking transfer of the Writ Petitions filed before High Courts to this Court. By a Notification dated 15.11.2019, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India in exercise of its power conferred under Section 1(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 brought into force the following provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 insofar as they related to 'personal guarantors to corporate debtors' with effect from 01.12.2019: - i. Clause (e) of Section 2; ii. Section 78 (except with regard to fresh start process) and Sections 79; iii. Sections 94 to 187 (both inclusive); iv. Clause (g) to Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 239 v. Clause (m) to Clause (zc) of sub-section (2) of Section 239; vi. Clause (zn) to Clause (zs) of sub-section (2) of Section 240; and vii. Section 249. Thu, 29 Oct 2020 06:08:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13242 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13242 [Civil Appeal No. 2535 of 2020]. The present appeal arises out of an order of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, dated 06.11.2019, in which the NGT states: "In view of order dated 14.10.2019 in O.A. No. 71 of 2019, Sanjeev SJ, President, Environmental Protection and Research Council v. State of Kerala, no separate order is necessary in this matter as the issue raised can be gone into in the course of EIA study in the said matter. The application is disposed of." Mrs. Anitha Shenoy, learned senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant/PIL-Petitioner states that the order dated 14.10.2010 dealt with a completely different matter, namely, Original Application No.71 of 2019, which was concerned with a challenge to the environmental clearance granted to one Dragon Stone Reality Private Limited. This clearance was in respect of an area of 9.75 acres of the Veli-Akkulam Wetland. As against this, the present Execution Application No.39 of 2019 arises out of an Original Application No.875 of 2018, which is in respect of violations with regard to 19.73 acres of the Veli-Akkulam Wetland. Thu, 29 Oct 2020 06:04:46 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13241 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13241 [Civil Appeal No. 3340 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 30763 of 2019]. This appeal is from a judgment dated 24 April 2019 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The respondent, who was a police constable, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge his dismissal from service after a disciplinary enquiry. A Single Judge of the High Court, by a judgment dated 1 February 2018, dismissed the petition. The Division Bench reversed the judgment and concluded that there is no evidence in the disciplinary enquiry to sustain the finding that the respondent committed a murder while on leave from duty. Independently, he has also been acquitted in a Sessions trial on the charge of murder. The Division Bench granted the respondent reinstatement in service with no back wages for the seventeen years that elapsed since his termination. The State comes in appeal. In 1992, the respondent was appointed as a Constable in the police service of Rajasthan. On 13 August 2002, he proceeded on leave and had to report back on duty on 16 August 2002. Thu, 29 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13240 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13240 [Civil Appeal No. 3559 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12910/2020 Diary No. 8161 of 2020]. Leave granted. The present Appeal arises out of a Guardianship Petition filed by the Respondentfather under Section 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of the minor childAditya Vikram Kansagra, before the District Courts, Saket, New Delhi. The Appellantmother Smriti is an Indian citizen, who was a practicing lawyer prior to her marriage to the RespondentPerry, in New Delhi. The Respondentfather Perry is of Indian origin, and Gujrati descent, whose family shifted to Kenya and settled there since the last three generations, when his grandfather migrated in 1935. Perry and his family have been settled in Kenya, where they have established a vast business establishment in Kenya and U.K., and Perry holds a dual citizenship of Kenya and the U.K. Prior to marriage, Smriti and her mother visited Kenya for a week to see the place, and satisfy themselves of the family background, social and financial status, and lifestyle of Perry and his family. Wed, 28 Oct 2020 06:08:16 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13244 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13244 [Civil Appeal No. 12202 of 2018]. An ideological battle often rages between preservation of environment and economic development. Mining activity and the manner in which it is carried on has had its proponents and opponents. Its necessity as an input for economic development is recognised but mining activity throughout our country for minerals or sands has had a troubled history on account of large-scale violations. This has also resulted in a ban on mining activity in certain areas at certain times - not the ideal method, but leaving little option open because of the rampant misuse of the licences to mine. The present litigation, in a sense, flows from the concern to regulate mining activity in eco-sensitive areas. The fact flow of the present case shows that what we are faced with today has its seeds in prior litigation and orders passed in the past in the interest of ecology, yet some persons who had succeeded in the initial battle to carry out mining activity are faced with the consequences of orders passed in other litigations. It is this conundrum, which would have to be resolved by this Court. Wed, 28 Oct 2020 06:04:53 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13239 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13239 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3544-45 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 21049-21050 of 2019]. These appeals arise from a judgment dated 11 July 2019 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. The appellant and the respondent got married on 4 February 2009. Their child, Sattik, was born on 9 May 2013. There are serious differences between the spouses and they have been living apart since 2016. The appellant submits that she has been compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to domestic violence and abuse. The appellant instituted a petition on 6 October 2016, under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 seeking a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The divorce proceedings are pending before the Family Court, Bengaluru (MC No. 4484 of 2016). The appellant also instituted an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, which is pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru (Crl. Misc. No. 228 of 2016). The appellant is in the employment of Nike Global Trading since 2011 and has been posted in Singapore in September 2017. Wed, 28 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13237 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13237 [Civil Appeal No(s). 3413 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No(s). 18360 of 2019]. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27th June, 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.22137 of 2019 wherein the High Court while reversing the finding returned by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 16th April, 2019, upheld the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 23rd March, 2018 quashing the demand notice dated 14th June, 2017 served on the respondents (borrower) under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act") followed with the possession notices dated 09th November, 2017 and 10th November, 2017. Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:04:23 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13236 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13236 [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 296 of 2020]. The petitioners and all the intervening applicants in these matters have raised concern with regard to the manner in which a 19 years old girl hailing from Hathras, Uttar Pradesh is alleged to have been raped, brutally assaulted; due to which she lost her life and also the manner in which she was cremated. The Writ Petition (Crl) No.296/2020 was initially taken on board by this Court and notice was ordered to the respondents returnable in a week. In the meanwhile, the remaining petitions and the applications were filed in respect of the same incident to seek for varied reliefs which are all ultimately in pursuit of a fair investigation and bring to justice the culprits. Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13235 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13235 [Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2333 of 2020]. Leave granted. The judgment dated 21.11.2019 passed in Crl. O.P. No. 9750 of 2019 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras is called into question in this appeal. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: The Appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2018 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 23(c), 25A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act'). After completion of 180 days from the remand date, that is, 31.01.2019, the Appellant (Accused No.11) filed application for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') on 01.02.2019 before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the NDPS Act, Chennai ('Trial Court') on the ground that the investigation was not complete and chargesheet had not yet been filed. Accordingly, on 05.02.2019, the Trial Court granted the order of bail in Crl. M.P. No. 131 of 2019 in R.R. No. 09/2017 pending before the said court. Mon, 26 Oct 2020 06:16:29 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13234 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13234 [Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of 2013]. Heard over video conferencing. These Criminal Appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 28.08.2012, by which the appellants' acquittal under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act") was reversed and a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 1,00,000 each was awarded. The facts giving rise to both the appeals are common. On 09.01.2002, at about 1.00 P.M., a police team led by ASI Purushottam Dutt (PW8) and also comprising Constable Sunder Singh (PW1), Constable Bhup Singh (PW2) and Constable Bhopal Singh (PW7) were checking traffic at Shamshar when a motorcycle without a number plate was spotted. Gulshan Rana (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1126 of 2019) was driving the vehicle and Rajesh Dhiman (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of 2013) was seated on the pillion with a backpack slung over his shoulders. Mon, 26 Oct 2020 06:12:41 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13233 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13233 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3539-3540 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11769-11770 of 2020]. The Writ Petition was filed by the First Respondent in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, challenging the settlement of FL 5 Shop Pithoragarh No.1 B in favour of the Appellant. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the First Respondent does not have locus standi. Questioning the legality and validity of the judgment, the First Respondent filed a special appeal. A Division Bench of the High Court stayed the operation and execution of the settlement of FL 5 Shop Pithoragarh No.1 B in favour of the Appellant herein until further orders. The Appellant filed an application to vacate the interim order, which was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant approached this Court by filing the above appeals. Sh. Balkar Singh was allotted the licence for a foreign liquor shop at Pithoragarh on 23.03.2020 by the District Level Allotment Committee for the period from01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021. As the shop was not being operated from 06.05.2020, Sh. Balkar Singh was directed to open the shop. He submitted an application on 12.05.2020 requesting for cancellation of the allotment of the shop. Mon, 26 Oct 2020 06:08:35 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13232 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13232 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 2187-88 of 2011]. These Criminal Appeals have been heard over videoconferencing. The appellant, Raveen Kumar, challenges the judgment dated 23.04.2010 and the order dated 18.05.2010 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, whereby his acquittal under Section 20 of the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act") was reversed and a sentence of twoyears rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000 was instead imposed. Briefly put, the prosecution case is that on 01.11.1994 at around 3:30 P.M., a police party while conducting traffic checks for suspected ammunition near the HPJ& K border at Surangani, stopped a Maruti van which was being driven by the appellant. The police in the course of rummaging found that the van was loaded with tins of ghee, a bag of maize, 20 bottles of honey, rajmah, angithi, thermos, stepney and some other miscellaneous articles. Mon, 26 Oct 2020 06:04:16 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13231 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13231 [Civil Appeal No. 3518 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9286 of 2020]. Leave granted. The grievance of the Appellant is the non-implementation of reservation for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidates in medical seats contributed by the State of Tamil Nadu to the All India Quota. The Appellant and several others filed writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Madras for a direction to the Respondents to implement reservation for OBC candidates in the medical seats surrendered to the All India Quota by the State of Tamil Nadu. The writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court by a judgment dated 27.07.2020. The High Court observed that there is no legal or constitutional impediment for extending the benefit of reservation to the Other Backward Class candidates in the State surrendered All India Quota seats of the under-graduate and postgraduate medical courses in the State-run medical colleges within the State of Tamil Nadu. However, the High Court was of the opinion that implementation of the reservation should be after a joint deliberation between the Central Government, Medical Council of India and the State Government. Mon, 26 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13230 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13230 [Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos. 534-536 of 2019]. The present petitions are filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the CrPC") read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules seeking transfer of three criminal cases pending before different courts in Dehradun to competent courts in Delhi or some other courts outside the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Kapil Sibal, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner apprehends threat to his life and will be prejudiced in conducting his defense in the courts at Dehradun. The basic premise for such apprehension is that on account of his work as an investigative journalist against the Ruling dispensation, the State is targeting the petitioner for vindictive prosecution. It is pointed out that as a journalist the petitioner has conducted sting operations against the Chief Minister, his relatives and associates in the State of Uttarakhand and therefore he is being targeted for malicious prosecution within the State. Fri, 16 Oct 2020 06:08:14 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13222 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13222 [Civil Appeal No. 3493/2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10943/2020]. Leave granted. The parties were heard finally in these appeals. The common question which arises for decision is as to the correct interpretation of a condition in the respondent-University's statutes regarding the date of superannuation of its teachers. All the appellants are working as Professors in various disciplines, in the respondent Kumaun University (hereafter "the University"). They are aggrieved by an office order dated 21.12.2019 which set out their respective dates of retirement (which were the last dates in the months they attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 65 years). The appellants relied on Statute No. 16.24 of the University, applicable to them, contending that they were entitled to continue beyond the last date of the month in which each of them attained the age of superannuation, till the "30th of June following" in terms of that provision. Fri, 16 Oct 2020 06:04:43 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13221 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13221 [Civil Appeal No. 3498 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 5136 of 2020]. Leave granted. An e-tender notice was issued on 06.01.2018 by the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation ("Corporation") for unloading/loading of foodgrains/fertilizer bags from/into railway wagons, trucks etc., stacking the foodgrains/fertilizers in bags, bagging, weighment, standardisation, cleaning of foodgrains/fertilizers etc. and transporting of foodgrains/fertilizers etc. from Railway Station to Corporation godowns or vice versa or transporting them from any place to any other place for the Vindhyachal (Mirzapur) Region. Ten days later i.e. on 16.01.2018, the said tender was cancelled by the Corporation due to "administrative reasons". On 01.04.2018, an e-tender was again published in the same terms, and so far as the region Vindhyachal (Mirzapur) is concerned, it was for the "appointment of Handling and Transport Contractor for food grain in FCI and alleged material etc." Fri, 16 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13220 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13220 [Civil Appeal No. 2483 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1048 of 2020]. Leave granted. This appeal raises important questions of law pertaining to the interpretation and working of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2005"). This appeal has been filed by Satish Chander Ahuja, the plaintiff questioning the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 18.12.2019 in RFA No.381/2019 by which judgment Delhi High Court has set aside the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff dated 08.04.2019 under Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory and permanent injunction. The High Court after setting aside the decree of the Trial Court has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with the directions given by the High Court. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has come up in this appeal. Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:16:34 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13225 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13225 [Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 9217 of 2020]. The Special Leave Petition has been filed with a delay of 663 days! The explanation given in the application for condonation of delay is set out in paragraphs 3 and 4. We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as it appears that all our counseling to Government and Government authorities have fallen on deaf ears i.e., the Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed. We have raised the issue that if the Government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for Government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so. Till the Statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the Statues prescribed. Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:12:14 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13224 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13224 [Civil Appeal No. 3489 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 95 of 2020]. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim Order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1924 of 2019, the original respondent Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. has preferred the present appeal. That the respondent No. 1 herein was appointed as Computer Operator on contractual basis. Respondent No. 1 - original petitioner filed the writ petition before the High Court for grant of regular payscale and to regularize his services on the ground that he is serving the appellant Corporation for the last three years. It was the specific case on behalf of the appellant Corporation that respondent No. 1 was never appointed by the appellant Corporation and there was no employeremployee relationship between respondent No. 1 and the appellant Corporation. Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:08:42 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13219 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13219 [Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4337/2020]. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, by which the respondent has been granted interim bail on medical grounds for a period of two months while directing listing of the regular Bail Application No. 5743 of 2019 in the week commencing from 28.09.2020 for hearing. Brief facts of the case necessary to decide this appeal are:- The respondent, a former minister in the State of U.P. is an accused in case Crime No.29 of 2017 under Sections 376(D)/376/511/ 504/506 of I.P.C. read with Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Gautam Palli, District Lucknow. Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:04:26 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13218 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13218 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 681-682 of 2020 arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 4386-4387/2020]. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 24.06.2020 in Criminal O.P.(MD) No. 6214 of 2020 and order dated 27.07.2020 in Criminal M.P.(MD) No. 3622 of 2020 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, by which the High Court has released the appellant on default bail/statutory bail, on condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/( Rupees Eight Lakhs only) to the credit of crime No. 31 of 2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, the original accused has preferred the present appeals. That the appellant herein was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody on 31.01.2020 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC in Crime No.31 of 2019 on the file of the D.C.B. Police Station, Kanyakumari District. That the appellant herein filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13217 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13217 [Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2020 arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4976/2020]. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 2018, the appellant - original accused has preferred the present appeal. That the appellant herein - original accused was tried by the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "POCSO Act"). That relying upon the deposition of PW3 - victim, who at the relevant time was studying in 5th standard and aged 13 years, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, which is the minimum sentence provided under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:04:52 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13216 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13216 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3438-3439 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 17313-17314 of 2011]. Leave granted. The appellants in these appeals have assailed the final judgment and order dated 07.04.2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 10098 of 2008 along with several other writ petitions including Review Application No. 131 of 2010 and Writ Petition No. 23939 of 2010 filed by the Hospitality Association of Mudumalai. The High Court by the impugned judgment has upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Government Notification G.O.(Ms.) No. 125, dated 31.08.2010 which had notified an 'Elephant Corridor' in the Sigur Plateau of Nilgiris District and has further directed resort owners and other private land owners to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the lands falling within the notified elephant corridor to the District Collector, Nilgiris within three months from the date of the judgment. Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13215 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13215 [Civil Appeal No. 3427 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16491 of 2019]. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2609 of 2018 whereby the High Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants challenging the refusal to entertain an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.') seeking leave of the court to produce additional documents. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit, O.S. No.257 of 2014, on the file of the Principal SubJudge, Pudukottai, and the respondent is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to in their respective positions before the Trial Court. The plaintiff filed the suit for injunction alleging that the defendants are attempting to grab the suit schedule property. Tue, 13 Oct 2020 06:20:12 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13238 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13238 [Civil Appeal No. 1442 of 2016]. The singular question this Court had framed for consideration in this appeal was whether the limitation shall commence from the first sale deed after coming into force of the Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act, 1966 or from any other subsequent sale on the basis of Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This question arises in this proceeding in a situation where the original plaintiff sought to enforce such right after three sale transactions had taken place in the past involving the subject immovable property in the years 1945, 1946 and 1966. The last transaction was effected on 5th November that year, after the 1966 Act had become operational. The factum of the plaintiff's entitlement otherwise claim right of pre-emption in terms of Section 6 of the 1966 Act is not in dispute in this proceeding. In the suit out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption over a transaction effected on 21st January 1974 was resisted on the ground of being barred by limitation. Tue, 13 Oct 2020 06:16:48 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13214 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13214 [I. A. No. 62796 of 2020 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5467-5468 of 2019]. The respondent No.4 to this petition has filed the instant application seeking modification/vacation of the interim order dated 15.02.2019 passed by this Court. Through the order dated 15.02.2019 this Court had directed the parties to maintain statusquo as it existed on that date. The facts in brief limited to the consideration of this application would indicate that the respondent No.3 herein was originally the owner of the property bearing Survey Nos. 91 and 92, Chikkagubbi Village. The respondent No.4 herein had purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dated 26.04.1978. The petitioner herein claiming to be an agricultural tenant in respect of the said property as also certain other properties and further claiming to be in possession and cultivation of the same as on 01.03.1974; which is the appointed date under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 had filed an application in Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the property. The Land Tribunal, Bengaluru, South Taluk considered the same in case bearing No. LRF(B)CJ;12667475. Tue, 13 Oct 2020 06:12:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13213 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13213 [M. A. No. 1260 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 839 of 2020]. While M.A.Nos.1260, 1344, 1345, 1384, 1385, 1386 and 1387 of 2020 are applications filed by the lessees of manganese/iron ore mines, seeking extension of time for the transportation of the mineral alleged to have been mined before 15.03.2018, M.A.No.1625 of 2020 is filed by the Goa Foundation, which was the writ petitioner before the High Court and the first respondent in the Civil Appeals before this Court, praying for certain directions and for a clarification of the judgment delivered by this Court in Civil Appeal No.839 of 2020 dated 30.01.2020. M.A.No.1653 of 2020 is by a person who claims to be one of the lease holders but who was not a party to the Civil Appeals. As the applicant was not a party to the Civil Appeals, he has come up with an application for intervention so as to enable him to seek extension of time for transporting the mineral allegedly extracted on or before 15.03.2018. Tue, 13 Oct 2020 06:08:23 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13212 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13212 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6787-6788 of 2020]. Challenging the interim orders passed in two interlocutory applications, one seeking amendment of pleadings and the other for striking out prayer (c) in the main election petition, the election petitioner has come up with these Special Leave Petitions. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. In the elections held to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly on 28.05.2018, the first respondent was declared elected from Constituency No.154, namely Rajarajeshwari Nagar. The petitioner herein challenged the election of the first respondent by way of an election petition in E.P.No.11 of 2018 before the High Court of Karnataka. Tue, 13 Oct 2020 06:04:42 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13211 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13211 [Civil Appeal No(s). 3419 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10255 of 2020]. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed questioning the Division Bench judgment dated 06.01.2020 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant in the writ petition has prayed for quashing the orders dated 14.09.2018, 18.07.2018 and 21.09.2019 by which appellant has been held not suitable for being appointed to the post of District Judge (Entry Level). The brief facts of the case are: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement dated 09.03.2017 inviting applications for recruitment in the post of District Judge(Entry Level) in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service by Direct Recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates. In pursuance to the advertisement, the appellant submitted online application form. The appellant after being declared successful in the Main Examination was called for interview. Tue, 13 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13210 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13210 [Civil Appeal No. 2850 of 2020]. The competing interests of post-graduates having the degree of M.A. (Education) and M.Ed. has given rise to a spate of litigation, and the present dispute flows from this. There are judicial precedents dealing with this issue, but in a relevant factual context. Further, there has been, to some extent, a pendulum swing in the stand of the concerned authorities in analysing this controversy based upon inputs from experts. The origination of the dispute is Advertisement No. 46, which was issued by respondent No. 2, the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Selection Commission (for short 'UPHESSC') in March, 2014 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors in various subjects, including 'Education'. The candidature of appellant No. 2 was rejected on the ground that he did not fulfill the minimum criteria set out by the University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC'), respondent No. 4, although he had an M.Ed. Degree. This caused the said appellant to approach the High Court by filing Writ-A No. 61 of 2015. Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:12:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13209 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13209 [Civil Appeal No. 13516 of 2015]. This appeal arises from a suit for specific performance that was filed by the appellant against four defendants who are today represented by the respondents. By an agreement to sell dated 12.06.1980 entered into between the appellant company and P. Nagarathina Mudaliar, P. Gopirathnam, P. Lavakumar, and P. Basantkumar, the agreement recites: "Whereas the property more particularly described in the Schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the said property, originally belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of Sri P. Nagarathina Mudaliar and his father Sri P. Thiruvengada Mudaliar; Whereas there was a partial partition in the said family as a result of which, the first vendor has become the owner of the said property, said deed of partition having been registered with the Sub-Registrar, Madras-Chingleput, as Document No. 1268 of 1944. Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:08:36 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13208 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13208 [Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2933 of 2020]. Leave granted. In an F.I.R dated 18.11.2018, involving Sections 302, 307, 452, 427, 341, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, it was stated as follows: "I am a resident of above address and doing the business of furniture at Nehru Complex, Amritsar. I do my religious services in the Nirankari Bhawan at Rajasansi every Sunday. Today, i.e, on 18.11.2018, Satsang was going on at Satsang Bhawan, where about 200 Satsangis were present. At about 11.30 a.m., I along with my companion Gagandeep Singh son of Balwinder Singh, resident of Gumtala, was doing the duty of a Security Guard on the main gate, when two young boys came there on a Pulsar Motor Cycle without number of Black shade. Out of them, one had worn Jean and Jacket and was having turban on his head and he has muffled his face with a cloth of check. Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:04:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13207 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13207 [Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015]. These two appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the High Court1 dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the appellants challenging the order of conviction against them whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. One of the accused- appellant, Inderjeet Singh, was also held guilty and convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. Accused-appellant, Inderjeet Singh, was also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 27 of the Arms Act and this sentence was to run concurrently with the sentence already awarded to him under Section 302 IPC. In brief the prosecution case is that on 03.08.1990, on receipt of DD No. 18-A, SI Joginder Singh along with SI Gian Singh, Constable Jai Singh and Constable Narender Pal reached Sukhdev Market on the street which goes to Qumayun Restaurant, where near House No. H-801 a crowd was gathered and they came to know that injured had been removed to AIIMS in a PCR vehicle. Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13206 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13206 [Civil Appeal No. 3397 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10652 of 2020]. Leave granted. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 20 March 2020 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. On 5 August 2014, a proposal for obtaining a policy of insurance was submitted to the appellants by Kulwant Singh. The proposal form indicated the name of the mother of the proposer, who is the respondent to these proceedings as the nominee. The proposal form contained questions pertaining to the health and medical history of the proposer and required a specific disclosure on whether any ailment, hospitalization or treatment had been undergone by the proposer. Column 22 required a declaration of good health. The proposer answered the queries in the negative, indicating thereby that he had not undergone any medical treatment or hospitalization and was not suffering from any ailment or disease. The declaration under Item 22(c) of the proposal form was in regard to whether any diseases or disorders of the respiratory system such as but not limited to blood in sputum, tuberculosis, asthma, infected respiratory disease or any respiratory system disease including frequent nose bleeding, fever and dyspnoea were involved. Fri, 09 Oct 2020 06:12:46 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13223 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13223 [Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2011]. This Appeal has been preferred by 5 accused, namely, Karulal(A-5), Amra(A-6), Kachru(A-7), Suratram(A-8) and Bhagirath(A-9). They challenge the judgment and order dated 23.6.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.1637 of 1999 whereby, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench approved the conviction of the appellants under Section 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and the resultant sentence for such conviction ordered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur (hereinafter referred to as, "the learned Trial Court"). The prosecution case is that at about 8-8.30AM Madhavji the deceased, was present in his fields on 18.8.1993 and his son Bhawarlal (PW3) was grazing cattle nearby. Bhawarlal suddenly heard his father cry out and saw that Amra, Kachru, Karu, Surtaram, Lalu (who is now dead) and Bhagirath were attacking his father with axe, sword, farsa, lathi, etc. On hearing commotion, Shyambai (PW 13), daughter of the deceased, and Bhawarlal (PW9) son of Kaniram and Babulal (PW12), also reached the spot. Fri, 09 Oct 2020 06:08:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13205 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13205 [Civil Appeal No. 3345/2020]. These appeals were heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The appellants are aggrieved by a decision of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which upset the findings of a learned Single Judge of that High Court, who found that the change of seat matrix for admission to post graduate (PG) medical and dental seats in colleges in the State of Rajasthan, for the academic year 2020-21, by eliminating the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) quota was unsustainable in law. The appellants were admitted pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, who had ruled that the deletion of such quota was contrary to law. Fri, 09 Oct 2020 06:04:35 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13204 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13204 [Contempt Petition (C) No. 34/2016]. The dispute is between the two groups - Seth Group and Mittal Group. Both, the Seth Group and Mittal Group entered into a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) dated 4.5.2015, which ultimately was made a part of this Court's order dated 5.5.2015, disposing of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2015 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 11/2015. Noncompliance of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions is the subject matter of the present contempt petition No. 34/2016 initiated by the Seth Group. After considering the rival submissions and the relevant clauses in the MOS dated 4.5.2015 and after considering the obligations of the Seth Group and the obligations of the Mittal Group under MOS dated 4.5.2015 and after having noted and considered the material on record, this Court in the earlier detailed order dated 24.4.2020 specifically held that the Mittal Group have deliberately and wilfully not fulfilled their obligations which are required to be fulfilled under MOS dated 4.5.2015. Fri, 09 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13203 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13203 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 660-662 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 3083-3085 of 2020]. Leave granted. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 21.02.2020 passed by the High Court1 in Interim Application Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2019 (preferred by Dr. Ankita Kailash Khandelwal, Dr. Hema Suresh Ahuja and Dr. Bhakti Arvind Mehare - respectively; who are collectively referred to as the Appellants hereafter) in Criminal Appeal No.911 of 2019. The Interim Applications were preferred by the Appellants seeking relaxation of condition nos.(iii), (iv) and (v) imposed upon them in order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the High Court while granting them bail. Thu, 08 Oct 2020 06:04:16 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13202 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13202 [Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10401 of 2019]. Leave Granted. This appeal arises out of order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the High Court1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.39538 of 2019. On 25.08.2019, the father of the Appellant lodged a Complaint with Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur that he had seen a video of the Appellant on her Facebook account alleging that Respondent No.2 and some others had sexually exploited the Appellant and many other girls; that the Appellant was not contactable; that he was apprehending danger to the Appellant; and that prompt action be taken in the matter. Thereafter, pursuant to a complaint filed by one Mr. Om Singh, Advocate, to the effect that he looked after the legal work of the Ashram run by Respondent No.2; and that an unknown person had threatened that unless Rupees Five Crores were paid, the reputation of Respondent No.2 in the society would be harmed. Said Complaint was immediately registered as FIR No. 442 of 2019. Thu, 08 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13198 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13198 [Criminal Appeal No. 860 of 2019]. By the order dated 17.08.2018, the Special Leave Petition, challenging the judgment dated 20.4.2018 of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, filed by Keshav Ram and Ram Kuber was dismissed, albeit in the case of co-accused Satya Deo@ Bhoorey notice was issued on the plea of juvenility. The impugned judgment had confirmed the conviction of Keshav Ram, Ram Kuber and Satya Deo by the trial court in FIR No. 156/1981 dated 11.12.1981 Police Station Gilaula, Distt. Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh for the offence under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and the order of sentence directing them to undergo imprisonment for life. By order dated 02.05.2019 leave was granted in the case of Satya Deo. By order dated 22.11.2019 the trial court was directed to conduct an inquiry to ascertain if Satya Deo was a juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e. 11.12.1981, on the basis of material which would be placed on record. Wed, 07 Oct 2020 06:08:42 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13201 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13201 [Civil Appeal No. 3282 of 2020]. Our country made tryst with destiny on the midnight hour of 15th August 1947, shedding the colonial yoke. Despite the pain and turbulence of the partition, the best of the legal and political minds assembled together in the Constituent Assembly to give us one of the most elaborate and modern Constitutions. One of the bedrocks of the Constitution of India is the separation of powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. It is the function of the Legislature to legislate, of the Executive to implement the legislation, and of the Judiciary to test the constitutional validity of the legislation, if a challenge is so laid. The Legislature, in its wisdom, enacted the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which has its share of supporters and opponents. The Legislature performed its task. A section of the society, aggrieved by this legislative amendment, has filed petitions before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, assailing the constitutionality and legality of this amendment, which is pending consideration. There is no stay of the legislation for the purpose of record. Wed, 07 Oct 2020 06:04:13 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13200 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13200 [Civil Appeal No. 3334 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3335 of 2019]. On 27 January 2013, a notice was published in the newspapers for filling up 523 vacancies for the post of 'Constable (Executive) - Male' in the Delhi Police. The break-up of vacancies indicated 262 to be unreserved, 142 for OBC candidates, 79 for Scheduled Caste candidates and 40 for those belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. The candidates appeared for a physical endurance and measurement test on 4 October 2013. Upon qualifying at the test, the candidates were allotted roll numbers for appearing in the written examination. Of a total of 50,422 candidates, 39,597 appeared in the written examination which was held on 8 March 2014. This examination was cancelled by the Delhi Police, and a fresh written examination was held on 25 May 2014, which was cancelled as well. Wed, 07 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13199 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13199 [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10482 of 2020]. This special leave to appeal has been filed against the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 06.02.2020 rejecting the Review Petition No. 805 of 2018 filed by the petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 399 of 2014. Brief facts necessary to consider this special leave petition need to be noted. The petitioner was an employee of Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank. Petitioner was suspended and disciplinary inquiry was conducted by the Bank. The Bank vide order dated 20.03.2003 dismissed the petitioner consequent to domestic enquiry. There has been series of litigation between the petitioner and the Bank and thereafter Cooperative Arbitration Court by order dated 18.08.2010 gave award by which punishment of dismissal was modified as reduction to a lower rank. Against the order dated 18.08.2010 both the petitioner as well as the Bank filed Appeal No. 78 of 2010 and No. 81 of 2010 respectively. Mon, 05 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13192 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13192 [Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 3420 of 2020]. Leave granted. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay1 dated 23 July 2020. The High Court, by its order which is in appeal, declined to modify its earlier order dated 19 May 2020 so as to permit the appellant to travel to the US for a period of eight weeks from 25 July 2020 to 6 September 2020. The appellant sought the leave of the High Court to do so since as a Green Card holder, it was mandatory for him to return to the US within a stipulated period of his departure from that country, failing which the conditions for revalidation of the Green Card would not be fulfilled. The High Court declined to relax the conditions imposed by it for the grant of interim bail on the ground that an FIR has been registered against the appellant. Thu, 01 Oct 2020 06:20:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13197 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13197 [Civil Appeal No. 5622 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 33720 of 2018]. This appeal is against an order dated 2nd August, 2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [hereinafter referred to as the 'National Commission'], dismissing Revision Petition No.5 of 2018, filed by the Appellant [hereinafter referred to as the Financier], under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against an order dated 31st August, 2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh [herein after referred to as the 'State Commission'], dismissing Appeal No. 1704 0f 2008 filed by the Financier, and affirming the order dated 22nd August, 2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh [hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'], whereby the District Forum allowed Complaint Case No. 105/2005 filed by the Respondent, Rajesh Kumar Tiwari [hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainant'], and directed the Financier to pay Rs. 2,23,335/- to the Complainant, along with interest at 10% per annum, Rs 10,000/- towards physical and mental injury and Rs 1000/- as litigation expenses. Thu, 01 Oct 2020 06:16:43 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13191 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13191 [Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2011]. This Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 4.3.2010 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereunder, the Criminal Appeal No. 408-SB of 1999 of the convicted appellant was dismissed and the judgment of conviction under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and the consequential sentence of 4 years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- imposed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, was upheld. The appellant along with his parents was charged under sections 304B and 498A read with section 34 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court ordered acquittal of the appellant's parents Dulla Singh and Karnail Kaur. However, even while declaring that there is insufficient material to convict anyone under section 304B & 498A IPC, the trial Court opined that although no charge of abetment was framed against the husband Gurcharan Singh, he can be convicted for abetting suicide of his wife, under section 306 IPC. Thu, 01 Oct 2020 06:12:36 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13190 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13190 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 708 of 2020]. Invoking its powers under Section 5 of the Factories Act, 19481, the State of Gujarat has exempted factories from observing some of the obligations which employers have to fulfil towards the workmen employed by them. The government justifies the action on the ground that industrial employers are faced with financial stringency in the economic downturn resulting from the outbreak of COVID -19. A trade union with a state-wide presence and another with a national presence are before this court in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge the validity of the state's notifications dated 17 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. A nationwide lockdown was declared by the Central Government from 24 March 2020 to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Economic activity came to a grinding halt. Thu, 01 Oct 2020 06:08:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13189 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13189 [Civil Appeal No. 8980 of 2017]. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the legality and correctness of the final judgment and order dated 11.02.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi in FAO(OS)No.450/2009 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 24.07.2009 passed in C.S.(OS)NO(s).647A/ 1998 and 715A/ 1998 whereby the Learned Single Judge had rejected the objections of the appellants and made the Award dated 16.03.1998 the rule of the court. However, vide the impugned judgment the Division Bench reduced the rate of interest from 16% per annum to 9% per annum as applicable to future interest i.e. from the date of the Award, 16.03.1998, till the date of the judgment. This reduction was made subject to the appellants paying the complete decretal amount to the respondents on or before 30.06.2010, failing which the Award along with interest would stand as it is. The appellants are in the business of running of restaurants/eateries and manufacture & sale of sweets and other food items. Thu, 01 Oct 2020 06:04:52 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13188 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13188 [Writ Petition (C) No. of 2020]. Background facts, and relief sought for, in this batch of cases is similar, as such all these cases are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The pandemic situation of COVID19, has adversely affected the economy globally, in several sectors. Our country - India - and civil aviation sector is not an exception to the same. To contain the pandemic situation of COVID19, first lockdown was imposed by the Government of India, from 25th March 2020 to 14th April 2020. In view of such lockdown, a ban on operation of all domestic and international flights was imposed. The lockdown period was further extended upto 03rd May 2020, with the ban continuing on operation of all domestic and international flights. There was an issue of refund of air fare during the lockdown period, when domestic and international flights' operation was suspended. Thu, 01 Oct 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13187 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13187 [Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 456 of 2019]. Seeking transfer of three criminal cases, all pending on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, Haryana, to any competent Court in New Delhi, a person who is implicated as one of the accused in those three cases has come up with the above transfer petitions. I have heard Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Deepak Thukral, learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana and Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein. The petitioner herein was appointed on 04.08.2016 as the Group Chief Risk OfficerExecutive Director of the second respondent, which is a nonbanking finance company and which happens to be the de facto complainant in the criminal cases whose transfer is what is sought in these petitions. Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:12:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13186 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13186 [Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2012]. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.") by the Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur, has been affirmed by the High Court, sentencing them to life imprisonment along with fine and a default stipulation. Thus, the present appeal by the appellants. The prosecution alleged that the two deceased, Abdul Motin and Abdul Barek were assaulted on 05.08.2005 at about 06.00 PM while they were returning from the market on bicycles along with others. Abdul Barek died on the spot. Abdul Motin died in the hospital during the course of treatment the same night. Originally there were five named accused persons. Accused nos.3 and 5 have been acquitted giving them the benefit of doubt. We are not informed of any appeal preferred against their acquittals. Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:08:16 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13185 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13185 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7369 of 2019]. These petitions, which were heard through video conferencing, have been filed by Satish and Vikky @ Vikendra alias Virendra, seeking special leave to appeal against a common order dated 28.04.2017 of the Allahabad High Court through which their appeal against conviction under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") and consequential sentence of life imprisonment, was turned down. The undisputable facts of the case are that on the evening of 12.06.2002, when one Vishal Sarawat (the victim) was on his way to meet a friend, he was stopped by an acquaintance Ramvir Rana who asked him for a lift to his house. The unsuspecting victim walked into Ramvir's house where he was threatened with a pistol and forcibly administered tablets by the present petitioners and one Ashok. Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:04:43 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13184 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13184 [Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 455 of 2020]. The wife has come up with the above petition seeking transfer of a divorce petition bearing H.M.A. No.3200 of 2019 titled as "Sachin Yadav Vs. Neetu Yadav" filed by the respondenthusband on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Heard learned counsel on both sides. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 21.02.2008 at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Two children, a girl and a boy, were born in the wedlock. While the girl is now aged about 11 years, the boy is aged about 8 years. dmittedly, the respondenthusband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty in H.M.A case No.3200 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13183 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13183 [Civil Appeal No. 8564 of 2015]. The respondent raises a claim of entitlement to compassionate appointment on account of the demise of his father late Shri Ranglal Shrivas, who was working as a Driver in the Tribal Welfare Department, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, since 6.6.1984 till he passed away on 11.12.2009, i.e., over a period of almost 23 years. The claim of the respondent was predicated on the nature of employment of his late father, who was initially appointed as a workcharged employee. On 12.3.1987, he was made permanent and was paid salary at a regular pay-scale. The benefits of revision of pay and krammonati (promotion) were also extended to him from time to time. On the demise of late Shri Ranglal Shrivas, he left behind an ailing wife, a son (i.e., the respondent herein) and three daughters and is stated to have been the sole breadwinner for his family. The family, thus, faced undue economic hardship. Tue, 29 Sep 2020 06:24:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13182 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13182 [Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 393 of 2020]. Leave granted. The appellant assails his conviction under sections 376, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") sentencing him to seven years, one year and one month respectively with fine and a default stipulation. The prosecutrix, PW9 lodged FIR No. 25 of 1999 on 13.04.1999 alleging that four years ago the appellant had outraged her modesty at the point of a knife. He had since been promising to marry her and on that pretext continued to establish physical relations with her as husband and wife. She had also stayed at his house for fifteen days during which also he established physical relations with her. Five days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R, the appellant had established physical relations with her on 09.04.1999. The appellant had cheated her as now he was going to solemnise his marriage with another girl on 20.04.1999. All efforts at a compromise had failed. Tue, 29 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13180 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13180 [Criminal Appeal No. 1121 of 2016]. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2012, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent - The State of Himachal Pradesh and has reversed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and consequently has convicted the appellants - original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 392, 201 and 420, IPC and has sentenced the appellants herein - original accused to undergo life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC, the appellants - original accused have preferred the present appeal. That the appellants herein - original accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 392, 420 and 201, IPC for having committed the murder of one Deepak. Fri, 25 Sep 2020 06:04:28 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13177 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13177 [Civil Appeal No(s). 3298 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2978 of 2020]. Leave granted. The appeal and contempt petition have been filed by the same person, Dr. Jitendra Gupta. The appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 24.12.2019 rejected the Contempt Case(C) No.1140 of 2019 filed by the appellant where contempt proceedings were requested to be initiated for violation of judgment of Division Bench dated 02.07.2019 of the High Court passed in W.P.(C)No.5648 of 2018. The contempt petition has been filed in this Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for disobedience of the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by this Court in SLP(C)No.2978 of 2020 out of which C.A.No.3298 of 2020 has arisen. Back ground facts giving rise to these proceedings need to be briefly noted. Dr. Jitendra Gupta, the appellant, is an IAS Officer, Bihar Cadre of 2013 Batch. While posted as Sub-Divisional Officer in District, Kaimur, State of Bihar, a First Information Report was lodged against the appellant. Fri, 25 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13176 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13176 [Civil Appeal No. 3249 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3860 of 2020]. Leave granted. A terrorist attack took place at Pulwama on 14 February 2019. On 16 February 2019, the Union Government issued a notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975. The notification introduced a tariff entry by which all goods originating in or exported from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were subjected to an enhanced customs duty of 200%. The precise time at which the notification was uploaded on the e-Gazette was 20:46:58 hours. Customs authorities at the land customs station at Attari sought to enforce the enhanced rate of duty on importers who had already presented bills of entry for home consumption before the enhanced rate was notified in the e-Gazette. Their action led to a challenge before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The consignments of import covered a diverse range of goods, ranging from dry dates to cement. Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:04:35 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13175 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13175 [Civil Appeal Nos. 7220-7221 of 2011]. The sole question of law for consideration in the present appeals is whether in case of a valid driving licence, if the licence has expired, the insured is absolved of its liability. The facts are in a very narrow compass. The first respondent herein, met with an accident on 20.5.1999 while driving a truck owned by the appellant herein, under whom he was gainfully employed. The consequence for the first respondent was 20 per cent permanent disability. The first respondent herein filed a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Compensation Act') before the Commissioner, Sadar, Bilaspur on 17.2.1999 seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, impleading the appellant and second respondent herein - the insurance company which had insured the vehicle. These proceedings resulted in an award by the Commissioner on 8.12.2004 granting Rs. 94,464/- for the injuries suffered and Rs.67,313/- towards medical expenses of the first respondent. Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13173 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13173 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3239-3246 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3008-3015 of 2020]. Leave granted. Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.3, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2, Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 9 and Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. The impugned High Court judgment dealt with a project called the Palarivattom Flyover on the National Highway, Cochin City, State of Kerala. This was constructed by Respondent No.1 and inaugurated on 12.10.2016. However, after one year of this Flyover being used, the Consultancy Agency for the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, on regular inspection of the bridge, reported on 16.03.2018 that the bridge was in a distressed condition with several cracks as a result of which measures should be taken to rehabilitate the flyover. Tue, 22 Sep 2020 06:04:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13174 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13174 [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4116 of 2020]. The petitioners herein were before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay claiming to be in Public Interest (PILCJLDVC No.44/2020) seeking that the decision of the High Powered Committee ('HPC' for short) dated 25.03.2020 to the extent of Clauses (iii), (iv) and (vii) of paragraph 8, decisions/minutes of HPC meeting dated 11.05.2020 excluding certain categories of offences provided in paragraph 5(i) and 5(ii) for the purpose of grant of interim bail and corrigendum dated 18.05.2020 of the Minutes of the Meeting of HPC dated 11.05.2020 to the extent of clarification that the class and/or category of offences determined by the HPC for temporary release be not read as a direction made by it for mandatory release of prisoners falling in that category or class and a further clarification that the case of every prisoner be considered on case to case basis for deciding the temporary release of such prisoners. Tue, 22 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13171 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13171 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1030 of 2020]. This writ petition filed in Public Interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India questions admission notification dated 03.09.2020 issued by National Law School of India University, Bengaluru for conducting separate admission entrance examination, the National Law Aptitude Test(NLAT) scheduled for 12.09.2020. The petitioner seeks a direction to National Law School of India University (hereinafter referred to as "NLSIU") to admit students only through Common Law Admission Test, 2020(CLAT) examination scheduled to take place on 28.09.2020. The writ petition is filed by two petitioners. First petitioner is the father of a student aspiring to gain admission into five years LL.B. programme of National Law University and the petitioner No.2 is the former Vice- Chancellor of National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Mon, 21 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13170 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13170 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3007-3008 of 2020]. Challenging an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'NCLAT') dismissing an application for condonation of delay as well as an appeal as time barred, the appellants have come up with the above appeals. We have heard Mr. Gunjan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sajan Poovayya, learned Senior Counsel who accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. The appellants herein together claim to hold 24.89% of the shares of a company by name Upper Assam Plywood Products Private Limited, which is the first respondent herein. The appellants moved an application before the Guwahati Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'NCLT') for the winding up of the company. The said petition was dismissed by the NCLT by an order dated 25.10.2019. Fri, 18 Sep 2020 06:04:34 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13166 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13166 [Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2009]. These appeals are against a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissing the appeals being A.S. Nos.892 of 1994, 893 of 1994, 894 of 1994 and 1785 of 1994 and inter alia confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.20 of 1993 and OS No. 91 of 1993 and the decree of dismissal by the Trial Court of the Suit being O.S.No.92 of 1993. The Appellant No.1, in Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2009, B. Santoshamma, hereinafter referred to as the 'Vendor', wife of the Appellant No.2 in the said appeal, B. Darshan Reddy, purchased 300 square yards of land, in survey No. 262 of Hayathnagar Village and Taluk in Ranga Reddy District, hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land', from one D. Tanesha, under a registered sale deed dated 20th August, 1982. Fri, 18 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13165 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13165 [Civil Appeal No. 2855 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2131 of 2018]. The appellants before us are a victim of a road accident and his wife. The first appellant is the victim. The accident occurred on 31st December 2003 while the victim was riding his bicycle along the side of AlappuzhaKolam highway. At the time of institution of the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), out of which this appeal arises, the first appellant was unconscious and was represented by his wife as the legal guardian and next friend. She was also a coPage applicant before the Tribunal. It was claimed before the forum of first instance that the victim was skilled labourer in a building construction project. His date of birth is 20th May 1969. Before the Tribunal, his age at the time of accident was found to be above 34 years. He suffered, interalia, head injury causing brain concussion, brain stems injury, diffuse axonial injury on left side. Thu, 17 Sep 2020 06:12:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13164 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13164 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3195-319 6 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10972-10973 of 2020]. Leave granted. The appellant by these appeals challenges the judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ Petition No.8888 of 2011 dated 30.03.2017 dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant as well as the judgment dated 04.09.2017 of the Division Bench dismissing the Writ Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench has dismissed the writ appeal vide its judgment dated 04.09.2017 holding it as not maintainable. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are: Late Shri Harish Chand Dhanda, a Minister in erstwhile Government of Maharaja Holkar of Indore received the free gift of land measuring 108,900 sq.ft. (one lac eight thousand nine hundred) situate at Yeshwant Niwas Road, Indore by Order No.58 of 22.04.1946. Late Shri H.C. Dhanda got constructed in the above piece of land, a building known as 'Hotel Lantern'. Thu, 17 Sep 2020 06:08:34 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13163 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13163 [Civil Appeal No. 3194 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7990 of 2020]. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore dated 10.06.2020 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the notice dated 04.06.2020 issued by Additional Tehsildar (Recovery), District Indore as well as notice dated 04.06.2020 issued by Building Officer, Zone No.09, Municipal Corporation Indore has been dismissed. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are: The property in question in this appeal is Lantern Hotel having Municipal No.28, Yeshwant Niwas Road, Indore with regard to which a Deed of Assent was executed on 21.04.2005 by the Trustees of Private Trust, namely, H.C. Dhanda Trust. H.C. Dhanda executed Will dated 26.10.2002. Thu, 17 Sep 2020 06:04:43 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13162 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13162 [Civil Appeal No. 2567 of 2020]. The appellant questions a decision of the High Court of Delhi1. On 18.05.2012, the appellant was injured in a motor accident while travelling to Hapur as a passenger in a bus, having paid the requisite fare. At about 1.30 pm when the bus reached village Sadikpur, PS-Hafizpur, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, the driver of the offending bus (the first respondent) sought to overtake the bus in which the appellant was travelling, from the wrong side, and zipped the appellant's bus, scratching it. This rash and negligent act caused a dent in the bus where the appellant was seated, as a result of which he suffered injuries. The appellant was removed to Dr. Khan's Rehan hospital and thereafter, AIIMS Trauma Center. The appellant claimed compensation, impleading the owner, the driver of the vehicle, and the insurer. During the course of proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, he applied for ascertainment of his disability. Thu, 17 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13161 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13161 [Civil Appeal No. 3185 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7172 of 2020]. Leave granted. The present Civil Appeal has been filed by the Government of India to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 19 February 2020 passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the application under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being I.A. No. 3558 of 2015 filed by the Government of India has been dismissed; the Application filed under Section 47 read with 49 being O.M.P. (EFA) (Comm) 15 of 2016 for the enforcement of the foreign award by the Respondents, and the I.A. No. 20149 of 2014 for condonation of delay in filing the execution petition by the Respondents were allowed. In 1993, the Government of India was desirous of exploring and developing the petroleum resources in the Ravva Gas and Oil Fields (lying 10 to 15 kms offshore in the Bay of Bengal), for which a global competitive tender was floated to invite bids. Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:12:16 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13160 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13160 [Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 141 of 2020]. The deceased aged 21 years, a 3rd year student at the National Law University Jodhpur, was the only son of the petitioner. She seeks justice to unravel the mystery of her son's homicidal death, dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the State Police. The investigation has reached a dead end without identification of the offenders. The prayer in the writ petition is therefore for a mandamus to transfer the investigation in FIR No.155 of 2018 dated 29.06.2018 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at the Mandore Police Station, Jodhpur City, Rajasthan to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Shri Sunil Fernandes, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the evening of 13.08.2017 the deceased had gone out of the hostel to a restaurant situated around 300 meters from the University campus, along with his friends at the University. His dead body was found at 09.00 A.M. the next morning on the railway tracks behind the restaurant. Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:08:45 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13159 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13159 [Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7416 of 2018]. Leave granted. The appellant assails his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and the consequent sentence of life imprisonment, upheld by the High Court. Ms. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that all the four witnesses are related to the deceased. The two independent witnesses were not examined. The serological report with regard to the blood group of the deceased matching that alleged to have been found on the lathi have not been established. The recovery of the lathi has not been properly proved. The deceased did not die immediately, but succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The assault was at spur of the moment with no premeditation. The appellant had also suffered injuries. Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:04:23 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13158 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13158 [Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 15/2020]. The Applicant Balasore Alloys Limited is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 11(6) read with Seciton 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act, 1996' for short) praying that a sole arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate upon all disputes that have arisen between the parties in connection with the 37 purchase orders referred to in the application. Alternatively, it is prayed that the second arbitrator be appointed on account of the failure of the respondent - Medima LLC to nominate an arbitrator in terms of the contracts. The applicant is a manufacturer of High Carbon Ferro Chrome. The applicant and the respondent accordingly, entered into transactions whereby the applicant agreed to supply the High Carbon Ferro Chrome manufactured by them to the respondent for sale of the same in the territory of USA and Canada. Initially an Agreement dated 19.06.2017 limited to the sale of 2000 MT was entered into. Wed, 16 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13157 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13157 [Criminal Appeal No. 615 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8260/2018]. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, daughter of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, challenging the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16.08.2018 by which order the High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant praying for setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewari dated 16.02.2011 as well as the order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal are:- The respondent No.2, mother of the appellant, on her behalf, as well as on behalf of her two sons and the appellant daughter, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband, the respondent No.1, Parkash, claiming maintenance for herself and her three children. Tue, 15 Sep 2020 06:04:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13156 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13156 [Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 2013]. This appeal is filed by the sole accused, in Sessions Trial No.7- 5/2002 of 2001 on the file of Sessions Judge, Shimla, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 11.12.2012 and further order of sentencing the appellant, dated 31.12.2012, passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.493 of 2003. The appellant-accused was tried for a charge punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act'). The Sessions Judge, Shimla by judgment dated 30.06.2003 acquitted the accused by recording a finding that the case of prosecution was not free from doubt and there were many infirmities in the case of the prosecution to hold that the accused was found to be in possession of charas, as alleged by the prosecution. Tue, 15 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13155 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13155 [Civil Appeal Nos. 5105-5107 of 2009]. Which pocket of the Government should be enriched has taken forty-four (44) years to decide - a classic case of what ought not to be! The factual matrix: The appellant-Corporation, National Co-operative Development Corporation, was established under the National Cooperative Development Corporation Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NCDC Act'). The Preamble of the NCDC Act reads as under: "An Act to provide for the incorporation and regulation of a Corporation for the purpose of planning and promoting programmes for the production, processing, marketing, storage, export and import of agricultural produce, foodstuffs, industrial goods, livestock, certain other commodities and services on cooperative principles and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." Fri, 11 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13147 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13147 [Civil Appeal No. 6270 of 2012]. The present civil appeal, which has been heard over videoconferencing, is directed against the order dated 05.05.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in WP No. 1001/2001, whereby appellant's plea for quashing disciplinary proceedings and settingaside a dismissal order on charges of corruption and extraconstitutional conduct while employed as a paramilitary officer, was rejected. The appellant joined the Central Industrial Security Force ("CISF") in January, 1995 as a SubInspector. After completing requisite training in Hyderabad, he was allocated to Mumbai Office of Page | 1 the Western Zone and posted at the local unit of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd ("BPCL") in March, 1996. Although he was initially deputed to perform shift duty, but since July, 1997 he was deployed in the Crime and Intelligence Wing. As evidenced by an office order dated 08.05.1998, the appellant was specifically entrusted with conducting surprise searches of personnel and taking strict action against anyone indulging in corruption. Thu, 10 Sep 2020 06:04:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13154 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13154 [Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4422/2019]. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 881/2012, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein - original accused No.1 and has confirmed the Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned Special Court convicting the accused - appellant no.1 for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act') and sentencing him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/, in default, to undergo further one year's rigorous imprisonment, original accused no.1 has preferred the present appeal. Thu, 10 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13144 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13144 [Civil Appeal No. 3123 of 2020 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 15737 of 2019]. The Maharashtra State Reservation (of Seats for admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for appointments in the Public Services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which came into force on 30.11.2018, declared Marathas to be a "Socially and Educationally Backward Class". Reservations to the extent of 16 per cent of the total seats in educational institutions including private educational institutions and 16 per cent of the total appointments in direct recruitment for public services and posts under the State, were separately made for "socially and educationally backward classes" according to Section 4 of the Act. Wed, 09 Sep 2020 06:12:36 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13153 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13153 [Civil Appeal No. 3085 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1283 of 2020]. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 23rd December, 2019 whereby an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22nd July, 2019 was dismissed. The appellant had sought admission to the five-year law course offered by the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences1 on the basis of the amendment in the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences Act, 19992 vide the Amending Act which came into force on 21st May, 2019. Such Amending Act inter alia provided for reservation of seats for students domiciled in the State of West Bengal to the extent of at least thirty percent of the total intake of the University. Wed, 09 Sep 2020 06:08:23 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13152 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13152 [Civil Appeal No. 1789 of 2020]. These appeals have been filed by Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation and others (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) challenging the judgments dated 05.03.2018 and 30.08.2018 respectively of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court dismissing the D.B.Special Appeals filed by the appellants. Both the appeals having raised similar issues it shall be sufficient to refer the facts and pleadings in Civil Appeal No.1789 of 2020 for deciding both the appeals. Goverdhan Lal Soni, the respondent No.1 was appointed as Junior Assistant on 02.04.1974 in Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited. The State Government closed the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited and declared all its employees as Surplus. The State Government took a decision to absorb services of all surplus employees in different Corporations. The Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of Rajasthan issued a Circular on 02.07.1991 containing guidelines of absorption of surplus employees in public enterprises. Wed, 09 Sep 2020 06:04:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13143 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13143 [Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3171 of 2019]. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 122 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in Sessions Case No. 354 of 2012, convicting the appellant herein - the original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the original accused has preferred the present appeal. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide order dated 01.04.2019, this Court has issued a notice in the present appeal limited to the extent as to whether the conviction ought to have been under Section 304 Part II or Section 302 IPC. Therefore, this Court is required to consider whether the appellant herein - the original accused has been rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or is to be convicted for any other lesser offence, viz. Section 304 Part II IPC. Wed, 09 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13142 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13142 [Civil Appeal No. 9425 of 2019]. Permission to file appeal granted in Diary No. 45282 of 2019. In the first matter being Civil Appeal No. 9425 of 2019, an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed by the appellant before the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "NCLT" for brevity) on 16.03.2017. A loan, which was given way back in 2008, was restructured into two loans of Rs.18.86 crores by an agreement dated 01.04.2016, and the second being a loan of Rs.16.80 crores by agreement dated 24.06.2016, with an interest figure of Rs.2.72 crores, the total amount coming to Rs.38.39 crores. To this section 7 application, a counter affidavit was filed by the corporate debtor on 15.05.2017, in which it was stated that though Rs.35.66 crores have become due, yet a section 7 application was premature inasmuch as instalment payments that were agreed upon had not yet matured. It was on this basis that this first application was withdrawn by the appellant on 30.05.2017 with liberty to file a fresh application. Tue, 08 Sep 2020 06:08:52 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13151 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13151 [Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5422 of 2015]. Leave granted. We have heard Mr. Subhash Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the respondent. This case arises out of an FIR that was registered on 09.12.2009 as regards a MSME Receivable Finance Scheme operated by the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI). It was found that since some vendors were complaining of delay in getting their payments, SIDBI, in consultation with Tata Motors Limited, advised the vendors of Tata Motors Limited to furnish RTGS details for remittance of funds. It was found that for making payments in RTGS for various purchases made by Tata Motors Limited from one Ranflex India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "vendor"), 12 payments amounting to Rs.1,64,17,551/- (Rupees one crore sixty four lakhs seventeen thousand five hundred fifty one only) were made through RTGS by SIDBI in the vendor's account with Federal Bank, Thriupporur. Tue, 08 Sep 2020 06:04:06 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13150 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13150 [Civil Appeal Nos. 3964-71 of 2007]. In the year of grace 1868, a group of British officers banded together to start the Bangalore Club. In the year of grace 1899, one Lt. W.L.S. Churchill was put up on the Club's list of defaulters, which numbered 17, for an amount of Rs.13/- being for an unpaid bill of the Club. The "Bill" never became an "Act". Till date, this amount remains unpaid. Lt. W.L.S. Churchill went on to become Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain. And the Bangalore Club continues its mundane existence, the only excitement being when the tax collector knocks at the door to extract his pound of flesh. Fast forward now from British India to free India and we come to assessment years 1981-82 and 1984-85 upto 1990-91. The question for determination in these appeals is whether Bangalore Club is liable to pay wealth tax under the Wealth Tax Act. The order of assessment dated 3rd March, 2000, passed by the Wealth Tax Officer, Bangalore, referred to the fact that Bangalore Club is not registered as a society, a trust or a company. Tue, 08 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13141 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13141 [Civil Appeal No. 3093 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 23478 of 2019]. Leave granted. These appeals raising common questions of law have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For deciding these appeals, it is sufficient to notice the facts in detail in Civil Appeal No...................../2020(arising out of SLP(C)No.23478 of 2019), New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Somwati and Others and brief facts in other appeals. All these appeals have been filed by three Insurance Companies, i.e., New India Assurance Company Limited, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. questioning the judgments of the High Courts arising out of the award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) with regard to the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants under two heads, i.e., "Loss of Consortium" and "loss of love and affection." Mon, 07 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13140 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13140 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1172 of 2019]. Persons who were appointed as District Judges (Entry Level) by way of direct recruitment vide a Government Order G.O. Ms. No. 170, Home Department dated 18.02.2011 in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service have come up with this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs: "(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Directions, to call for records relating to the last list of names recommended by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Madras to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appointment as Judges of Madras High Court and quash the same in so far as it relates to the names of Respondents No. 5 to 23 herein and consequently direct the Hon'ble Collegiums of the Madras High Court to consider the names of the Petitioners also for appointment as High Court Judges. Fri, 04 Sep 2020 06:08:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13136 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13136 [Civil Appeal No. 2955 of 2020]. Challenging an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'NCLAT') (i) setting aside the approval granted by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'NCLT') to a Resolution Plan and (ii) remanding the matter back to the NCLT with a direction to have the Resolution Plan resubmitted before the Committee of Creditors, the financial creditor and the Resolution Professional have come up with these appeals. We have heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. The Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., which is the financial creditor, filed an application on 04.09.2017 under Section 7 of the IBC before the NCLT against M/s. Khandoba Prasanna Sakhar Karkhana Limited, which is the corporate debtor. NCLT admitted the application on 01.01.2018 and an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed. Fri, 04 Sep 2020 06:04:42 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13135 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13135 [Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2942 of 2020]. Leave granted. The appellant questions his prosecution under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called as "the Rules") framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short "the Act"). We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Though several grounds have been urged to challenge the prosecution, we are satisfied that the appeal can be disposed of on a single undisputed ground. The facts shall therefore be stated with brevity only to the extent necessary for purposes of the present order. Fri, 04 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13134 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13134 [M. A. No. 1434 of 2020]. By a judgment dated 27.04.2020, the Appellant herein Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan and two others, Sh. Vijay Kurle and Sh. Nilesh Ojha were held guilty of contempt for making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against the Judges of this Court. On 01.05.2020, the matter was listed for hearing the contemnors on the sentence. On that day this Court was informed that applications for recall of the judgment dated 27.04.2020 were filed. Anyhow, the matter could not be heard on 01.05.2020 due to technical reasons as connection could not be established with one of the contemnors or his counsel. After hearing the contemnors regarding the sentence on 04.05.2020, this Court found that there was no remorse or any semblance of apology shown by them. The three contemnors were sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In view of the Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown conditions, this Court directed that the sentence shall come into force after sixteen weeks from 04.05.2020. The contemnors were directed to surrender before the Secretary General of this Court to undergo the imprisonment. Thu, 03 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13133 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13133 [Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2010]. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 06.01.2010 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court whereby the appellantaccused's appeal was partly allowed and his conviction under Section 302, IPC was modified into one under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentence was reduced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 324, IPC was confirmed by the High Court and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: the brother of the complainant allegedly had an illicit relationship with the daughter of accused no. 4, which resulted in enmity between the two families. On 26.01.2002, the accused persons allegedly came in front of the house of the complainant and a fight took place between the two groups. Wed, 02 Sep 2020 06:08:28 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13167 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13167 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 546-550 of 2017]. The proceedings in this case arise out of two criminal complaints dated 11.08.2009 filed by the Appellants against the Respondents herein before the Court of the Sessions Judge, North Goa, under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") in respect of offences alleged under Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). Accused No.1 in the aforesaid complaints is a proprietary concern of the late V.G. Quenim, based in Goa, which is engaged in the business of producing, processing and sale of iron ore. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are his son and wife respectively, who are the co-proprietors of M/s V.G. Quenim, the aforesaid V.G. Quenim having expired on 20.07.2007. M/s V.G. Quenim had shared a business relationship with the Appellants since the year 1990. However, disputes arose between the parties, as a result of which four suits, being Suit Nos.7, 8, 14 and 21 of 2000/A, were filed by the Appellants against M/s V.G. Quenim before the Civil Court at Bacholim. Wed, 02 Sep 2020 06:04:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13132 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13132 [Civil Appeal No(s). 2019 of 2010]. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the High Court affirming the demand dated 15.10.2005 by respondent No.1 for Rs. 51,97,196/plus interest, penalty and recovery expenses as arrears of land revenue. The demand was raised consequent to the failure of the appellant to handover seven tenements to government nominees as required under the conditions of exemption granted under Sections 20 and 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act") (since repealed in 1999). The Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai as the appellate authority affirmed the same by his order dated 12.07.2006. Shri Amar Dave, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that exemption was granted under Section 20 of the Act on 02.03.1988 for raising construction over two plots being CTS No. 261 and CTS No. 245. In lieu thereof the appellant was required to surrender 20 per cent of the constructed area to government nominees. Wed, 02 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13131 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13131 [Civil Appeal No(s). 3046-3048 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 22582-22584 of 2019]. Leave granted. With consent, the appeals were heard finally. The present appeals by special leave impugns three orders of the Telangana High Court, dated 28.08.2018, 22.07.2019 and 05.08.2019 respectively. These were in the context of the respondent/writ petitioners' (hereafter "Andhra Petro") challenge to orders of the Designated Authority (hereafter "DA"), which related to the question of imposition of anti-dumping duty. The facts are that Andhra Petro applied to the Central Government, seeking imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of normal Butanol or N-butyl alcohol originating in and exported into India from Saudi Arabia. Butanol is a basic organic chemical and a primary alcohol; it is an excellent solvent for acid-curable lacquers and baking finishes. A large part of normal Butanol is converted into derivatives for use as solvents in coating industries. This application resulted in the initiation of investigation by the designated authority into the import of the subject articles from Saudi Arabia, by notification dated 02.09.2016. Tue, 01 Sep 2020 06:12:37 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13130 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13130 [M.A. (D) No. 9887 of 2020]. This Court passed judgment and order in C.A. Nos.63286399 of 2015 - Union of India v. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India and other civil appeals decided by a common judgment and order dated 24.10.2019. The Court decided regarding the definition of the 'AGR' and dues to be paid thereunder. The concept of AGR arose in the light of the provisions contained in the policy framed by the Government of India and the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act. Under section 4(1) of the Telegraph Act, the Central Government has the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining, and working telegraphs. Section 4 of the Telegraph Act enables the Central Government to part with the exclusive privilege in favour of any other person by granting a licence on such conditions and considering such terms as it thinks fit. The licence issued under section 4(1) becomes a contract between a licensor and a licensee. Tue, 01 Sep 2020 06:08:23 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13128 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13128 [Civil Appeal No. 7157 of 2008]. This appeal takes exception to the Final Order No. C/203/08 dated 17.7.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal1 in Customs Appeal No. 9 of 2008, whereby the customs duty levied upon the appellant on the sale of cut flowers within the Domestic Tariff Area2 had been confirmed by the Tribunal. The factual matrix leading to the present appeal is that the appellant M/ s. L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. is a 100% Export Oriented Unit3 and engaged in production of cut flowers and flower buds of all kinds, suitable for bouquets and for ornamental purposes. Tue, 01 Sep 2020 06:04:46 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13127 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13127 [M. A. No. 1235 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 4676 of 2018]. This Court is monitoring the compliance of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4676/2018 on 02.05.2018. We have appointed an Expert Committee consisting of experts of Archaeological Survey of India and Geological Survey of India concerning the prevention of erosion of Shivalinga in Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple at Ujjain. The Expert Team visited Ujjain on 19.01.2019. Its Report indicates that there was erosion of Shivalinga after the last inspection, and it is a continuing process. The last inspection was made earlier in 2018. The time gap was short when the inspection was made. As such, the extent of further erosion was not measured. However, the facts remain that there was some erosion of the Shivalingam. We have vide order dated 19.08.2020 called for the Action Taken Report from the Temple Committee. Tue, 01 Sep 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13126 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13126 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2018]. Leave & permission granted in the respective special leave petitions. After considering the judgment rendered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan1, another three Judge Bench, pursuant to order dated 13.4.2018 in the case of T.N. Medical Officers Association v. Union of India2, has referred the present batch of cases to a larger Bench. In the case of Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra), a three Judge Bench construed the provisions of Regulations 9(IV) and 9(VII) of the MCI Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as amended on 15.2.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "MCI Regulations 2000"). In the case of Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra), while considering the aforesaid Regulations, this Court held that the aforesaid Regulations do not provide for any reservation for inservice government doctors in PG degree courses, and therefore, the State Government order providing the reservation for PG degree courses for inservice government doctors is held to be illegal. Mon, 31 Aug 2020 06:16:37 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13129 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13129 [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 39528/2018]. Having doubted the correctness of the decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab reported in (2018) 17 SCC 627 taking the view that in case the investigation is conducted by the police officer who himself is the complainant, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal, initially by order dated 17.01.2019 the matter was referred to a larger Bench consisting of three Judges. A three Judge Bench vide order dated 12.09.2019 has referred to a larger Bench of five Judges to consider the matter. That is why, the present matter is placed before the Bench consisting of five Judges. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal (supra) taking the view that in case the investigation is conducted by the police officer who himself is the complainant, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal. Mon, 31 Aug 2020 06:12:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13125 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13125 [Civil Appeal Nos. 86258626 of 2019]. The appellant herein Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is the electricity Distribution Licensee in the State of Rajasthan. It entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (for short, 'PPA') on 28.1.2010 with Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (for short, 'APRL'), a generating company in pursuance to a tariffbased competitive bid process in terms of Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, 'the Electricity Act'). The terms of PPA contained a tariff, and that could be varied only as per the specific provisions contained in the PPA, not otherwise. APRL made a claim for an increased tariff under the change in law provisions in the PPA (Article 10). On 23.10.2006, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (for short, 'RVUN') conveyed to Adani Exports Limited its selection as a joint venture partner for the formation of a Joint Venture Company. Mon, 31 Aug 2020 06:08:03 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13124 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13124 [Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 2175-2178 of 2018]. These petitions seek review of the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2017 passed by this Court in I.A. Nos.9-12 & 13-16 of 2016 in SLP (C) Nos.6828-6831 of 2016 with I.A. Nos.1-4 of 2016 in and with Contempt Petition (C) Nos.421-424 of 2016 in SLP (C) Nos.6828-6831 of 2016. The facts leading to the passing of said judgment are set out in detail therein and for the present purposes we may set out following features. In OA No.766 of 2013 filed by the special leave petitioners ('banks', for short) before DRT, Bengaluru seeking recovery of Rs.6203,35,03,879.32 (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Three Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Nine and Paise Thirty Two only), an oral undertaking was given on 26.07.2013 by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that they would not alienate or dispose of their properties. One of the prayers made before DRT, Bengaluru was:- "(iii) to issue a garnishee order against Respondent Nos.10 and 11 from disbursing US$ 75 million,...". Mon, 31 Aug 2020 06:04:53 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13123 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13123 [Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020]. Heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Shri Dushyant Dave, Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel, and the contemnorShri Prashant Bhushan. After having adjudged Shri Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, guilty of contempt vide judgment dated 14.08.2020, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan and Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the contemnorShri Prashant Bhushan raised the following arguments: That the copy of the petition on the basis of which the suo motu cognizance was taken by this Court with respect to first tweet, filed by Shri Mahek Maheshwari, was not furnished, in spite of the application having been filed by the contemnor. Thus, it could not be ascertained whether the complaint was mala fide or even personally or politically motivated. The factors relevant for sentencing are the offender, the offence, the convicting judgment, statutory or other defences relating to a substantial interference with justice, truth, bona fides, and public interest in disclosure. Mon, 31 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13122 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13122 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 724 of 2020]. This batch of cases consisting of writ petitions (except one Special Leave Petition, i.e., SLP (C) D. No.15056 of 2020) filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can be divided into two broad groups. First group of writ petitions consists of petitions filed by students, youth organisations and the teachers associations challenging the guidelines issued by University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as "UGC") dated 06.07.2020, O.M. dated 06.07.2020 issued by Ministry of Human Resource Development and letter dated 06.07.2020 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs whereby all the Universities and Colleges across the country had been directed to conduct terminal semester/ final year examinations by 30.09.2020. A further relief has been sought directing the respondents to declare the results of the students of the final year/terminal semester examinations of all universities/ institutions of the country on the basis of their past performance/internal assessment and to award marksheets and degrees. Fri, 28 Aug 2020 06:24:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13121 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13121 [Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2020 @ S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4178 of 2019]. What is the interplay between the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC" for short) and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short)? Whether in respect of offences falling under chapter IV of the Act, a FIR can be registered under Section 154 of the CrPC and the case investigated or whether Section 32 of the Act supplants the procedure for investigation of offences under CrPC and the taking of cognizance of an offence under Section 190 of the CrPC? Still further, can the Inspector under the Act, arrest a person in connection with an offence under Chapter IV of the Act. One Naushad Khan made an online complaint on 22.2.2018. The Commissioner (Food Protection and Drugs) directed enquiry and the Drug Inspector, Mau, U.P. along with two others conducted an inspection at the Sharda Narayan Clinic and Pharmacy and the respondent No.1 was directed to show papers in respect of medicines stored in the shop. Fri, 28 Aug 2020 06:20:36 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13120 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13120 [Civil Appeal Nos. 8932-8933 of 2015]. These appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, are against an order dated 21st April, 2015 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal, allowing Original Application No. 1/2013 (CZ) filed by the Respondents and directing that motor vehicles not complying with the requirement of displaying a valid "Pollution Under Control" (PUC) Certificate would suffer the consequence of suspension and/or revocation of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, and would also not be provided with fuel by any dealer or petrol pump, as well as an order dated 3rd August, 2015 rejecting the application filed by the appellant for review of the said order dated 21st April, 2015, being the Miscellaneous Application No.394 of 2015, but granting the appellant a further period of sixty days for compliance of the order under review on condition of the appellant making a deposit of Rs.25 crores with the Registrar of the Tribunal within a week from the order dated 3rd August, 2015, by way of security for compliance with the order, failing which the security deposit would be utilized for environmental needs under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Fri, 28 Aug 2020 06:16:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13119 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13119 [Civil Appeal No. 2633 of 2020]. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the Customs, Excise, & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,1 West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad in Service dated 5 April 2019. The Tribunal has, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, reversed the 30 March 2011 decision of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad2 and set aside the demand for payment of service tax on the charges collected by the respondent for supply of pipes and measuring equipment to its customers under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. This appeal rests on the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondent is in the business of distributing natural gas - Compressed Natural Gas3 and Piped Natural Gas4 - to industrial, commercial, and domestic consumers. Among other purposes, industrial consumers use PNG for manufacturing operations. Fri, 28 Aug 2020 06:12:41 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13118 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13118 [Civil Appeal No. 7474 of 2019]. This appeal, under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is against a judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2019 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Tribunal", allowing Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No.224 of 2019 against an order dated 19th December, 2018 passed by a Division Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai, rejecting the application filed by the Respondents under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, inter alia, on the ground that the alleged claim of the Respondents was barred by limitation, on the date on which the said application had been filed. It is the case of the Appellant Company, that the Respondents were closely acquainted with one Mr. M. Krishnan, and Mrs. Radha Gouri, who were the promoters of the Appellant Company. Fri, 28 Aug 2020 06:08:50 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13116 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13116 [Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3928 of 2020]. Leave granted. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1284 of 2019, aggrieved by the order dated 27th November 2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. By the aforesaid order, High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of sentence imposed in Sessions Case No.742 of 2007 by the Special Judge (NDPS), North District, Rohini District Courts, Delhi vide order dated 17.08.2019. The appellant herein was the complainant in FIR No.742 of 2007 registered on 15.10.2007 for the offence under Section 364A read with Section 34, IPC and the second respondent herein was the accused. After investigation of the crime, chargesheet dated 11.01.2008 was filed against the second respondentaccused under Sections 364A/302/201, IPC. Fri, 28 Aug 2020 06:04:02 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13115 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13115 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 550-554 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) Nos. 4016-4020 of 2020 D. No. 13225/2020]. Delay condoned. Leave granted. These criminal appeals are filed by the complainant, aggrieved by the common order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.A.No.537 of 2019, Crl.A.No.624 of 2019, Crl.A.No.622 of 2019, Crl.A.No.488 of 2019 and Crl.A.No.499 of 2019, in rejecting the claim made by the appellant herein for release of compensation which is awarded under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., in order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC Court,Shahdara in Sessions Case No.29 of 2011 and Unique Case ID No.235 of 2016. The contesting respondents, herein were accused in FIR No.1004/2006 registered on the file of PS, Sector- 20, Noida (U.P.) for offence under Sections 342/332/306/167/218/220/302/34 IPC. Fri, 28 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13114 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13114 [Civil Appeal No. 3526 of 2016]. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 19 February 2016. Declining permission to the complainants to file a composite complaint under the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 19862, the NCDRC dismissed the consumer complaint3 which was filed before it by twenty-six flat buyers, on the ground that: "13. ...there is nothing common between the aforesaid complainants, so no permission can be granted to the above complainants to file one complaint in view of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act." However, the complainants were granted the liberty to institute individual complaints before the appropriate forum. The complaint before the NCDRC was instituted by twenty-six flat buyers, who had booked flats in a residential project (named 'Oxford Square') of the first respondent at Sector GH-06, 16B, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh (also known as "Noida Extension"). Thu, 27 Aug 2020 06:08:16 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13117 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13117 [Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 2011]. A Bench of three Judges vide order dated 20.8.2014 referred the matter to a larger Bench for consideration opining that the judgment of a 5Judge Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 394, is required to be revisited in the light of Article 338 of the Constitution of India, and not correctly following the exposition of the law in Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217. It was noted that matter involved interpretation and interplay between Articles 16(1), 16(4), 338 and 341 of the Constitution of India. We, in order to consider the constitutional validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 (for short, 'the Punjab Act') in the matter referred, framed the following issues on 4.2.2020: "i) Whether the provisions contained under Section 4(5) of The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 are constitutionally valid? ii) Whether the State had the legislative competence to enact the provisions contained under Section 4(5) of the Act? iii) Whether the decision in E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of A. P. & Ors. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 394 is required to be revisited. Thu, 27 Aug 2020 06:04:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13111 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13111 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2843-2844 of 2010]. These appeals are against a common judgment and order dated 06.11.2008 dismissing the Second Appeal being S.A. (MD) No.64 of 2000, filed by the Appellant, but allowing the Second Appeal being S.A. (MD) No.558 of 2000 filed by the Respondent, and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1999 of the First Appellate Court in A.S. No.16/1998, to the extent the First Appellate Court had declined the Respondent's claim to a decree of recovery of possession of the suit premises. The High Court held that the Respondent, being the Plaintiff in the suit was entitled to a declaration of title in respect of half portion of the suit premises, recovery of possession of the said half portion of the suit premises and also to recovery of income from the said half of the suit property owned by the Respondent and/or charges for use, enjoyment and/or occupation thereof. Thu, 27 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13110 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13110 [Civil Appeal No. 2710 of 2010]. A plaint was laid before the City Civil Judge at Bangalore by A. Krishnappa, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein (original plaintiff) against Sri Jayaram, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein(original defendant) under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Code'), being O.S. No.4268/1989 in respect of the schedule property to the plaint being described as a portion of property bearing Revenue Site No.9, part of Corporation No.2, 2ndmain road, 1st block, Goraguntepalya, Bangalore-22 (hereinafter referred to as 'schedule property'). The original plaintiff stated that he and his late brother, Mr. A. Muniswamappa, were full and absolute owners of agricultural land measuring 2 acres and 22guntas in Survey No.8/4 of Goraguntepalya, Yeswanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Wed, 26 Aug 2020 06:16:29 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13109 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13109 [Civil Appeal No. 3984 of 2010]. Pension is succour for post-retirement period. It is not a bounty payable at will, but a social welfare measure as a post-retirement entitlement to maintain the dignity of the employee. The appellant has been claiming his entitlement for the last almost 13 years but unsuccessfully, despite having worked with Government departments in various capacities for about 32 years. The controversy emanates from the appellant having worked in these different capacities with two different departments from time to time, albeit continuously. The appellant joined respondent No. 2, Department of Fisheries of the State Government of Kerala as a Casual Labour Roll (for short 'CLR') worker on 7.7.1976 in a then pilot project on Pearl Culture, at Vizhinjam, Thiruvananthapuram. He worked upto 29.11.1983 rendering 7 years, 4 months and 23 days of service as a CLR worker whereupon the District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'KPSC') advised him to join the Revenue Department, Kannur District as Lower Division Clerk (for short 'LDC') on his participation in a direct recruitment process. Wed, 26 Aug 2020 06:12:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13108 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13108 [Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 496-509 of 2020]. Applications seeking intervention/impleadment are allowed. Considering the nature of controversy involved, this Court, with the consent of the counsels for the parties, vide order dated 29th June 2020 had deemed it appropriate to hear and decide challenge to the validity of the notifications dated 29th March 2019 bearing S.O. Numbers. 1478-E,1479-E, 1480-E and 1481-E pending in several Writ Petitions filed before different High Courts. We have also examined and decided the connected challenge to the Trade Notice dated 16th April 2019 issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade on the ground of excessive delegation as not being in accord with sub-section (2) to Section 3 read with the bar under sub-section (3) to Section 6 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'FTDR Act'). Accordingly, we had heard arguments and by this common judgment would be disposing of the respective Writ Petitions, subject matter of these Transfer Petitions. This decision would also apply to the Writ Petitions filed by the intervening applicants. Wed, 26 Aug 2020 06:08:26 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13107 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13107 [Civil Appeal No. 7074 of 2008]. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which quashed Rule 55A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereafter "the State Rules") framed by the Madhya Pradesh State (hereafter "the state") and published by it. The respondent (hereafter "the vehicle owner") had approached the High Court, contending that the said rule was ultra vires the state's power under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter "the Act"), and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereafter "the Central Rules"). The High Court accepted his contentions. The vehicle owner purchased the motorcycle in May, 2004 and applied for its registration on 25-05-2004 before the concerned registering authority, through the prescribed application in Form No. 20. By an order (of 27-05-2004), the registering authority rejected the application, stating that the vehicle owner's claim for allotment of registration number 'MP-KL-4646' could not be accepted, as the petitioner had not paid the required fee prescribed for allotment of that number. Wed, 26 Aug 2020 06:04:02 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13106 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13106 [Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2040 of 2020]. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No. 118 of 2012 by which the High Court has dismissed the said revision application and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant herein - original accused for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 325, 323 read with 149 and 325 read with 149 IPC, the original accused have preferred the present appeal. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide order dated 24.02.2020 this Court found no ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction. However, it was ordered to issue notice only on quantum of sentence. Therefore, now the quantum of sentence only is required to be considered by this Court. Wed, 26 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13105 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13105 [Civil Appeal No. 2416 of 2010]. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1 in Income Tax Reference No. 53-A of 1991 whereby the High Court, while answering the reference under the then existing Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 19612, disapproved the order dated 29.06.1990 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench3 in ITA No. 739/Chandi/89 for the assessment year 1971-1972; and held that the capital gains arising out of land acquisition compensation were chargeable to income-tax under Section 45 of the Act of 1961 for the previous year referable to the date of award of compensation i.e., 29.09.1970 and not the date of notification for acquisition. In the present case, the question concerning date of accrual of capital gains arose in the backdrop that though the proceedings for acquisition in question were taken up by way of notification dated 15.05.1968 and award of compensation was made on 29.09.1970 but, as a matter of fact, at the time of issuance of the initial notification for acquisition, the subject land was already in possession of the beneficiary under a lease, though the period of lease had expired on 31.08.1967. Tue, 25 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13104 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13104 [Civil Appeal No. 6239 of 2019]. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 dismissed a consumer complaint filed by 339 flat buyers, accepting the defence of DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Annabel Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. that there was no deficiency of service on their part in complying with their contractual obligations and, that despite a delay in handing over the possession of the residential flats, the purchasers were not entitled to compensation in excess of what was stipulated in the Apartment Buyers Agreement2. The complaint before the NCDRC was initially instituted by nine flat buyers. These nine complainants had booked residential flats in a project called Westend Heights at New Town, DLF, BTM Extension at Begu, Bengaluru. The project was being developed in an area admeasuring 27.5 acres and was to consist of 1980 units, spread across nineteen towers each consisting of a stilt and eighteen floors. Mon, 24 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13101 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13101 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2701-2704 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 6952-6955 of 2020]. The instant appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Principal Bench at Bengaluru in R.F.A. Nos. 1434 of 2017, 1435 of 2017, 1436 of 2017 and 1775 of 2017 declining to grant leave to file an appeal. Necessary facts in brief for the adjudication of controversy can be summarized as under:- Disputes relates to land comprised in Survey No. 105/3 measuring 37 guntas, Survey No. 105/9 measuring 34 guntas and Survey No. 105/4B measuring 20 guntas, situate at Village Jakkur, Bengaluru, North Taluk. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein who were recorded owner of the land in dispute executed a registered agreement of sale of the land in dispute in favour of Respondent, Karnataka State Khadi and Village Industries Worker's House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Besides executing registered agreement to sale dated 31.10.1989 and 05.08.1992 side by side they also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of office bearers of the respondent society authorizing them to enter into sale transaction of the suit property on their behalf. It is to be taken note of that General Power of Attorney was executed giving absolute rights to the Attorney to do all such acts which are necessary for sale of the property. Fri, 21 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13100 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13100 [Civil Appeal No. 2964 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7217 of 2020]. Leave granted. Prior to the re-organisation of states, the Hyderabad Legislative Assembly enacted a law called the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act 19561. On receiving the assent of the President on 16 September 1956, the Nanded Act 1956 was published in the Hyderabad Government Gazette on 20 September 1956. Section 2(c) defines the expression 'Gurudwara' thus: "'Gurudwara' means the institution known as the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib and includes the premises called the Gurudwara with all buildings contained therein, together with all additions thereto or alterations thereof which may hereafter be made from time to time and shrines specified in the schedule." Chapter II is titled "Control of the Gurudwara". Section 3 provides for the constitution of a Board for the administration of the Gurudwara and a Committee of Management. Thu, 20 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13097 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13097 [Civil Appeal No. 5145 of 2016]. These two appeals being Civil Appeal No. 5145 of 2016 by Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. ["Avitel India"] and its promoters [the "Jain family"], and the cross appeal being Civil Appeal No. 5158 of 2016 by HSBC PL Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. ["HSBC"], impugn the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["1996 Act"] dated 31.07.2014. To dispose of the said appeals, we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 5145 of 2016. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy that arises in the present case are as follows: (i) On 21.04.2011, a Share Subscription Agreement ["SSA"] was entered into between HSBC and the Appellants. HSBC made an investment in the equity capital of Avitel India for a consideration of USD 60 million in order to acquire 7.8% of its paid-up capital. Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:20:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13096 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13096 [Civil Appeal Nos. 72407248 of 2009]. All the appeals on hand are by the Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax of different Commissionerates, filed under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), questioning the correctness of the orders passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore (CESTAT) in seven different batches of cases, but arising out of similar facts and raising identical questions. For the purpose of convenience, the facts out of which the first batch of cases in Civil Appeal Nos. 72407248 of 2009 (which we may call the lead case) arise, are recorded in detail. The facts in the other batches of cases are brought on record in brief and to the extent that they have some distinguishing features. As a matter of fact, the batch of cases relating to the assessee by name, M/s. CERA Boards and Doors (the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 72407248 of 2009), was decided first by CESTAT. Thereafter, CESTAT decided the other 6 batches of cases on the basis of the ratio laid down in CERA Boards. This is why Civil Appeal Nos. 72407248 of 2009 are taken as the lead case. Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:16:25 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13095 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13095 [Civil Appeal No. 5147 of 2016]. The hearing in this appeal followed in the wake of the hearing in Civil Appeal Nos. 5145 of 2016, 5158 of 2016, and 9820 of 2016. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy in this appeal are as follows: i. By an agreement dated 22.07.2004 between the Appellant, Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as "Deccan"] and the Respondent No. 2 company, M/s Ashray Premises Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as "Ashray"], Deccan, being the owner of approximately 80,200 sq. meters of land bearing Survey Nos. 96B, 96C, and 96D at village Mundhwa, District Pune, decided to develop a portion of the said land, i.e., 32,659 sq. meters. It is not necessary to enter into the nitty-gritty of the said agreement. However, it is enough to note that this agreement contained clause 7(m), in which it is stated. Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:12:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13094 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13094 [Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 225 of 2020]. This Transfer Petition is filed under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 with prayer for transfer of the FIR No. 241 of 2020 (dated 25.7.2020) under Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") registered at the Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna and all consequential proceedings, from the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Patna Sadar, to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra Mumbai. The matter relates to the unnatural death of the actor Sushant Singh Rajput on 14.6.2020, at his Bandra residence at Mumbai. The deceased resided within Bandra Police Station jurisdiction and there itself, the unnatural death under section 174 of CrPC was reported. The petitioner is a friend of the deceased, and she too is in the acting field since last many years. As regards the allegations against the petitioner in the FIR, the petitioner claims that she has been falsely implicated in the Patna FIR, filed by Krishan Kishor Singh (respondent no. 2) - the father of the deceased actor. The petitioner and the deceased were in a live-in relationship but on 8.6.2020, a few days prior to the death of the actor, she had shifted to her own residence at Mumbai. According to the petitioner, the Mumbai Police is competent to undertake the investigation, even for the FIR lodged at Patna. Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:08:52 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13093 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13093 [Crl. M.P. No. 70798/2020 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 177 of 2020]. The petitioner in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition/application is the petitioner in W.P (Crl.) No.177/2020. The said writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of public interest seeking for issue of Writ of Mandamus and direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition to initiate action with regard to the destruction of residential building and other properties of accused -Vikas Dubey and to safeguard the life of the accused. Before the petition was taken up for consideration certain other developments had occurred, inasmuch as the said Vikas Dubey was killed by the police in an alleged encounter. Along with the said writ petition, certain other writ petitions which were also filed in public interest seeking for an appropriate enquiry in that regard were tagged. Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:04:16 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13092 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13092 [Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2010 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3388 of 2010]. The present criminal appeal, which has been heard through video conferencing, is at the instance of Mohd. Anwar who impugnes the judgment dated 22.02.2010 of the High Court of Delhi whereby his appeal against a judgment dated 27/29.04.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, convicting and sentencing him under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, was turned down. The case of the prosecution is that the victim-complainant, Tabban Khan (PW-1), was riding his motorcycle on the main road near Shahdara around 11:30PM on 17.05.2001, when he stopped to ease himself near a fishpond. Suddenly, three boys (including the appellant) caught hold of him and started assaulting him. They were armed with a knife and revolver. Upon extortion, the complainant handed over a bundle of five-hundredrupees notes totalling around thirty thousand (Rs 30,000) to the boys, who then contemplated murdering him by stabbing, so that he would not report the matter to the police. Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13091 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13091 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 546 of 2020]. From the beginning of this year, 2020, the world including our country is in the grip of a pandemic known as Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). On 31.12.2019, a cluster of cases of pneumonia of unknown cause in the city of Wuhan, Hubei Province in China was reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO). This was subsequently identified as a new virus in January, 2020 and over the following months, the number of cases continued to rise but were not contained to China and showed exponential growth worldwide. Due to the global rise in cases, this was declared a pandemic on 11.03.2020 by the WHO. The number of affected persons is increasing worldwide. Although, substantial population is also recovering from it but India witnessed exponential growth in number of cases in the last month. The world is familiar with several kinds of disasters from time immemorial. Every country has faced one or other disaster in recent memory. Disasters disturb lives, societies and livelihood around the world. The impact of disaster is to strike hard earned economy, development and material gains. Many of the destructive hazards are natural in origin and some man made also. Tue, 18 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13090 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13090 [Criminal Appeal No. 521 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2053 of 2020]. Leave granted. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellantaccused, aggrieved by the order dated 20th March 2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No.1325 of 2016 by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. By the aforesaid order, High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking suspension of sentence imposed in Sessions Case No.306 of 2013 by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar vide judgment dated 14.12.2016. Based on the complaint dated 07.12.2011 filed by the de facto complainant a case was registered against the appellant and his parents in Crime No.964 of 2011 for the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the file of KPHB Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. Fri, 14 Aug 2020 06:20:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13089 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13089 [Civil Appeal No. 6347 of 2019]. This appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20161 is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.05.2019 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi2 in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 549 of 2018 whereby, the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the contention that the application made by respondent No. 2 under Section 7 of the Code, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process3 in respect of the debtor company (respondent No. 1 herein), is barred by limitation; and has declined to interfere with the order dated 09.08.2018, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench4 in CP(IB)- 488/I&BP/MB/2018, for commencement of CIRP as prayed for by the respondent No. 2. 2. A brief introduction of the parties and the subject matter as also a thumbnail sketch of the relevant orders passed in this matter and the issue involved shall be apposite at the very outset. Fri, 14 Aug 2020 06:16:42 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13088 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13088 [Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020]. A petition came to be filed in this Court by one Mahek Maheshwari bringing to the notice of this Court, a tweet made by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, alleged contemnor No.1 praying therein to initiate contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors for wilfully and deliberately using hate/scandalous speech against this Court and entire judicial system. The Registry placed the said petition on the Administrative side of this Court seeking direction as to whether it should be listed for hearing or not, as consent of the learned Attorney General for India had not been obtained by the said Shri Maheshwari to file the said petition. After examining the matter on the Administrative side, this court on the administrative side directed the matter to be listed on the Judicial side to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the petition was placed before us on 22.7.2020. Fri, 14 Aug 2020 06:12:02 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13087 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13087 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985]. We are dealing with the authority of the "Monitoring Committee to seal the residential premises on the private land" particularly when they are not being used for the "commercial purpose". Whether the Monitoring Committee could have sealed these residential premises is the only question which we are examining in this order. Report No.149 dated 2.4.2019 submitted by the Monitoring Committee concerning specific unauthorized constructions allegedly carried out in the Vasant Kunj and Rajokari area. These constructions were not on public land. The respective persons owned the land, and the Committee had submitted that a letter was received from the SDM, Mehrauli on 22.2.2019 regarding unauthorized construction in Vasant Kunj, Delhi. A reply was filed on behalf of the residents that various residential premises were sealed where constructions were made long back. There was no authority with the Monitoring Committee to seal purely residential premises. Fri, 14 Aug 2020 06:08:53 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13086 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13086 [Civil Appeal No. 9049-9053 of 2011]. The Union of India through Secretary (Revenue) and another, have filed these appeals aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in R.F.A.Nos.204-8/2006. By the aforesaid impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed the Regular First Appeals, preferred by the respondents, by setting aside judgment and decree dated 04.01.2006 passed in Suit No.203 of 2005 by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi. Necessary facts in brief are as under : The land admeasuring 36 bighas 11 biswas comprising in Khasra Nos.14/9, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20/1, 23 and 24 belonged to Gaon Sabha Luhar Heri, Delhi. The large extent of land in the village, including the aforesaid land, was acquired by the Government by initiating proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 27.01.1984 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 20.09.1984. By passing the Award bearing No.101/86-87 on 19.09.1986, possession of the land was taken by the Government. In the award proceedings, as the respondents have claimed compensation on the ground that the land was given to them on lease by Gaon Sabha, the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, for apportionment of the amount of compensation. Fri, 14 Aug 2020 06:04:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13075 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13075 [Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2102 of 2019]. Leave granted. This appeal, filed by the father of the deceased victim, is against the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Misc. Application No. 129789 of 2018, in Criminal Appeal No. 1594 of 2018, whereby the High Court granted bail to the Respondent No.2, Sandeep Singh Hora, husband of the deceased victim, convicted by a judgment dated 23.7.2018 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (EC Act), Lucknow, hereinafter referred to as the "Sessions Court" in Sessions Trial No.1385 of 2010, for offences under Sections 304B, 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by staying execution of the sentences of imprisonment. Fri, 14 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13074 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13074 [Civil Appeal No. Diary No. 32601 of 2018]. The question concerning the interpretation of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Act of 1956') as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (in short, 'the Act of 2 2005') has been referred to a larger Bench in view of the conflicting verdicts rendered in two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36 and Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 343. In other connected matters, the question involved is similar; as such, they have also been referred for hearing along. n the case of Lokmani & Ors. v. Mahadevamma & Ors., [S.L.P.(C) No.6840 of 2016] the High Court held that section 6, as amended by the Act of 2005, is deemed to be there since 17.6.1956 when the Act of 1956 came into force, the amended provisions are given retrospective effect, when the daughters were denied right in the coparcenary property, pending proceedings are to be decided in the light of the amended provisions. Inequality has been removed. Tue, 11 Aug 2020 06:08:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13069 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13069 [Civil Appeal No. 1713 of 2020]. The appellants are before this Court claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('NGT' for short) in Appeal No. 54/2018. The appellants herein were arrayed as respondent Nos. 11 and 12 in the appeal before the NGT. By the order impugned herein, the NGT has set aside the Environmental Clearance ('EC' for short) issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority ('SEIAA' for short), Karnataka, in favour of the appellants through its order dated 10.01.2018. The brief facts are that the appellants herein are undertaking the construction of New High Rise Residential Building. Tue, 11 Aug 2020 06:04:52 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13068 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13068 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114 of 2014]. The abovestated applications are filed by the ApplicantM/ s Orissa Minerals Development Company Limited ('OMDC' for short). Since all the applications pertain to the same issue and are between the same parties seeking similar relief, they are disposed of through this common order. In all these applications the applicant has sought condonation of delay in making the payment pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP(C)No.114/2017. Further in I.A.Nos.168557/2019 and 168569/2019 the applicant has also sought a direction to the State of Orissa to conduct joint verification of the undisposed stock and allow sale of the same so as to enable the applicant company to realise the amount. In IA.Nos.168564/2019 and 168578/2019 the applicant has sought permission to resume regular mining operations in view of payment of the entire amount demanded. The applications pertain to the mining lease in favour of the applicant company in respect of RoidaBhadrasahi Iron Ore and Bhadrasahi Iron and Manganese respectively. Tue, 11 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13067 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13067 [Civil Appeal No(s). 7138 of 2010]. The instant appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 22nd September, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad holding the association formed by the drivers based on job description as a 'distinct category' laid down under Rule 5 (c) of Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter being referred to as "Rules 1993") overruling the view expressed by the Single Bench of the High Court dated 9th October, 2001. The seminal facts in brief which are relevant for the present purpose are that the respondent approached the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking a declaration in treating their association comprising of drivers operating in appellant no. 4Shar Centre a Unit of ISRO, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh eligible to participate in the verification process by according recognition and rejection of their application by order dated 29th June, 1999 on the premise that association formed by a group of employees based on job description will not qualify for recognition under Rules 1993 is in contravention to Rule 5 (c) which is not sustainable in law. Mon, 10 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13066 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13066 [Civil Appeal No. 6156 of 2013]. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 15.9.2008 passed by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court dismissing Writ Petition No.904 of 2008 filed by the appellant, challenging an order dated 3.5.2006, whereby the State Government refused to sanction modification of a Scheme under the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as "the Regional and Town Planning Act"). One Thorat family was the owner of Plot No. 473 in City Survey No. 1092 at Bhamburda in Pune. By a registered deed of conveyance dated 21.12.1956 one Mrs. Krishnabai Gopal Rao Thorat sold the northern part of the plot admeasuring 4910 sq.m. jointly to Swami Dilip Kumar Roy, one of the most eminent disciples of Sri Aurobindo, and Smt. Indira Devi, daughter disciple of Swami Dilip Kumar Roy. The names of Swami Dilip Kumar Roy and Smt. Indira Devi were duly recorded in the relevant revenue records in 1959. Fri, 07 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13065 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13065 [Civil Appeal Nos. 5829-5830 of 2012]. The appellants were all working as Telephone Operators with the Delhi Fire Service ("DFS"). On account of reorganisation of the wireless communication system, ninety-six posts of Radio Telephone Operators were sought to be created in terms of a letter dated 29.8.1983. Six Radio Operators were already operating as such, while twenty-seven Telephone Operators, in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 were sought to be deployed as Radio Telephone Operators ("RTOs") in a higher pay scale. The reorganisation scheme was approved on 10.10.1983 by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Telephone Operators had to go through a training and to be deployed as RTOs, a further condition was imposed of 5 years regular service, though it is alleged by the appellants that the same was not part of the letter dated 29.8.1983. An important development took place on 9.8.1999 whereby the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India issued an Office Memorandum introducing an Assured Career Progression ("ACP") Scheme, by which a decision was taken to grant two financial upgradations after completion of 12 and 24 years of regular service respectively. Thu, 06 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13063 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13063 [Civil Appeal No. 2903 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 26349 of 2019]. Leave granted. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is important to first set out a few basic facts: A notice inviting quotations was issued on 06.07.2015 by the Respondents herein for Clotrimazole Cream 1% 15 gm tube, the quantity being required for the first year and second year, being: To this N.I.Q., the Appellant submitted its quotation on 09.07.2015, in which it was specified that the shelf life of the said cream would be only 2 years. After rates were negotiated and re-negotiated, a supply order was issued on 04.11.2015 in which it was clearly stated : "8. Not more than 1/6th of the shelf life should have expired when drug pharmaceuticals are received in medical store PGI, Chandigarh." In accordance with the supply order, the first instalment of 1700 tubes of Clotrimazole Cream was supplied on 18.01.2016, there being no complaint whatsoever in respect of the said supply. Wed, 05 Aug 2020 06:20:12 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13064 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13064 [Civil Appeal No. 2868 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 9174 of 2020 @D. No. 1298 of 2020]. Leave Granted. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Tripura at Agartala in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1040 of 2019 and all other connected matters. Selection of 10,323 teachers made by the Government of Tripura, pursuant to advertisements issued in the years 2002, 2006 and 2009 was subject matter of challenge before the High Court of Tripura in Sri Tanmoy Nath & others vs. The State of Tripura & others1. While accepting the challenge, it was held by the High Court that the selection was contrary to the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the relevant policies and that the appointments were arbitrary and illegal. It was found that the selection was irrational and illogical and that it suffered from nepotism and favouritism. The conclusions of the High Court were:- "116. We live in a country which is governed by the rule of law. The action of each and every official or Government functionary has to be in accordance with the Constitution. Wed, 05 Aug 2020 06:16:29 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13062 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13062 [Civil Appeal No. 2525 of 2018]. This batch of appeals arises out of a reference order made by a Division Bench of this Court dated 07.03.2018 reported as (2018) 4 SCC 592. The learned Division Bench stated as to how these proceedings arose before it as follows: "1. These proceedings have arisen from a judgment dated 27-9-2011 [Arebee Star Maritime Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Cochin Port Trust, Original Petition No. 21041 of 1999, decided on 27-9-2011 (Ker)] of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in a batch of writ appeals and original petitions, preferred by various shipping agents. The question before the High Court was whether the liability to pay "ground rent" on containers unloaded at Cochin Port, but not cleared by the consignees/importers and refused to be destuffed by the Port, on the ground of inadequate storage space, can be imposed on the owners of the vessel/steamer agents beyond the period of 75 days, fixed by the Tariff Authority of Major Ports [TAMP], a statutory body constituted under Section 47-A of the Major Port Trusts Act [MPT Act], 1963. Wed, 05 Aug 2020 06:12:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13060 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13060 [Civil Appeal No(s). 2904 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 16893 of 2018]. Leave granted. The present appeal has been placed before us on a reference by a two Judge Bench opining a perceived conflict between two Division Bench decisions in Joginder Tuli vs. S.L. Bhatia, (1997) 1 SCC 502 and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Modern Construction & Co., (2014) 1 SCC 648. The question of law we are required to answer is that if a plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, (hereinafter called as "the Code") for presentation in the court in which it should have been instituted, whether the suit shall proceed de novo or will it continue from the stage where it was pending before the court at the time of returning of the plaint. The order of reference also leaves it open for consideration if the conduct of the appellant disentitles it to any relief notwithstanding the decision on the issue of law. Wed, 05 Aug 2020 06:08:53 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13059 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13059 [Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7415 of 2019]. The appellant assails his conviction under Section 8C read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as "the NDPS Act") for recovery of 48 Kgs 200 gms. cannabis (ganja), sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a default stipulation. The appellant was held to be the owner of the House in question from which the ganja was recovered, relying upon the voters list of 2008 rejecting his defence that he had sold the house to coaccused Gokul Dangi on 12.06.2009. Gokul Dangi has been acquitted in trial. Wed, 05 Aug 2020 06:04:08 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13058 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13058 [Writ Petition (C) No.55 Of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.73 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.72 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.76 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.69 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.80 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.122 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.106 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.95 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.222 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.133 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.178 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.182 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.249 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.146 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.168 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.212 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.162 Of 2019; Transfer Petition (C) No.341 Of 2019; Transfer Petition (C) No.323 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.331 Of 2019; Transfer Petition (C) No.357 Of 2019; Transfer Petition (C) No.539 Of 2019; Transfer Petition (C) No.630 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.341 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.343 Of 2019; Transfer Petition (C) No.675 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.419 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.427 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.446 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.493 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.854 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.596 Of 2019; Writ Petition (C) No.732 Of 2019; And Writ Petition (C) No.798 Of 2019.]. In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of, The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 [for short, 'the Amendment Act']. By the aforesaid amendment, Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India were amended by inserting clause (6), after clause (5), in Article 15 and by inserting clause (6) after clause (5), in Article 16. The newly inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) read as under. Wed, 05 Aug 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13057 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13057 [Civil Appeal No. 7764 of 2014]. This appeal emanates from the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1 in R.S.A. No. 946/2004, whereby the second appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (heirs and legal representatives of Mohan Singh original defendant No. 1) came to be allowed by answering the substantial question of law formulated as under: " Whether the document Ex.P6 required registration as by way of said document the interest in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/was transferred in favour of the plaintiff?" Briefly stated, the suit was filed by the predecessor of the appellants herein Harbans Singh, son of Niranjan Singh, resident of Sangrur, Punjab against his real brothers Mohan Singh (original defendant No. 1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. 2) for a declaration that he was the exclusive owner in respect of land admeasuring 11 kanals 17 marlas comprising khasra Nos. 935/1 and 935/2 situated at Mohalla Road and other properties referred to in the Schedule. Fri, 31 Jul 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13055 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13055 [Civil Appeal No. 2834 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11697 of 2019]. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent, painstakingly took us through the records, including the Award, in order to point out various deficiencies which, according to him, fell within the parameters of a Section 34 petition as a result of which we should not therefore disturb the judgment of the High Court, which has merely remanded the matter and directed that the matter be disposed of in six months. This matter has a chequered history. The Award that was made by the learned Arbitrator was on 16.09.2009. Five claims were made before him amounting in all to Rs. 2,08,59,989. However, ultimately the Award that was made in favour of the appellant herein was to the extent of Rs. 1,38,44,430 plus 15% on a sum of Rs. 1,17,77,080 as pendente lite interest plus Rs. 2,67,350 by way of costs without interest. If the said amount, dehors costs, was not paid in four months, the interest figure would become higher and would attract 18%. Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:04:24 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13061 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13061 [Criminal Appeal No. 2255 of 2010]. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal no.492DBA of 1996, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court acquitting the appellant herein and convicted him for the of fences under Section 2 (1a) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, 'the Act') punishable under Section 16(1A) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii) NONREPORTABLE of the Act for selling adulterated Haldi Powder and selling it without licence. The case of the prosecution is that, on 18.8.1982, at about 11 A.M., the Food Inspector, along with Medical Officer, inspected the shop of the accusedappellant in the presence of the witnesses and found 10 kgs of Haldi Powder in his shop. Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13054 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13054 [Civil Appeal No. 7865 of 2009]. By way of this appeal, the assessee-appellant has called in question the order dated 15.05.2009 passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 164 of 2008 whereby, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has summarily dismissed the appeal against the order dated 29.08.2008 passed in ITA No. 117/JU/2008 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench at Jodhpur; and thereby, the High Court has upheld the computation of total income of the assessee-appellant for the assessment year 2005-2006 with disallowance of payments to the tune of Rs. 57,11,625/-, essentially in terms of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 19611, for failure of the assesseeappellant to deduct the requisite tax at source2. Wed, 29 Jul 2020 06:08:29 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13052 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13052 [Civil Appeal No. 2796 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 17734 of 2019]. The four appellants in these two appeals before us, were the original applicants before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal1 who invoked its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application2 filed by the appellants on 15th November, 2017 directing the Kerala Public Service Commission3 to make the shortfall in reservations from the succeeding rank list. It is the said order and the order passed in review by the Tribunal on 15th October, 2018 which were challenged before the High Court by the private respondents herein. The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the OA filed by the appellants. The appellants belonged to the Hindu Nadar community, a category included in the Other Backward Classes4 in the State of Kerala vide Circular dated 21.11.2009. This decision was later incorporated in the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 19585 vide Gazette Notification dated 3.8.2010 but with retrospective effect from 21.11.2009 and 1% reservation was provided to the Hindu Nadar Community. Wed, 29 Jul 2020 06:04:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13051 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13051 [Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2013]. These Appeals have been preferred against the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter, 'the Tribunal') by which the conviction of Ex. Lt. Col. S. S. Bedi by the General Court Martial was affirmed. However, the sentence of cashiering from service was converted into a fine of Rs.50,000/- by the Tribunal. An application filed by Ex. Lt. Col. S. S. Bedi for granting permission to file an Appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Appellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.997 of 2013 aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal upholding the conviction ordered by the General Court Martial and imposition of fine of Rs.50,000/-. The Union of India has filed Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2013 aggrieved by the alteration of sentence from cashiering from service to imposition of fine. Wed, 29 Jul 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13050 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13050 [Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2011]. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by Parminder Kaur, impugning the judgment dated 30.11.2009 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana through which her challenge to a judgment dated 27.02.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala was turned down, thereby confirming her conviction of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000 under Sections 366A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). The prosecution story, as recorded in the FIR at around noon on 24.02.1996, was that the appellant was a single lady living with her child, mother and a young boy as her tenant in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix's1 house. Tue, 28 Jul 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13049 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13049 [Criminal Appeal No. 2463 of 2014]. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 18.11.2009 dismissing the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant by which appeal the judgment dated 26.03.2008 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in Appeal No.622 of 2004 filed by the appellant was challenged. Modi Xerox Ltd.(MXL) was a Company registered under the Companies Act 1956 in the year 1983. Between the period 12.06.1985-21.11.1985,20 remittances were made by the Company-MXL through its banker Standard Chartered Bank. The Reserve Bank of India issued a letter stating that despite reminder issued by the Authorised Dealer, MXL had not submitted the Exchange Control copy of the custom bills of Entry/Postal Wrappers as evidence of import of goods into India. Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:04:28 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13048 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13048 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8495-8496 of 2018]. On the fateful day of 16.08.2011, the appellant was travelling from Chennai to Bangalore in a bus owned by the respondent State Corporation bearing registration No. TN-01-N-7531. At about 5.40 a.m., while the bus was moving on the Kolar Bangalore National Highway, it ran into a stationary lorry. The collision resulted in multiple injuries to numerous passengers including the appellant, and caused death of the bus conductor on the spot. The appellant was rushed to R.L. Jallappa Research & Medical College Hospital, Tamak, Kolar and further treatment was administered at the Manipal Hospital, Bangalore where she remained admitted for 8 months. The injuries to the appellant were grievous including fractures in the arms and legs and she suffered a disability of 31.1% of the whole body. Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13047 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13047 [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6439 of 2020]. Aggrieved by the dismissal by the High Court, of their claim for promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff, persons working as Office Assistants/Record Clerks in various courts in Erode District of the State of Tamil Nadu have come up with this special leave petition. We have heard Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Fri, 24 Jul 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13046 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13046 [Civil Appeal No. 2823 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28056 of 2017]. The appeal arises from an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 7 October 2016. The Union of India, through the Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and Safdarjung Hospital have challenged the order of the NCDRC. The first respondent was the original complainant in a consumer complaint2 instituted before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - II3, New Delhi. The complaint alleged medical negligence against Sarvodaya Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital. The NCDRC allowed the revision of Sarvodaya Hospital. While exonerating it of the finding of medical negligence, it held Safdarjung Hospital liable to pay the compensation of Rs 2 lakhs imposed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission4. Thu, 23 Jul 2020 06:04:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13056 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13056 [Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2592 of 2019]. The petitioners in this proceeding seek transfer of a writ petition registered as CWP No 7607 of 2019 ( O & M) (the writ petition) pending in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to this Court. The main ground on which such plea is made is that this Court is hearing certain appeals on near identical point to the one which forms subject of controversy in the aforesaid Writ Petition. The said appeals are registered as Civil Appeal Nos. 9546-9549 of 2016 (State of Gujarat and Ors. etc. Vs. Ms Dulari Mahesh Basagre & Anr. etc). In the writ petition, under challenge is a notification issued by the State of Haryana bearing no. 733 SW (1|)- 2013 dated 27th September 2013 providing for 10% vertical reservation for economically backward persons in general category in certain fields of public employment. Thu, 23 Jul 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13045 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13045 [Civil Appeal No. 12183 of 2016]. This appeal by the Department revisits the question as to the taxability of income attributable to a "permanent establishment" set up in a fixed place in India, arising from the 'Agreement for avoidance of double taxation of income and the prevention of fiscal evasion' with the Republic of Korea ("DTAA"). On 28.02.2006, the Oil and Natural Gas Company ("ONGC") awarded a "turnkey" contract to a consortium comprising of the Respondent/Assessee, i.e. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (a Company incorporated in South Korea), and Larsen & Toubro Limited, being a contract for carrying out the "Work", inter alia, of surveys, design, engineering, procurement, fabrication, installation and modification at existing facilities, and start-up and commissioning of entire facilities covered under the 'Vasai East Development Project' ("Project"). Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:04:53 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13044 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13044 [Civil Appeal No. 12044 of 2016]. The present appeal relating to assessment year 1995-96 is by one Shri Shiv Raj Gupta, who was the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Central Distillery and Breweries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CDBL"), which had a unit in Meerut manufacturing beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor (hereinafter referred to as "IMFL"). The facts leading to an appreciation of the issues raised in this appeal are as follows. By a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as "MoU") dated 13.04.1994, made between the appellant and three group companies of M/s Shaw Wallace Company Group (hereinafter referred to as "SWC group"), the appellant, his wife, son, daughter-in-law and two daughters were the registered holders of 1,86,109 equity shares of INR 10 each constituting 57.29% of the paid-up equity share capital of CDBL listed in the Bombay and Delhi Stock Exchanges. Wed, 22 Jul 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13043 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13043 [Civil Appeal Nos. 1021-1026 of 2013]. One R. Venkitusamy Naidu had two sons and five daughters. Lakshmiah Naidu and Rangaswami Naidu were the sons of R. Venkitusamy Naidu. Rangaswami Naidu was married to one R. Krishnammal. They had no issues. Lakshmiah Naidu had four sons, viz., Bakthavatsalam, Venkatapathy, Jagannathan and Ramaswamy. Two civil suits have generated these appeals by special leave before us. O.S. No. 649 of 1985 has been filed by those who claimed under Lakshmiah Naidu whereas the plaintiff in O.S. No. 89 of 1983 is one of legatees under a Will allegedly executed by Rangaswami Naidu. The plaint schedule properties in both the civil suits are the same. The first suit, viz., O.S. No. 649 of 1985 (as the said suit was initially filed as O.S. No. 2063 of 1982 and it is re-numbered as O.S. No. 649 of 1985) was filed to declare the title of the plaintiffs to the suit property and for injunction against the defendants in the suit properties. Fri, 17 Jul 2020 06:08:28 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13031 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13031 [Civil Appeal No. 2773 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2252 of 2019]. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2019 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9090 of 2018, whereby the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants while upholding the order of revision dated 12.03.2018 as passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur1 in revision proceedings under Clause 13 of the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme-20032. Fri, 17 Jul 2020 06:04:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13030 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13030 [Criminal Appeal No. 1003 of 2017]. The Appellant (original Accused No.1) stands convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to other punishments including fine and default sentence under certain other offences. While granting Special Leave to Appeal, this Court by its Order dated 04.07.2017 rejected the prayer for bail. Another application for bail was thereafter preferred and when the application came up for consideration, it was reported that after having completed 8 years of actual sentence and the Appellant being aged above 75 years, in accordance with the existing policy of the State Government, he was prematurely released in 2019. This Court, therefore, called upon the State to file an affidavit indicating whether the policy permitted premature release even before completion of actual sentence of 14 years in connection with an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Fri, 17 Jul 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13029 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13029 [Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 20049/2019]. Leave granted. Applications for Intervention are allowed. The Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (for short "the Act"), inter alia, deals with fee fixation insofar as unaided institutions like the present two institutions are concerned. For the years 2016-2019, so far as the petitioner in the first matter is concerned, the fee was fixed at Rs.86,800/-, and so far as the Petitioner in the second matter is concerned, it was fixed at Rs. 59,500/- per student. Thereafter for the next block of two years i.e. 2019-2020, proposals were made by both the petitioner in the first matter and in the second matter asking for an increase up to Rs. 1.35 lakhs and Rs.72,000/- respectively. Tue, 14 Jul 2020 06:24:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13028 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13028 [Civil Appeal Nos. 20825-20826 of 2017]. I.A. No.134044 of 2019 for intervention in C.A. Nos. 20825- 20826 of 2017 is allowed. These Civil Appeals have been referred to a Bench of three honourable Judges of this Court by a Division Bench reference order dated 26.07.2019, dealing with the interpretation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("Evidence Act") by two judgments of this Court. Tue, 14 Jul 2020 06:20:12 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13027 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13027 [Civil Appeal No. 6932 of 2015]. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 28178/2018, 1706/2019, Diary No. 19018 of 2018 and 1632 of 2019. With consent of counsel for the parties, they were tagged with the companion civil appeals and heard finally. On 06 June, 2013, when Ms. Vishakha Wadekar, was driving her car with her young daughter, Sanskruti Wadekar she had no inkling that danger lurked round the corner of the highway; over-mining at the height of 75 x 30 ft, in Gut No. 112, resulted in the destruction of a small hill by the side of the national highway. Tue, 14 Jul 2020 06:16:17 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13026 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13026 [Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11295 of 2011]. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11295 of 2011 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12361 of 2011. Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma who as Ruler of Covenanting State of Travancore had entered into a Covenant in May 1949 with the Government of India leading to the formation of the United State of Travancore and Cochin, died on 19.07.1991. Mon, 13 Jul 2020 06:12:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13025 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13025 Civil Appeal No. 9519 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11618 of 2017]. The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the impugned Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2016 passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, which affirmed the Order of the Trial Court, allowing the application filed by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3/Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein under Order VII Rule 11(d), CPC holding that the suit filed by the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 9 to 13 herein (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") was barred by limitation. Thu, 09 Jul 2020 06:08:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13024 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13024 [Civil Appeal No. 9340 of 2019]. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (for short 'the NCLAT') in Company Appeal (AT) No.411 of 2018, thereby affirming the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short 'the NCLT') concerning maintainability of the applications filed under sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Mon, 06 Jul 2020 06:04:11 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13023 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13023 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 541 of 2020]. The petitioner, who is an Advocate practicing in this Court, has filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against various officers of the Registry of this Court and the Union of India. Prayer has been made to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to give preference to the cases filed by influential lawyers/ petitioners, law firms, etc. Mon, 06 Jul 2020 06:00:11 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13022 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13022 [Civil Appeal No. 2705 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 28548 of 2014]. Leave granted. The deceased - Satpal Singh was residing in Doha, Qatar since 1984. The Employment Contract Form of the deceased dated 21.08.1984 revealed that he was engaged as a labourer initially for a period of one year on a salary of 750 Qatari Riyal p.m., and continued to live in Qatar where he was employed, till he passed away in a motor vehicle accident in India in 1998. Tue, 30 Jun 2020 06:16:11 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13016 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13016 [Civil Appeal No. 7164 of 2013]. The appeals in this batch, involving similar questions between the same parties, have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. Civil Appeal Nos. 7164 of 2013 and 7165 of 2013, filed respectively by the revenue and the assessee, are directed against the final judgement and order dated 10.09.2004, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 25081 of 2002. Mon, 29 Jun 2020 06:12:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13015 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13015 [Civil Appeal No. 2697 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20133 of 2018]. Leave granted. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No.1074 of 2008 (M/S) thereby, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - landlords herein. Fri, 26 Jun 2020 06:08:19 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13014 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13014 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2651-2656 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7746-7751 of 2020]. Leave granted. The present appeals are directed against the interim order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan on 29th May, 2020 and 10th June, 2020 whereby in an intra-court appeal, the High Court passed an order of status quo with a further direction that other formalities may proceed but the contract shall not be signed with the leave of the Court. Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:04:24 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13011 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13011 [MISC. Application No. 929 of 2020]. The present Misc. Application No. 929 of 2020 was earlier listed before this Court on 19.05.2020, when the Appellants were permitted to deposit Rs. 26,00,00,000/ (Rupees TwentySix Crores only) with the Registry of this Court by 21.05.2020. Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:00:17 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13010 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13010 [Civil Appeal Nos. of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 10733-10734 of 2019]. Leave granted. Sixty-four out of the ninety-two elected members of the Zila Panchayat, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh had on 1st October 2018 moved a motion of no confidence ("the Motion", for short) against the Panchayat Adhyaksha, Ms. Rekha Singh, the first respondent before us. Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:48:21 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13008 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13008 [Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7/2020]. This Court issued notice on 12.06.2020 in this Suo Motu writ petition with object to notice deficiencies, shortcomings and lapses in patient care of Covid-19 in different hospitals in National Capital Territory of Delhi and other States. The object was to take remedial action by all concerned to redeem the plight of patients and other persons who needs medical care. Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:44:11 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13007 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13007 [Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1531 of 2018]. The petitioners in this proceeding are both daughters of Late Pawan Kumar Singha(deceased). They seek transfer of a suit for partition and certain other ancillary reliefs instituted in the Delhi High Court. The said suit has been registered as CS(OS)No.2888 of 2014. The plaintiff in that suit is Rashmi Ahluwalia, who is the widow of the deceased. Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:40:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13006 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13006 [Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2433/2020]. This appeal has been filed questioning the judgment of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 11.05.2020 in Crl.OP(MD) No.5296 of 2020 by which judgment the bail application of the appellant has been dismissed. Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:36:07 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13005 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13005 [Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1616 of 2020]. Leave granted. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his bail application by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, a person who is cited as A-1 in the First Information Report in Crime No.I-I/5/2019 dated 26.06.2019 for alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has come up with the above appeal. Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:32:11 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13004 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13004 [Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2011]. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 28.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 295 of 2009 in and by which High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent thereby setting aside the order passed by the Family Court which has converted the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. into Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and also setting aside the maintenance amount awarded to appellant No.1. Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:28:14 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13003 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13003 [Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20569 of 2016]. Leave granted. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 23.2.2015 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as 'National Commission', allowing Revision Petition No.4126/2014 filed by the Respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurer', setting aside an order dated 09.1.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum' allowing the Complaint Case No.404 of 2012;. Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:24:05 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13002 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13002 [Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 1882 of 2018]. Leave granted. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 31-1-2018 passed by the Karnataka High Court, disposing of the application of the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an order dated 27-12-2016 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate III, Bengaluru City in PCR No.17214 of 2013, taking cognizance of a private complaint being PCR No.17214 of 2013 inter alia against the accused appellant, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 220, 323, 330 348, 506B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:20:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13001 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13001 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 488-489 of 2017]. This appeal is against a common judgment and order dated 29th September 2015 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, dismissing Criminal Appeal No.1145 of 2006, filed by the Appellant, partly allowing Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2006, filed by Respondent State, affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 18th January 2006, passed by Additional City Sessions Judge (Court No.6) at Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No.245 of 2004, but enhancing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from six to seven years, for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:16:44 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13000 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13000 [Civil Appeal No (s). 2624 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No (s). 13964 of 2018]. Leave granted. The High Court by the impugned order dismissed two appeals arising from separate orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) deciding two accident compensation claims. The appellants had claimed further enhancement of compensation. Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:12:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12999 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12999 [Criminal Appeal No. 2183 of 2011]. The petitioner, an accused in the complaint case, is aggrieved by the refusal of the High court to interfere with the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, setting aside the order of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C."). Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:08:17 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12998 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12998 [Civil appeal No. 2617 of 2020 arising out of SLP (c) No. 9866 of 2019]. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed questioning the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 05.09.2018 dismissing the revision filed by the landlord-appellant. Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are:- The appellant is a landlord of a shop measuring 14 sq. yds. Wed, 17 Jun 2020 06:04:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12992 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12992 [Civil Appeal No. 2573 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18525 of 2009]. Leave granted. These Appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 17.03.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.25058 of 2006 and all other connected matters while answering the questions referred to it by a Single Judge of the High Court. Mon, 15 Jun 2020 06:00:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12991 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12991 [Civil Appeal No. 2612 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 28724 of 2018]. Leave granted. The present civil appeal has been filed by the Claimants/Dependents of one Harish Singh Arya, who died at the age of 35 years in a motor vehicle accident on 18.06.2007. On 18.06.2007, the deceased Harish Singh Arya had taken his uncle Govind Lal Arya, an Enforcement Officer for Passenger Tax, Champawat for inspection in his taxi. Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:48:21 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12990 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12990 [Civil Appeal No (s). 2611 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No (s). 9689 of 2018]. Leave granted. The appellant, a housewife, is in appeal against inadequacy of compensation granted to her in a motor accident case. The appellant while travelling in a bus belonging to respondent no.3 on 25.12.2008 met with an accident when a lorry rashly and negligently dashed against the bus. The appellant suffered nine injuries out of which seven were grievous in nature. Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:44:12 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12989 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12989 [Civil Appeal No. 2586 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15790 of 2019]. Leave granted. These eight appeals raise common questions touching upon the interpretation of Section 47A1 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ('the Act', for short) and the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 ('the Rules', for short) as amended from time to time. Mon, 15 Jun 2020 06:40:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12988 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12988 [Civil Appeal No. 2601 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14036 of 2019]. Leave granted. These Appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated 30.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 1712 of 2018 and other connected matters. Mon, 15 Jun 2020 06:36:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12987 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12987 [Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 25793 of 2017]. Leave granted. In the present case, death occurred to a 45 year old who was on a cycle and hit by a bus on 16.08.2001. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'MACT') found that it was as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, which was hired by the appellant-Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation under an agreement between it and the bus owner. Mon, 08 Jun 2020 06:32:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12986 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12986 [Civil Appeal No. 2527 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11247 of 2018]. Leave granted. On 18.03.2004, an incident took place, by which the son of the claimant, who allegedly was a pillion rider, was killed in a road accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as 'MACT') after examining the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, who was the owner of the motor vehicle and who was driving the aforesaid motor vehicle. Mon, 08 Jun 2020 06:26:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12985 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12985 [Civil Appeal No. 2558 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 19221 of 2018]. Leave granted. This civil appeal is filed by the claimants in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') in MVC No.1639 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI and III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mangalore, D.K. (for short, 'the Tribunal'), aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.07.2017 passed in Misc. Fri, 12 Jun 2020 06:24:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12984 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12984 [Writ Petition (C) Diary No. 10983 of 2020]. All these writ petitions except one(i.e. W.P.(civil) Diary No.10981/2020) have been filed by different employers, employers' associations questioning the orders issued under Disaster Management Act, 2005 and other consequential orders issued by different States where directions have been issued that all the employers be it in the industries or in the shops, commercial establishment, shall make payment of wages of their workers, at their work place, on the due date, without any deduction, for the period their establishments are under closure during the lockdown. Fri, 12 Jun 2020 06:20:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12983 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12983 [Writ Petition (C) No. 227 of 2019]. This bunch of writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India by the petitioners claiming appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Bihar claiming parity with 133 candidates who were appointed under Orders of this Court by subjecting them only to the Medical test and not subjecting them with the Physical test. Thu, 11 Jun 2020 06:16:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12982 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12982 [Civil Appeal No(s). 2551 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 1738 of 2018]. Leave granted. The appellant is in appeal aggrieved by the order of the High Court, claiming inadequacy of compensation granted to him in a motor accident case. The appellant was travelling in a bus of the respondent Corporation and met with an accident on 19.02.2010, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver who hit a lorry from behind. As a consequence of the injuries suffered, the left leg of the appellant had to be amputated. Wed, 10 Jun 2020 06:12:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12981 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12981 [I.A. Nos. 49238 of 2020, 49239 of 2020]. By way of I.A. No.49238 of 2020, NBCC has submitted that it has established the work on the following conditions:i. NBCC will not be held responsible for any existing disputes involving and in relation to the Projects; NBCC will not be held responsible for any disputes arising from the contracts entered into by Amrapali in relation to the Projects; NBCC will not be held responsible for any past or present liabilities in relation to the Projects, including on account of dues of homebuyers, vendors, contractors, governmentauthorities, etc.; NBCC will not be liable in relation to any disputes, including before any Court or Arbitrator, existing or arising at a later date, with the existing vendors, contractors, co-developers, landowners, home-buyers, banks, financial institutions, other lenders and creditors and any government authority." Wed, 10 Jun 2020 06:08:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12980 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12980 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2528-29 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 4492-4493 of 2018]. Leave granted. In the present case, the appellant is the tenant of two shop rooms - one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor, each admeasuring 60 square feet. The tenant is doing textile business in the room situated on the ground floor, using the first floor as a godown. Mon, 08 Jun 2020 06:04:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12979 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12979 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2506-2509 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 23535 - 23538 of 2016]. Leave granted. The short point calling for determination in these appeals against the common judgment dated 09.06.2016 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in a batch of appeals is as to whether the income received by the appellants in foreign exchange, for the services provided by them to foreign enterprises, qualifies for deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 19611, as applicable during the respective assessment years from 1993-94 to 1997-98. Sat, 06 Jun 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12976 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12976 [Civil Appeal No. 2516 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32044 of 2011]. Before entering into the subject matter, we may notice at the outset that this petition for special leave to appeal is barred by limitation by a period of 274 days. Though objections have been raised on behalf of the contesting respondent against the prayer for condonation of delay but, the record shows that notices on the application seeking condonation of delay as also on the petition for leave to appeal were issued way back on 18.11.2011 and for a long time, the matter remained pending while awaiting service on the respondents. Fri, 05 Jun 2020 06:16:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12975 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12975 [Civil Appeal No. 2514 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 30209/2017]. Leave granted. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2.1.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (for short, "the High Court") in R.S.A. No. 391/2016, whereby the High Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Civil Judge-05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, dated 6.1.2016 in C.S. No. 950/2014 allowing the application filed by the respondents/defendants for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the CPC"), instituted by the appellant/plaintiff. Fri, 05 Jun 2020 06:12:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12974 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12974 [Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2010]. Six appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the High Court confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants by the Trial Court. The earliest of the aforesaid appeals, i.e., Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2010, is filed by the fourth accused. Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2013 are filed by the third and the fifteenth accused, respectively. The appeals filed by the third, fourth and fifteenth accused came to be heard by a Bench of two learned Judges. Wed, 03 Jun 2020 06:08:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12971 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12971 [Civil Appeal No. 2562 of 2006]. This matter comes to this Bench after two previous forays to this Court. The appellant before us, in Civil Appeal No.2562 of 2006, is a U.S. Corporation who had entered into a contract for sale of 15,500 DMT of copper concentrate to be delivered at the Kandla Port in the State of Gujarat, the said goods to be used at the Khetri Plant of the respondent Hindustan Copper Ltd. Tue, 02 Jun 2020 06:04:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12968 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12968 [Civil Appeal No. 1815 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19292/2018]. The respondent is an auction-purchaser of a unit owned by M/s. SB Beverages Private Limited, which failed to pay its dues, resulting in the auction by Syndicate Bank (Secured Creditor) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act'). The moot point of law, which arises for consideration, is whether the liability towards previous electricity dues of the last owner could be mulled on to the respondent. Mon, 01 Jun 2020 06:00:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12967 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12967 [Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2013]. The appellant was tried with 4 others and was convicted under Sections 394, 460 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the IPC', for short). He was also found guilty of offences under Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Madhya Pradesh Adhiniyam'). The appellant was, in fact, sentenced to death for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC along with two other accused apart from a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Fri, 29 May 2020 06:44:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12966 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12966 [Civil Appeal No. 9693 of 2013]. The short but interesting questions of law which fell for consideration of this Court are, (i) as to whether is it permissible in law for the appellant (employer) to withhold the payment of gratuity of the respondent (employee), even after his superannuation from service, because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against him?, and (ii) where the departmental enquiry had been instituted against an employee while he was in service and continued after he attained the age of superannuation, whether the punishment of dismissal can be imposed on being found guilty of misconduct in view of the provisions made in Rule 34.2 of the CDA Rules of 1978?. Thu, 28 May 2020 06:04:30 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12965 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12965 [Civil Appeal No. 8225 of 2012]. I have gone through the draft judgment prepared by my esteemed brother, but have unfortunately not been able to agree that the appeal should be dismissed. The appeal is against an order dated 3.8.2012, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dismissing Letters Patent Appeal No.1090 of 2012 and affirming the order of the Single Bench dated 24.4.2017 dismissing the Writ Petition CWJC No. 7718 of 2012, filed by the Appellant. Thu, 28 May 2020 06:00:00 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12964 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12964 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2020 (D. No. 11011 of 2020)]. This Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks appropriate orders directing the Respondents to conduct "single counselling" for filling up seats in the Post Graduate Medical Courses leading to Degrees and Diplomas and the seats in DNB (Diplomate of National Board) Courses. Tue, 26 May 2020 06:32:11 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12961 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12961 [Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 2011]. The appellant Ombir Singh has challenged the judgment dated 27.10.2009, by the Allahabad High Court, confirming his conviction under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short) and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, for the murder of Abhaiveer Singh Bhadoria @ Munna on 15.07.1999 at about 9 am. The appellant has also challenged the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 11,000/- imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. Tue, 26 May 2020 06:28:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12960 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12960 [Civil Appeal Nos. 6659-6660 of 2010]. Four persons, including two brothers, Swaran Singh and Amar Singh, both of whom have since died and are represented by their legal representatives, had constituted a partnership firm - Guru Nanak Industries, on 2nd May 1978. On 6th May 1981, a fresh partnership deed was executed between Swaran Singh and Amar Singh as the other two partners had resigned. Tue, 26 May 2020 06:24:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12959 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12959 [Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3584-85 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) D No. 577 of 2020]. These special leave petitions arise out of the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong in and by which the High Court declined to entertain the review petitions filed by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2019 in Arbitration Appeal Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2018 on the ground that no ground for review is made out and that there is a delay in filing the application for review. Fri, 22 May 2020 06:20:11 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12958 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12958 [Civil Appeal No. 4645 of 2019]. The appellant, Canara Bank, had extended credit facilities to the respondent Company, Leatheroid Plastics Private Limited under different heads. The respondent had been having banking relationship with the appellant since 1980. The credit facilities involved in this appeal included restructuring of past debtrepayment. The arrangement of extending such credit was agreed upon on 4th January 2001. Wed, 20 May 2020 06:16:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12954 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12954 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2116-2128/2020 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 326-338/2020]. These appeals filed by Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority1 and the State of Karnataka2 are directed against the common judgment and order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru3 in Writ Petition Nos. 1657616577/ 2015 and 1848118491/ 2015 (GMRES), whereby the High Court quashed the communication bearing No. BMICAPA/339/Praa.Pra.Pa./1541/201112 dated 7.2.2015 issued by the Planning Authority rejecting the application made by the respondent No. 1 - Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited. Tue, 19 May 2020 06:12:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12953 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12953 [Civil Appeal No. 3688 of 2017]. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2014 in FAO No. 36 of 2010, whereby the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi has dismissed the appeal preferred by the present appellant and has affirmed the judgment and order dated 23.11.2009 as passed by the Additional District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Probate Case No. 465 of 2006, resulting in rejection of the appellant's prayer for grant of probate in relation to the Will dated 20.05.2003, said to have been executed by the mother of the contesting parties1. Tue, 19 May 2020 06:08:12 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12952 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12952 [Writ Petition (Crl) No. 130 of 2020]. The petitioner is the Editor-in-Chief of an English television news channel, Republic TV. He is also the Managing Director of ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited which owns and operates a Hindi television news channel by the name of R Bharat. The petitioner anchors news shows on both channels. On 16 April 2020, a broadcast took place on Republic TV. This was followed by a broadcast on R Bharat on 21 April 2020. These broadcasts led to the lodging of multiple First Information Reports1 and criminal complaints against the petitioner. Tue, 19 May 2020 06:04:25 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12951 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12951 [Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 404/2019]. I.A. for permission to file the contempt petition(s) is allowed. These contempt petitions except Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 754/2019 emanate from the common judgment and order of this Court dated 20.8.2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10499/2011 and 10511/2011. Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 754/2019, however, arises from a separate judgment and order of this Court on the same subject matter and date (i.e. 20.8.2018) in Civil Appeal No. 7961/2014. Tue, 19 May 2020 06:00:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12950 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12950 [Civil Appeal No(S). 1305/2010]. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and His Lordship. In terms of the signed reportable judgment the appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Wed, 13 May 2020 06:44:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12949 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12949 [Civil Appeal No. 1889 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17437 of 2017]. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 7271 of 2015 whereby the High Court confirmed the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Moga in application filed under Section 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act by the appellants herein seeking permission to prove the copy of the Will dated 24.01.1989 executed by one Babu Singh in their favour by way of secondary evidence, as the original Will which was handed over to the village patwari for mutation could not be retrieved. Wed, 13 May 2020 06:40:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12948 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12948 [Civil Appeal No. 673 of 2012]. The present appeal arises out of impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2007 in Arbitration Appeal No. 11 of 2006 passed Reportable by the Gauhati High Court, wherein the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondent under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the "Arbitration Act"), and set aside the arbitral award dated 19.12.2003. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows: appellant was awarded the work order dated 20.07.1995 pursuant to a tender floated by the Respondent in 1994. Mon, 11 May 2020 06:36:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12947 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12947 [Writ Petition (Civil) .......... of 2020 (D. No. 10817 of 2020)]. Again, this Court is called upon to address a very important but a sensitive issue on national security and human rights, wherein we have to ensure that national security and human rights can be reasonably and defensibly balanced, a responsibility, that this Court takes with utmost seriousness. This Court, vide its earlier judgment dated 10.01.2020 in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) SCC Online SC 25, gave certain directions regarding the imposition of restrictions on the internet in a proportionate manner. Mon, 11 May 2020 06:32:32 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12946 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12946 [Civil Appeal No. 4070 of 2016]. The appeal has been preferred by the Department of Archaeology and Museums aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5.11.2014 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Central Zonal, Bhopal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No.132 of 2013 (CZ). The matter pertains to "Sisodia Rani ka Bagh" (for short, 'the Monument'), situated at Jhalana, Jaipur, State of Rajasthan. The Department of Art, Literature, Culture, and Archaeology declared the Monument as protected one vide notification dated 8.2.2012. Mon, 11 May 2020 06:28:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12945 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12945 [Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 591/2019]. This contempt petition has been filed by the original plaintiff (in CS(OS) No. 2041/2013 filed in High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1), under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 19712 and read with Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 19753 in reference to the order dated 22.2.2019 passed by this Court in SLP(C) Nos. 5147/2019 and 5350/2019, which reads thus: We are not inclined to interfere with the Special Leave Petition. However, we accede to the request made by the petitioner to grant four weeks' time to vacate the suit premises. That shall be subject to payment of all the outstanding dues/arrears and filing undertaking before this Court within two weeks' from today. It is made clear that if the premises are not vacated as per the undertaking, it will be viewed sternly. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. Wed, 06 May 2020 06:24:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12940 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12940 [Civil Appeal No. 2413/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 12892/2019]. Leave granted. The moot question in this appeal emanating from the judgment and order dated 19.11.2018 in Writ Petition No. 39418/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh1 is: whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by the law of limitation?. The respondent is a registered dealer on the rolls of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Large Tax Payer Unit at Kakinada Division2 under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 20053 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 19564 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Horlicks, Boost, Biscuits, Ghee, Ayurvedic Medicines etc. Wed, 06 May 2020 06:20:30 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12939 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12939 [Civil Appeal No. 2412/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 18417/2017]. Leave granted. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 29.8.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay1 in Second Appeal No. 771/2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2015 passed by the District Judge, Ratnagiri2 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34/2011 came to be affirmed, as a result of which the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 19 (original plaintiffs) in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri3 being RCS No. 25/2005 for permanent injunction against the appellant and respondent No. 20 (State of Maharashtra), restraining them from starting the Solid Waste Disposal Project4 at the suit property, has been decreed. Wed, 06 May 2020 06:16:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12938 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12938 [Civil Appeal No(s). __________________of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 23202-23204 of 2015]. Special leave granted. The parties were heard, with consent of their counsel. These appeals are directed against a common judgment in LPA No. 1200/2013 (in CWJC No. 3640/2013), LPA No. 1170/2013 (in CWJC No. 3740/2013), LPA No. 1174/2013 (in CWJC No. 4265/2013) and LPA No. 1352/2013 in CWJC No. 3640/2013) of the Patna High Court, dated 24.06.2015. One set of appeals (arising from SLP(C) Nos. 23202-23204/2015) has been preferred by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereafter "BSSC") and the other set (referred to as "the aggrieved party appellants") by several aggrieved parties, who were appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court, in four intra-court appeals, which had questioned the judgment and order of a learned single judge. Wed, 06 May 2020 06:12:25 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12937 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12937 [Civil Appeal No(s). 3961 of 2010]. The question arises in the appeal for our consideration is as to whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit. The seminal facts which are relevant for the present purpose and the circumstances in which it arises for our consideration are that the appellant-plaintiff filed suit before 4th subjudge, Chapra seeking a declaration that the compromise decree dated 15th September, 1994 passed in Second Appeal No. 495/86 by the High Court is illegal, inoperative and obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and also prayed for injunction against the respondents-defendants restraining them from entering into peaceful possession of the suit property. Wed, 06 May 2020 06:08:30 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12936 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12936 [Civil Appeal No. 2793 of 2010]. The present judgment will dispose of two appeals preferred under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003. One appeal (CA 2969/2010) has been preferred by the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereafter, "Gujarat Urja" or "GUVN"); the second (CA 2793/2010) has been preferred by CLP (India) Pvt. Ltd. (formerly, Gujarat Torrent Energy Corporation Ltd; later, Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation Ltd, a generating company, hereafter collectively "CLP"). Both appeals challenge a common order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity ("APTEL" hereafter). The erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) (now "Gujarat Urja") entered into a power purchase agreement ("PPA"）with CLP on 03.02.1994. In terms of the PPA, Gujarat Urja was under an obligation to purchase - and CLP was under corresponding obligation to supply - 635 MW of electricity; the tenure of the agreement was 20 years. Wed, 06 May 2020 06:04:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12935 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12935 [Civil Appeal No. ............/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11603/2017]. Leave granted. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.2.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna1 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 310/2009, whereby, the LPA filed by the appellants came to be dismissed while affirming the decision of the learned single Judge, dated 10.2.2009 in allowing the Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 867/1999. The Division Bench took note of the relevant background facts necessitating filing of writ petition by the respondent No. 1 for a direction to the appellantBank to pay his lawful admitted claims in terms of agreement dated 27.5.1990 (Annexure 5(b) appended to the writ petition) and also to deposit the incometax papers with immediate effect. Wed, 06 May 2020 06:44:35 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12931 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12931 [Civil Appeal No. 6380 of 2012]. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26.4.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad1 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 233/2006, whereby, the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 12602/2001 filed by the appellants came to be dismissed whilst setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in the said writ petition. By the said writ petition, the appellants had sought following reliefs: The petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order and be pleased: Wed, 06 May 2020 06:40:25 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12930 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12930 [Criminal Appeal No. 1894/2010]. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur1 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 271/1982, whereby the conviction of the respondent No. 1/original accused No. 5 (Mehram S/o Mr. Chhagna Ram) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code2 has been converted into one under Section 326, IPC and the substantive sentence awarded therefor is reduced only to the period already undergone (about five months) by the accused No. 5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellantState had made it amply clear that the State was pursuing this appeal only against the accused No. 5 (Mehram S/o Chhagna Ram) for restoration of his conviction under Section 302, IPC and to award him sentence of life imprisonment. Wed, 06 May 2020 06:36:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12929 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12929 [Civil Appeal No. 5674 of 2009]. The matters have been referred in view of conflicting decisions in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and Ors.1, Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.2, T. Velayudhan Achari and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.3, and Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Ors.4. The question relates to the scope of the legislative field covered by Entry 45 of List I viz. 'Banking' and Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, consequentially power of the Parliament to legislate. The moot question is the applicability of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act') to the cooperative banks. Tue, 05 May 2020 06:32:08 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12928 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12928 [Civil Appeal Nos. 302-303 of 2009]. These two appeals against the decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rendered on 16th July, 2008 require adjudication on the question as to whether "car matting" would come within Chapter 57 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under the heading "Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings" or they would be classified under Chapter 87 thereof, which relates to "Vehicles other than Railway or Tramway Rolling-Stock and Parts and Accessories Thereof". Fri, 01 May 2020 06:28:08 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12915 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12915 [Transferred Case (Civil) No. 98 of 2012]. Most of the cases have a chequered history. Initially, petitioners have questioned four notifications two notifications dated 21.12.2010 issued by Medical Council of India (for short, 'the MCI') and other two notifications dated 31.5.2012, issued by Dental Council of India (for short, 'the DCI'). The MCI by virtue of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2010, (Part II) notified by the Government of India, amended the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. Wed, 29 Apr 2020 06:24:25 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12914 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12914 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 936 of 2018]. These Writ Petitions broadly fall in following three categories:-A] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 936 of 2018 filed by four petitioners, prays for appropriate directions that after the promulgation of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 ("2010 Rules", for short), all appointments ought to be in conformity with 2010 Rules and allocation of seniority must be in accordance with the Cyclic Order provided in Schedule VII to 2010 Rules. Wed, 29 Apr 2020 06:20:13 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12913 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12913 [Civil Appeal No. 2377 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1169 of 2019]. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the High Court1 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2730 of 2018 preferred by the appellant herein. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, in brief, are as under:- A] The appellant-Vodafone Idea Ltd. (earlier known as Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd or VMSL for short) is engaged in providing telecommunication services in different circles. Wed, 29 Apr 2020 06:16:25 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12912 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12912 [Civil Appeal No. 2379 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5269 of 2019]. Leave granted. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 12.2.2019 passed by the High Court1 dismissing Letters Patent Appeal No.97 of 2019 and thereby affirming the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.10318 of 2017. By Trust Deed executed on 19.03.1979 between the appellant, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 on one hand and three trustees on the other, an "Approved Gratuity Fund" was constituted "for the purpose of providing Gratuities to the employees of the Company under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Gratuity Scheme of the Company". Wed, 29 Apr 2020 06:12:35 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12911 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12911 [Civil Appeal No. 2378 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11011 of 2019]. Leave granted. In this appeal the Original Claimant challenges the final judgment and order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in CAN No.10094 of 2018. The basic facts culled out from the award dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Arbitrator in the present case are:- "That the respondent company who is engaged in the business of infrastructure development activities approached the claimant company who is also dealing in the business of providing equipments for infrastructure activities to provide on rent two Piing Rig HR-180 and (1) 300 CPM compressor (equipments) for carrying out the work as per the respondent's instructions. Wed, 29 Apr 2020 06:08:45 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12910 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12910 [Civil Appeal No. 5749 of 2012]. This appeal by special leave challenges the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the High Court1 dismissing Income Tax Appeal No.196 of 2000 and thereby affirming the view taken by the Tribunal2 in I.T.A.Nos. 110/Cal/1999 and 402/Cal/1999 on 04.01.2000. Wed, 29 Apr 2020 06:04:14 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12909 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12909 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 417-418 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 4044-4045 of 2019]. Leave granted. These appeals arise out of the common Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C. No.3391 of 2017 and in Criminal M.A. No.13845 of 2017, by which the High Court affirmed (i) the order dated 26.10.2016 passed by Mahila Court in proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 12 of the DV Act1 and (ii) 1 The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the order dated 15.04.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-2, (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2016. Wed, 29 Apr 2020 06:00:05 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12908 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12908 [Criminal Appeal No. 779 of 2010]. A collective assault resulting in the death of one Ajay Kumar Sharma gives rise to these three appeals. The incident occurred in the evening of 9th August, 1996. Cause of his death was stabbing injuries inflicted on him in course of such assault. Sanjeev, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1442 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3045 of 2010 had, while riding on his two-wheeler hit a cycle cart belonging to one Sanjay, at a location close to the latter's house in Purana Maujpur under Bhajanpura police station, North East Delhi. Deceased victim Ajay was Sanjay's cousin. Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:44:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12907 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12907 [Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2019]. A Bench of this Court while dealing with Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.1 of 2019 took note of a letter dated 23.03.2019 received by the office of the Judges of the Bench on 25.03.2019. This was a copy of the letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society to the President of India, Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:40:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12906 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12906 [Civil Appeal No. 6398 of 2009]. The dispute in this appeal relates to valuation under the Customs Act, 1962 of import of certain items made by the respondent Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) under two contracts, bearing nos. PUR/PC/MOD/08.01/Pt.II dated 31.10.1989 and PUR/PC/MOD/08.01/Pt-I dated 29th March 1990. These imports were made in connection with modernisation, expansion and modification for their plant at Durgapur in West Bengal. Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:36:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12905 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12905 [Civil Appeal Nos. 7649-7651 of 2019]. These appeals are directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court affirming in substance the decision of the learned Single Judge in disposing of three writ petitions in disputes arising out of obligation of the first respondent to pay certain sum categorised as Annual Minimum Guarantee (AMG) and certain other charges to the Bihar State Electricity Board. The appellant was the Board. Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:32:30 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12904 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12904 [Civil Appeal No. 2217 of 2011]. All these four appeals are being dealt with by this judgment as they all involve adjudication on a common question of law arising out of Sections 3 and 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (1956 Act), which was operational at the material point of time. The question is as to whether as a condition of giving the benefit of Section 6(2) of the said Act, the tax authorities can impose a limit or timeframe within which delivery of the respective goods has to be taken from a carrier when the goods are delivered to a carrier for transmission in course of inter-state sale. Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:28:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12903 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12903 [Civil Appeal No. 7231 of 2012]. The original writ petitioner, who is the appellant in this proceeding seeks to enforce her right to reside in her matrimonial home. The location of the house where she wants to establish her right to reside is comprised in two flats (nos.601 and 602) in a building situated on plot No.118, Dr. M.B. Raut Road, Shivaji Park, Dadar, in the metropolis of Mumbai. Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:24:25 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12902 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12902 [Civil Appeal Nos. 4499-4501 of 2010]. The State of Karnataka is in appeal before us primarily assailing a common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka delivered on 7th November, 1990 confirming a decision of the Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 treating a large part of an estate held by the respondents as plantation land. The effect of such treatment would be that such land under plantation would be exempted from the restrictions on holding imposed under that statute. Such exceptions have been laid down under the provisions of Section 104 of the said Act. Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:20:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12901 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12901 [Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2018]. Corruption is the malignant manifestation of a malady menacing the morality of men. There is a common perception that corruption in India has spread to all corners of public life and is currently choking the constitutional aspirations enshrined in the Preamble. In this context, this case revolves around requiring this Court to facilitate making India corruption free. Mon, 27 Apr 2020 06:16:08 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12900 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12900 [Criminal Appeal Nos. 640-641 of 2016]. The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) on 5th May, 2016 whereby the appeals filed by the appellants Rajesh Daware1 and Arvind Singh2 against their conviction for offences punishable under Section 364A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was dismissed by confirming the death sentence imposed upon them by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide its order dated 4th February, 2016. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:12:40 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12899 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12899 [Civil Appeal No. 2365 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2307 of 2019]. This lis throws up questions regarding striking a legal balance between the Statecitizen intercourse in the context of relationship of an employer and employee. The nature of employment under the umbrella of the State is complex and is often determinative of the nature of duty to be performed and the rights to be enjoyed by those must be correlated thereto. To wit, higher the position and responsibilities, the extent and quality of individual rights ought to be inversely proportional in the larger public interest. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:08:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12898 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12898 [Civil Appeal No. 2374 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24206 of 2018]. Leave granted. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 as passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 3157 of 2015, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant, a member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service1, seeking to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 19702 and the Full Court resolutions dated 28.04.2009, 15.01.2010 and 27.01.20113 concerning the criteria for appointment of a member of higher judicial service to the post of District Judge and Sessions Judge or its equivalent. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:04:05 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12897 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12897 [Contempt Petition (C) No. 34/2016]. All these Contempt Petitions being Contempt Petition(C) No. 34/2016, Contempt Petition (C) No. 257/2016 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 889/2017 are preferred by the respective applicants who as such were parties to Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2015 and also parties to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 4.5.2015 which ultimately was made a part of the order passed by this Court dated 5.5.2015 disposing of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5/2015 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No.11/2015, to initiate the contempt proceedings against concerned respective respondents for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:00:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12896 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12896 [Civil Appeal No. 6076 of 2009]. By way of this appeal, the plaintiff-appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No. 910 of 2001 whereby, the High Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2001 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Koppal in Original Civil Suit No. 56 of 1994. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:44:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12895 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12895 [Civil Appeal No. 2376 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25056 of 2016]. Leave granted. The question for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether an Arbitration Award, which determined the compensation amount for the land to be paid under agreement for sale, can be directed to be executed as a suit for specific performance of agreement, when the reference to the Arbitrator (as per the agreement) was only for fixation of price of land in question, and the Arbitration Award was also only with regard to the same. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:40:14 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12894 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12894 [Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7189/2019]. Leave granted. This batch of appeals, by special leave, are against the final judgment and order dated 21.2.2019 passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (for short, "the High Court") in O.P. (KAT) Nos. 256/2017, 330/2017 and 408/2017 pursuant to a Reference Order by the Division Bench, bearing the same case numbers, passed on 16.11.2018. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:36:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12893 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12893 [Civil Appeal No. 9775 of 2011]. The respondent is a limited company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It is engaged in offering, among others, remittance services for transferring amounts from UAE to various places in India. It had applied for a permission under Section 29(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, "the 1973 Act"), pursuant to which approval was granted by the Reserve Bank of India (for short, "the RBI") vide letter dated 24.9.1996. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:32:05 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12892 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12892 [Civil Appeal No. 3545/2009]. In this appeal, the constitutional validity of clause (f) of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 19611 arises for our consideration as a result of the decision of the High Court at Calcutta2 vide order dated 27.06.2007 in APO No. 301 of 2005, wherein it is held that the said clause is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on various counts, as discussed hereinafter.The stated clause (f) was inserted in the already existing Section 43B vide Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 1.4.2002, in order to provide for a tax disincentive in cases of deductions claimed by the assessee from income tax in lieu of liability accrued under the leave encashment scheme but not actually discharged by the employer. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:28:05 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12891 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12891 [Civil Appeal No. 2366-67 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5421-5422 of 2019]. Leave granted. The present appeals arise from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 10 August 2018 which in first appeal upheld the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2. The SCDRC held the appellant to be deficient in its service and directed it to pay compensation of ₹ 64,89,205 towards the cost of repair of a helicopter to the respondent. Both the appellant and the respondent had preferred appeals against the order of the SCDRC. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:24:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12890 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12890 [Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9876 of 2018]. Leave granted. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 17.9.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna (for short, "the High Court") in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 879/2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing of first information report (FIR) being R.C. A.C.I, 2018A 0002 dated 21.2.2018 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, "the CBI") under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the PC Act") came to be rejected. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:20:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12889 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12889 [Civil Appeal No. 2373/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 30392/2019]. Leave granted. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 6.9.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (for short, "the High Court") in Writ Petition No. 11522/2019, whereby the High Court reversed the order dated 29.3.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the DRAT") at Chennai in M.A. No. 90/2018 allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1 State Bank of India (for short, "the Bank") before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, "the DRT") at Madurai being I.A. No. 995/2017 in O.A. No. 11/2008, directing return of original documents - Exhibits A110 to A114 deposited by the Bank before the DRT in O.A. No. 11/2008. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:16:14 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12888 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12888 [Civil Appeal No. 2375 of 2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29649 of 2016]. Leave granted. This is an appeal filed by the landlord challenging the Judgment and Order of the High Court passed in Rent Control Writ Petition No.3457 of 2016, whereby the release application filed by the appellant has been rejected, and the Orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, allowing the release application of the appellant-landlord, have been set aside. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:12:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12887 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12887 [Civil Appeal No. 6146 of 2019]. The appellant herein is the auction purchaser of the scheduled property measuring 2 acres 43 cents in Village Managiri, Madurai District, Tamil Nadu, which auction has been quashed by the High Court, and hence, this appeal. The brief facts of this case are that the respondent No. 1 - T. Mohan was a guarantor of one Rajendran (who was his son's friend). The said Rajendran had taken a chit for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/( Rupees five lakhs only) from respondent No. 2Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu Ltd. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:08:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12886 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12886 [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6300 of 2018]. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6300 of 2018 was filed by six petitioners (applicants herein), who were all members of the respondent No.4 Khowab Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. (for short "Housing Society"). The same was dismissed on 28.03.2018 by the following order: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:04:12 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12885 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12885 [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2908/2019]. The Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2908 of 2019 filed by Kamlesh Kalra is allowed and the FIR no. 390 of 2014 under Sections 498A/406 IPC is quashed; and the Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)….. (Diary No.9972 of 2019) filed by Shilpika Kalra is dismissed. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:00:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12884 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12884 [Civil Appeal No. 2847 of 2010]. The moot question involved in the present appeal bears upon the applicability of the doctrine of mutuality qua the assessee company, a fully owned subsidiary of Yum! Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd. (for short, "YRIPL"), formerly known as Tricon Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd., incorporated for undertaking the activities relating to Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (for short, "AMP activities") for and on behalf of YRIPL and its franchisees. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:34:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12883 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12883 [Civil Appeal No. 6110 of 2009]. This appeal takes exception to the final judgment and order dated 21.8.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (for short, "the High Court") in Income Tax Appeal No. 69 of 2006, whereby the appellant's appeal was dismissed and the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (for short, 'the ITAT') came to be upheld. Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:30:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12882 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12882 [Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2002]. In the reference, the validity of the Government Office Ms. No.3 dated 10.1.2000 issued by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh providing 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates out of whom 33.1/3% shall be women for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh, is under challenge. Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:26:26 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12881 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12881 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2256-2263 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 28194-28201/2010]. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. Civil Appeals @ SLP © Nos. 28194-28201 of 2010. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in respective Special Civil Application Nos. 5909/2008, 6300/2008, 6298/2008, 6299/2008, 5907/2008, 8468/2008, 6334/2008 and 6562/2008, all these appeals are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:24:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12880 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12880 [ Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2017]. Not agreeing with the view taken by this Court in the case of E. Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (2008) 5 SCC 161 taking the view that when any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is found mixed with one or more neutral substance/s, for the purpose of imposition of punishment it is the content of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance which shall be taken into consideration (paragraphs 15 and 19), the following questions are referred to a three Judge Bench, vide order dated 3.7.2017. Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:20:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12879 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12879 [Civil Appeal No. 7508 of 2005]. Having noted that there is a clear conflict between the two decisions of this Court, one in the case of Ch. Tika Ramji & Others, Etc. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others [AIR 1956 SC 676 = 1956 SCR 393 = 1956 SCJ 625] and another subsequent decision in the case of U.P. Cooperative Cane Unions Federations vs. West U.P. Sugar Mills Association and Others [(2004)5 SCC 430], a three Judge Bench of this Court has referred the matter to a larger Bench proposing the following questions of law to be considered by the larger Bench, preferably of a Bench consisting of seven Judges of this Court. Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:18:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12878 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12878 [Civil Appeal No. 667 of 2012]. The question involved in the present appeal is the enforceability of the foreign award. The main objections for its enforceability are (i) whether NAFED was unable to comply with the contractual obligation to export groundnut due to the Government's refusal?; (ii) whether NAFED could have been held liable in breach of contract to pay damages particularly in view of Clause 14 of the Agreement?; and (iii) whether enforcement of the award is against the public policy of India?. The NAFED and the Alimenta S.A. entered into a contract for the supply of 5,000 metric tonnes of Indian HPS groundnut (for short, "commodity"). Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:14:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12877 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12877 [Civil Appeal No. 4594 of 2010]. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment dated 08.06.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal No. 439 of 1987. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and directed the Trial Court to draw a preliminary decree of redemption of mortgage in favour of the Respondents herein. Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:10:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12876 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12876 [Civil Appeal Nos. 6216-6217 of 2019]. Both these civil appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 19.07.2017, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in writ petition Nos. 2476 of 2015 and 1130 of 2017, as such, they are heard together and disposed of by this common Order. The said writ petitions are filed by way of Public Interest Litigation, for protecting two plots which are the subject matter of the writ petition, originally left towards open spaces, in the layout, approved in the year 1967. Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:06:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12875 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12875 [Civil Appeal No. 2237 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 25967 of 2016]. Leave granted. These civil appeals are filed, aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.8.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 1981 of 2016, by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad. By the aforesaid impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the Notification dated 4.2.2016, by which draft development plan under Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter "the MRTP Act") was published. Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:02:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12874 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12874 [Civil Appeal No. 3240 of 2011]. This civil appeal is filed, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No.6781 of 2008. By the aforesaid order, writ petition filed by respondent nos.4 to 8 herein, is allowed by setting aside the order dated 17.04.2008 passed in O.A.No.904(C) of 2008 etc. by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal and the Government Resolution dated 20.03.2002 and the consequential Gradation List dated 03.03.2008 of Orissa Administrative Services, Class-I (Junior Branch) are quashed. Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:02:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12873 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12873 [Civil Appeal Nos. 2250-2252 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 15093-15095 of 2017]. Leave granted. These civil appeals are filed, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.03.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.676 of 2016; W.P.(C)No.722 of 2016; and W.P.(C)No.766 of 2016, passed by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal. By the aforesaid impugned order, the High Court has quashed advertisement dated 16.08.2016, inviting applications to fill up the vacant post of Director in Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal. Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:06:20 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12872 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12872 [Civil Appeal No. 2813 of 2017]. All these civil appeals are filed against a common judgment dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in L.P.A.No.504 of 2012 and batch. The said Letter Patent Appeals were filed, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.10.2012 passed in C.W.P.No.3303 of 2012-A. When, Letters Patent Appeals were filed in L.P.A.Nos.504, 507, 512 of 2012 and 203 of 2014, they were heard and disposed of by the Division Bench along with the other connected writ petitions pending on similar issues. Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:02:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12871 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12871 [Civil Appeal No. 2235 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1170 of 2019]. Leave granted. On 09.06.1997, the husband of the Appellant No.1, who was a surgeon, was travelling in a mini-bus that was owned by the Rotary Eye Institute, Navsari (the Respondent No. 3 herein) along with other medical staff of the said Institute. The mini-bus had been driven with excessive speed, as a result of which at around 8.30 P.M. when the mini-bus was passing through the Gandevi-Navsari Road, near Kabhar Patiya, the driver of the mini-bus lost control and the vehicle turned turtle. The husband of Appellant No.1 was seriously injured and ultimately succumbed to his injuries. Thu, 16 Apr 2020 06:44:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12870 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12870 [Civil Appeal No. 2236 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 5650 of 2019]. Leave granted. The respondent herein was the Petitioner in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 2839/2012 filed before the Rajasthan High Court. The brief facts that led to the filing of the Writ Petition is that respondent herein had claimed the retiral benefits of her late husband who was appointed in the post of conductor on 15.03.1979 at Alwar Depot of the Appellant Road Transport Corporation. The benefits were claimed on the basis that her husband be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service instead of having resigned. Thu, 16 Apr 2020 06:40:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12869 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12869 [Writ Petition (C) No. 439 of 2020]. An imbroglio in the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly over the purported resignations of twenty-two Members and several communications by the Governor to the Chief Minister to hold an immediate floor test have given rise to these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. Thu, 16 Apr 2020 06:36:15 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12868 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12868 [Civil Appeal No. 2230 of 2020 Special Leave Petition No. (C) 19208 of 2016]. Leave granted. The short point of law that arises in the present appeals is whether "Medical Oxygen IP" and "Nitrous Oxide IP" are taxable under Entry 88 of Schedule IV of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act 20051 or as "unclassified goods" under Schedule V . The classification of the two products determines the rate of tax to be levied on them - 4%/5%2 under Entry 88 or 12.5%/14%3 under Schedule V. Thu, 16 Apr 2020 06:32:09 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12867 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12867 [Civil Appeal No. 1641 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C)No. 26880 of 2016]. This appeal has been filed by the appellant for quashing the judgment of Kerala High Court dated 08.07.2016 by which Writ Petition (C)No.12179 of 2016 filed by the appellant claiming to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case for deciding this appeal are: The appellant was appointed as Project Officer in the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension (hereinafter referred to as "CACEE"). Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:28:09 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12866 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12866 [Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 35373 of 2013]. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 30.09.2013 of High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing LPA filed by the appellants affirming the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11.09.2012 by which the Selection dated 10.04.2010 selecting appellants on the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) was set aside. All the appeals having been filed against the common judgment involving common facts and questions of law, for deciding the batch of appeals, it shall be sufficient to refer pleadings in Civil Appeal No.2103/2020, Ramjit Singh Kardam and others versus Sanjeev Kumar and others. Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:24:28 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12865 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12865 [Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 5/2020]. The recent outbreak of COVID-19 (Coronavirus) in several countries, including India, has necessitated the immediate adoption of measures to ensure social distancing in order to prevent the transmission of the virus. The Supreme Court of India and High Courts have adopted measures to reduce the physical presence of lawyers, litigants, court staff, para legal personnel and representatives of the electronic and print media in courts across the country and to ensure the continued dispensation of justice. Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:20:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12864 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12864 [Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 2020]. The appellant New Delhi Television Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is an Indian company engaged in running television channels of various kinds. It has various foreign subsidiaries to which we shall refer in detail later on but we are concerned mainly with the subsidiary based in the United Kingdom (UK) named NDTV Network Plc., U.K. (hereinafter referred to as 'NNPLC'). The assessee submitted a return for the financial year 200708 i.e. assessment year 200809 on 29.09.2008 declaring a loss. This return was processed under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was also sent to the assessee. Tue, 14 Apr 2020 06:18:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12863 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12863 [Civil Appeal No. 2228/2020 @ Diary No. 24669 of 2019]. The question that arises for our consideration in these Appeals is whether Tata Power Company Limited- Distribution (hereinafter, 'TPC-D') is entitled to levy wheeling charges for the power supplied to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter, 'HPCL') and wheeling charges for the power sourced from Sai Wardha Power Generation Limited (hereinafter, 'SWPGL') through open access The Maharashtra Electricity Regulation Commission (hereinafter, 'the Commission') allowed the petition filed by HPCL and held that TPC-D is not entitled to levy wheeling charges. Consequently, the Commission directed TPC-D to refund the amounts collected from HPCL, in the form of wheeling charges. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity allowed the appeal filed by TPC-D and set aside the order of the Commission. Tue, 14 Apr 2020 06:16:08 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12862 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12862 [Civil Appeal No. 2229 of 2020 @ SLP (C) No. 18853 of 2017]. Leave granted. The respondent is employed with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He was recruited as a constable in the year 1999. The appellant enacted the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') and the same was notified on 26.12.2005. Section 44 of the Act provides that a National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) shall be constituted for the purpose of specialised response to threatening disaster situations or disasters. The 1 Ministry of Home Affairs approved the constitution of the NDRF on 19.01.2006. Tue, 14 Apr 2020 06:12:18 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12861 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12861 [Civil Appeal No. 6875 of 2008]. One Mangat Ram was a resident of Village Narnaul in Rajasthan. He had four sons viz., Madhav Prashad, Lal Chand, Ram Chand and Umrao Lal. Ram Chand was adopted by one Shri Gauri Mal of Gwalior. Lal Chand had four sons viz., Sri Ram, Hari Ram, Govind and Laxmi Narayan. Madhav Prashad had no issues. Therefore, he adopted Hari Ram, the son of Lal Chand. Ram Chand also had no issues and he adopted Shriram, son of Lal Chand. Tue, 14 Apr 2020 06:08:38 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12860 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12860 [Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2016]. By a judgment dated 8 January 2016, the Bench of the National Green Tribunal1 for the Western Zone held that a circular issued by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests2 on 14 May 2002 is contrary to law. The circular envisaged the grant of ex post facto environmental clearances. The NGT issued a slew of directions including the revocation of environmental clearances and for closing down industrial units operating without valid consents. On 17 May 2016, the NGT dismissed an application for review filed by one of the affected industrial units. The industrial units and MoEF are in appeal3. Tue, 14 Apr 2020 06:06:11 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12859 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12859 [Criminal Appeal No. 1120 of 2010]. This criminal appeal filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short ‘the TADA Act’) is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the Presiding Judge, Designated Court No.2, Chennai, in Calendar Case No.1/2007, whereby the Designated Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 120B IPC and 5 years each under Section 120B IPC read with Section 3(3) and 4(1) of the TADA Act and under Section 120B IPC read with Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and all the sentences imposed were ordered to be run concurrently. Tue, 14 Apr 2020 06:02:10 +0530 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12858 https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=12858