Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: supreme court of india Page 1 of about 50,517 results (0.223 seconds)

Oct 13 2020 (SC)

Muniraju Gowda P. M. Vs. Munirathna

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPEME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.67876788 OF2020SRI MUNIRAJU GOWDA P.M. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS SRI MUNIRATHNA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) ORDER V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.1. 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. 1 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 3. 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.4. 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. The election petition was filed on 13.07.2018. After service of notice, the returned candidate who is the...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 2020 (SC)

Chowgule and Company Private Limited Vs. Goa Foundation

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M.A.NO.1260 OF2020IN CIVIL APPEAL No.839 OF2020CHOWGULE AND COMPANY APPLICANT(S)/ PRIVATE LIMITED ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GOA FOUNDATION & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH M.A.NOS.13851387/2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.840842 OF2020M.A.NO.1384/2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL No.843 OF2020M.A.NO.1345 /2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.848 OF2020M.A.NO.1344/2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL No.847 OF2020M.A.NO.1625/2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.839 OF2020ORDER1 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, 2 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 N...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 2020 (SC)

Anil Bhardwaj Vs. The Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).3419 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.10255 of 2020) ANIL BHARDWAJ APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.Leave granted.2. 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 2 held not suitable for being appointed to the post of District Judge (Entry Level).3. 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 advertise...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 2020 (SC)

Hanumappa (Since Deceased) by His Lrs Vs. The State of Karnataka

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NO.62796 OF2020IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.54675468 OF2019Hanumappa (Since Deceased) by His Lrs. & Ors. . Appellant(s) The State of Karnataka & Ors. . Respondent(s) Versus ORDER1 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.2. 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 2 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 poss...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 2020 (SC)

Raghunath(d) by Lrs. Vs. Radha Mohan (D) Thr. Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1442 OF2016RAGHUNATH (D) BY LRS. .APPELLANTS VERSUS RADHA MOHAN (D) THR. LRS & ORS..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. 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 1 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 plaintiffs entitlement otherwise claim right of pre-emption in terms of Section 6 of the 1966 Act is not in dispute i...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2020 (SC)

Bikramjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.667 OF2020(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2933 of 2020) BIKRAMJIT SINGH APPELLANT Versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted.2. 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 1 Gumtala, was doing the duty of a Security Guard on the main ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2020 (SC)

Ferrodous Estates (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. p.gopirathnam (Dead) and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.13516 OF2015FERRODOUS ESTATES (PVT.) LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS P. GOPIRATHNAM (DEAD) & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. 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; 1 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 re...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2020 (SC)

Anand Yadav Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2850 OF2020ANAND YADAV & ORS. Appellants Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondents JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. 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. 1 The Factual Matrix:2. 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 ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2020 (SC)

Amar Singh Vs. The State (Nct of Delhi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.335 OF2015REPORTABLE AMAR SINGH .. APPELLANT (S) THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .. RESPONDENT (S) VERSUS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.336 OF2015INDERJEET SINGH .. APPELLANT (S) VERSUS THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .. RESPONDENT (S) KRISHNA MURARI, J.JUDGMENT 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. Accusedappellant, Inderjeet Singh, was also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 27 of the Ar...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2020 (SC)

Ashish Seth Vs. Sumit Mittal

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION(C) No.34/2016 IN WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) NO.5/2015 Ashish Seth Petitioner Versus Sumit Mittal and others Alleged Contemnors JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.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 Courts 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 1 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 materi...

Tag this Judgment!


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