Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 1 of about 712,592 results (2.083 seconds)

Aug 29 2016 (SC)

M/S Park Street Properties (Pvt) Ltd Vs. Dipak Kumar Singh and Anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

non-reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.8361 of2016(arising out of slp (c) no.24486 of 2014) m/s park street properties (pvt) ltd. appellant vs. dipak kumar singh & anr. respondents judgment v. gopala gowda, j.leave granted. the present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the high court of calcutta in f.a. no.151 of 2012, whereby the high court has set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the matter to it for reconsideration from the stage of examining the question of validity of the notice dated 30.10.2008. the relevant facts of the case required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder: one karnani properties limited, a company incorporated under the companies act, 1956 was the owner of the suit premises. it had let out the suit premises in favour of the appellant herein with the right to sublet the same or portions thereof. the appellant herein entered into an agreement dated 15.10.2004 with the respondents subletting the suit premises for the purpose of carrying out business from the blue fox restaurant . subsequently, the respondents requested the appellant to allow them to run franchise or business dealing with mcdonald s family restaurant from the suit premises. in pursuance of the same, the agreement dated 15.10.2004 was terminated, and a tenancy of the suit premises was created in favour of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2016 (SC)

Bharwad Navghanbhaj Jakshibhai and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Supreme Court of India

non-reportable in the supreme court of india criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal nos.783-784 of 2016 bharwad navghanbhaj jakshibhai & ors. . appellants versus state of gujarat . . respondent judgment uday umesh lalit, j.these appeals by special leave at the instance of original accused nos.2 to 14, seek to challenge the common judgment and order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the high court of gujarat at ahmedabad in criminal appeal nos.947/2011 and 969 of 2011. fourteen accused including appellants 1 to 13 were convicted and sentenced by sessions judge, patan in sessions case no.27 of 2008 as under:- | 1 to 14 |u/s 147, 148 ipc | fine of rs.1000/-, i/d no | | | |separate imprisonment. | | 1 and 7 |u/s 326 r/w 149 ipc|r.i. of 2 years + | | | |rs.35,000/-(towards | | | |compensation) | |2 to 6 and|u/s 326 r/w 149 ipc|r.i. of 2 years+ rs.500/-, | |8 to 14 | |i/d 10 days. | | 1 to 14 |u/s 324 and 149 ipc| fine of rs.2000/-, i/d 15 | | | |days | | 1 to 14 |u/s 325 r/w 149 ipc| r.i. of 2 years | | 1 to 14 |504, 506(2) r/w 149|no separate sentence is | | |ipc |passed as the accused are | | | |already convicted under | | | |section 326 ipc | all the convicted accused, being aggrieved preferred criminal appeal no.947 of 2011 while the state preferred criminal appeal no.969 of 2011 seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed by the trial court. during the pendency of the appeal original accused no.1 having passed away, the appeals stood abated qua him. according to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 2016 (SC)

State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Kanheya

Court : Supreme Court of India

non-reportable in the supreme court of india criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal nos.783-784 of 2016 bharwad navghanbhaj jakshibhai & ors. . appellants versus state of gujarat . . respondent judgment uday umesh lalit, j.these appeals by special leave at the instance of original accused nos.2 to 14, seek to challenge the common judgment and order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the high court of gujarat at ahmedabad in criminal appeal nos.947/2011 and 969 of 2011. fourteen accused including appellants 1 to 13 were convicted and sentenced by sessions judge, patan in sessions case no.27 of 2008 as under:- | 1 to 14 |u/s 147, 148 ipc | fine of rs.1000/-, i/d no | | | |separate imprisonment. | | 1 and 7 |u/s 326 r/w 149 ipc|r.i. of 2 years + | | | |rs.35,000/-(towards | | | |compensation) | |2 to 6 and|u/s 326 r/w 149 ipc|r.i. of 2 years+ rs.500/-, | |8 to 14 | |i/d 10 days. | | 1 to 14 |u/s 324 and 149 ipc| fine of rs.2000/-, i/d 15 | | | |days | | 1 to 14 |u/s 325 r/w 149 ipc| r.i. of 2 years | | 1 to 14 |504, 506(2) r/w 149|no separate sentence is | | |ipc |passed as the accused are | | | |already convicted under | | | |section 326 ipc | all the convicted accused, being aggrieved preferred criminal appeal no.947 of 2011 while the state preferred criminal appeal no.969 of 2011 seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed by the trial court. during the pendency of the appeal original accused no.1 having passed away, the appeals stood abated qua him. according to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2016 (SC)

Brajendra Singh Yambem Vs. Union of India and Anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.8323 of2016(arising out of slp(c) no.30907 of 2013) brajendra singh yambem appellant versus union of india and anr. respondents with civil appeal no.8324 of2016(arising out of slp(c) no.10092 of 2014) judgment v. gopala gowda, j.leave granted. the present appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the division bench of the high court of manipur at imphal in writ appeal nos. 39 and 40 of 2011, whereby the judgment and order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the learned single judge of the high court of gauhati, imphal bench in w.p. (c) nos. 904 of 2008 and 264 of 2010 was set aside. the necessary facts required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder: the appellant was serving as a regular commandant of 61st battalion, crpf and at the time of incidents, was posted at mantripukhri, imphal. he is alleged to be involved in two cases. the first case, i.e. civil appeal arising out of the slp (c) no.30907 of 2013 relates to missing of arms and ammunition. the second case, i.e. civil appeal arising out of slp (c) no.10092 of 2014 relates to the alleged supply of contraband ganja, by 11 crpf personnel posted in the unit of the appellant. between 03.06.1995 and 05.07.1995, one ak-47 rifle with 3 magazines and 90 rounds of 7.62 ammunition issued in the name of one lance naik man bahadur, who was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2016 (SC)

Vivek Singh Vs. State of U.P and Anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.10381 of2014vivek singh ...appellant versus state of u.p. & anr. ...respondents1judgment s. a. bobde, j.on 29.01.2001, the u.p. public service commission invited applications for filling up 800 posts through the combined state/upper subordinate service examination 2001. amongst others the posts to be filled up were deputy collector 9 posts, deputy s.p. 67 posts and trade tax officer 12 posts.2. the appellant applied for selection under the physically handicapped category along with the necessary certificate. his first preference was for the post of deputy collector and second preference was for the post of trade tax officer. the appellant was duly selected and placed at sl.no.38 in the overall merit list. the u.p. public service commission recommended the appellant s appointment as a trade tax officer under the quota reserved for physically handicapped candidates.3. the appellant filed a writ petition before the allahabad high court praying for appointment on the post of deputy collector. however, pending the writ petition, he joined as a trade tax officer in november, 2004.4. on 26.11.2010, in national federation of the blind, u.p. branch and others vs. state of uttar pradesh & others[1]., the allahabad high court passed an interim order directing the state government to henceforth not fill up any vacancy unless a reservation of 3% was provided to physically handicapped candidates from the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2016 (SC)

Jamshed Ansari Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.6120 of2016|jamshed ansari |.....appellant(s) | |versus | | |high court of judicature at allahabad & |.....respondent(s) | |ors. | | judgment a.k. sikri, j.the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 28.04.2015 passed by the high court of judicature at allahabad whereby writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. in the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of rule 3 and rule 3a of chapter xxiv of the allahabad high court rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules'). the short order of the high court repelling the said challenge states that a similar challenge had already been rejected by the same court in shashi kant upadhyay, advocate v. high court of judicature at allahabad (writ c. no.65298 of 2014) decided on 26.03.2015.2. appellant's challenge to the aforesaid rules is mainly on the ground that these rules put an unreasonable restriction on his right to practice as an advocate and are also ultra vires the provisions of section 30 of the advocates act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). the high court of allahabad has framed the rules in question which came into force on 15.09.1952. chapter xxiv thereof relates to rules framed under section 34(1) read with section 16(2) of the advocates act, 1961 . as we are concerned with the validity of rule 3 and rule 3a of the said chapter, the same are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2016 (SC)

Souren Pal and Ors Vs. Prabhat Bouri and Ors

Court : Supreme Court of India

non reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.8342 of2016(arising out of slp(civil) no.28249/2014) souren pal and ors appellants(s) versus prabhat bouri and ors respondent(s) judgment kurian, j.leave granted. the main grievance of the appellants is that they were not heard by the division bench while passing the impugned order despite the fact that, as per the impugned order, they have been unseated from the post of directors, to which they were elected in the year 2014. in the view we propose to take in this case, it is not necessary to go into any other factual dispute. having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the division bench ought to have heard the appellants as well, having regard to the stage at which their election was set aside. we hence set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the high court. the appellants shall stand impleaded as additional respondents in first miscellaneous appeal(fma) and the high court will hear the fma afresh. being an election dispute of the year 2014, we request the high court to dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. the interim order passed by this court earlier will continue till the first miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. .... ...................j.(kurian joseph) ..... ..................j.(rohinton fali nariman) new delhi august26 2016.

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 2016 (HC)

The State of Jharkhand Through the Deputy Commissioner Vs. Arun Kumar ...

Court : Jharkhand

1 l.p.a. no.314 of 2014 in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi l.p.a. no. 314 of 2014 with i.a. nos.4429/2014 & 4430/2014 1. the state of jharkhand through the deputy commissioner, pakur 2. the deputy commissioner, pakur appellants versus 1. arun kumar mishra, s/o sri krishna prasad mishra, r/o village & p.o.- fuljhinjhari,m p.s. pakuria, distt- pakur 2. the block development officer, pakuria, district pakur 3. the chief medical officer, pakur 4. the in-charge medical officer, primary health centre, pakuria, district pakur. ... ... ... respondents ------ coram: hon'ble mr. justice d. n. patel hon'ble mr. justice amitav k. gupta ----- for the appellant: m/s. kumar sundaram, j.c. to a.a.g. for the respondent no.1: m/s. someshwar roy ------ 08/dated:25. h july, 2016 oral judgment per d.n. patel, j.i.a. no.4429 of 20141) this interlocutory application under section 5 of the limitation act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 275 days in preferring the instant appeal.2) having heard learned counsel and looking to the reasons stated in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.3) accordingly, i.a. no. 4429 of 2014 is allowed and delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned. l.p.a. no.314 of 20144) this letters patent appeal has been preferred by the original respondent no.1 in w.p. (s) no. 1381 of 2013, as, the writ petition was preferred by the present respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 2016 (HC)

M/S. Rangali Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Smt. Gayatri Devi Poddar ...

Court : Kolkata

in the high court at calcutta ordinary original civil jurisdiction original side before: the hon ble justice soumen sen ap no.1221 of 2014 m/s.rangali agrotech pvt.ltd.& ors.versus smt. gayatri devi poddar & ors.for the petitioners : mr.sarbapriya mukherjee, mr.amal kumar saha. for the respondents : mr.rudradeb chaudhuri, mr.biswabrata basu mallick, mr.khagendra nath jana. heard on : 26.07.2016, 04.08.2016, 18.08.2016 judgment on : 24th august, 2016 soumen sen, j.:- the petitioner has filed this application for setting aside of an award dated 8th may, 2014 passed by a sole arbitrator. the award was passed in favour of the respondents. the principal grievance of the petitioners against the award appears to be that the award was passed on the basis of an agreement which is manufactured and forged. the said alleged agreement contains an arbitration clause. the petitioners never intended to enter into any arbitration agreement. the award passed is an unreasoned award. the arbitrator appointed at the instance of the respondents was regularly representing the respondents in various proceedings. the petitioners admit to have received a notice of arbitration on 3rd october, 2013 from the named arbitrator. the petitioners alleged that the petitioners did not receive any copy of the statement of facts. the petitioners alleged that although they have received letters dated 3rd october, 2013 and 30th september, 2013 but the petitioners could not remember and or trace out any other letter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 2016 (SC)

Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Hakumat Rai

Court : Supreme Court of India

reportable in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.8267 of2016(arising out of s.l.p. (civil) no.11247 of 2016) delhi agricultural marketing board appellant versus hakumat rai ...respondent judgment adarsh kumar goel, j.1. leave granted. this appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29th january, 2016 in lpa no.535 of 2015 passed by the high court of delhi whereby the division bench of the high court affirmed the order of the single judge directing the appellant herein to allot a shop to the respondent- writ petitioner in gazipur mandi and also issue of category b license to him under the provisions of delhi agricultural produce marketing (regulation) act, 1998.2. the above order came to be passed on the writ petition filed by the respondent. the averments in the petition are: the writ petitioner was a commission agent of fruits and vegetables at phool mandi, darya ganj, new delhi. the appellant- delhi agricultural marketing board was a statutory body to regulate the marketing of agricultural produce and had declared certain areas as market areas. in the year 1998, the said mandi at darya ganj was de-notified and the commission agents were to be shifted from there. license of the petitioner was not renewed as the market was shifted to okhla where a new market was to be constructed by the delhi development authority (dda). the petitioner was included in the list of eligible persons but was not successful in the draw of .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //