Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF M P AND ORS Vs. HITKISHORE GOSWAMI

Appeal (Civil), 1892 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2015

The question, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Courts below were justified in allowing the respondent's writ petition and in consequence justified in issuing directions in the nature of writ of mandamus in relation to respondent's pension case. It was for the reason that respondent having voluntarily tendered his resignation from the said service without there being any condition Full Judgment

Tags Pension
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WARSALIGANJ SAHKARI CHINI MILL MAZD.UNIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 3937-3938 of 2011, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2015

Whether seasonal workers of the sugar factories stopped crushing years back would be entitled to retaining allowance, was the main issue agitated by the appellant-union before the High Court. In order to avoid any confusion, it is clarified that the seasonal workers attached to the sugar Full Judgment

Tags Pension
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA THR ITS SECRETARY & ANR

Appeal (Civil), 1912 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2015

Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, however, has rightly relied on a series of Judgments of this Court, including O.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1987 (4) SCC 328, where this Court has enunciated that the suspension of an employee is injurious to his interests and must not be continued for an unreasonably long period; that, therefore, an order of suspension should not be lightly passed. Suspension, specially preceding Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

P.V. GURU RAJ REDDY & ANR. Vs. P. NEERADHA REDDY & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 5254 of 2006, Judgment Date: Feb 13, 2015

-The  finding  of  the High Court in this regard proceeds on the  basis  that  the  plaintiffs  had admitted in the plaint that the  property  purchased  in  the  name  of  the defendant No.3 belonged to  the  plaintiffs.  Therefore  the  provisions  of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 would apply. We fail to see  how the aforesaid view of the  High  Court  can  be  sustained.   The  suits  in question were not filed for recovery of any property held in benami  by  the defendants. Rather, the suit was for declaration of  Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Union of India & Anr. Versus Rajbir Singh

Appeal (Civil), 2904 of 2011, Judgment Date: Feb 13, 2015

The essence of the rules, as seen earlier, is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of such entry. More importantly, in the event of his subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in his health Full Judgment

Tags Pension
Supreme Court of India ()

NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORP. LTD. Vs. M/S ASHOK KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1852 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 13, 2015

-While the technical bids were opened and found compliant, the financial bids had yet to be opened when the respondents moved an application addressed to the AGM (C&M) of the appellant-corporation at Rai Bareilly withdrawing the bids submitted by it and asking for being excluded from consideration besides praying for refund of the earnest money deposited with the bids. -   -The expression "revocation of tender" does not Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Raveesh Chand Jain Raveesh versus Raj Rani Jain

Appeal (Civil), 1822 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 12, 2015

- The bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it confers wide discretion on the court to pass a judgment at any stage of the suit on the basis of admission of facts made in the pleading or otherwise without waiting for the determination of any other question arose between the parties. Since the Rule permits the passing of judgment at any stage without waiting for determination Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

SAI KRIPA MANGAL KARYALAYA & ORS. VERSUS NAGPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 5577 of 2004, Judgment Date: Feb 12, 2015

In absence of the sanctioned plan, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in deciding the disputed question of fact as to whether the building was constructed in accordance with Town Planning Scheme. the High Court was not justified in entertaining the so called Public Interest Litigation filed by persons who had personal dispute with respondent no.4. we Full Judgment

Tags PIL
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

KRISHNA HARE GAUR Vs. VINOD KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS

Appeal (Civil), 1755 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 11, 2015

-When the appointment is made de hors the rules, the same is a nullity. In such an eventuality, the statutory bar like doctrine of res judicata is not attracted. -"From the above, it is evident that even in judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away. In such an eventuality the questions of non-executing of the Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MADHUKAR SADBHA SHIVARKAR (D) BY LRS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1751 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 11, 2015

In our considered view, the orders impugned in the writ petitions which are affirmed by the High Court, are perfectly legal and valid and therefore, the same do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, but on the other hand, the aforesaid orders of the State Government can also be traceable to executive power of Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 4510 of 2006, Judgment Date: Feb 10, 2015

An appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is maintainable before this Court only on the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 100 CPC in turn permits filing of an appeal only if the case involves a substantial question of law- The appeal is, therefore, dismissed Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

M/S BENNET COLEMAN & CO.LTD. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 269 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 10, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1662 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 09, 2015

In absence thereof the second marriage  is a misconduct under the Conduct Rules- Polygamy  was  not  integral  part  of  religion  and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25.- Even if bigamy be regarded as an  integral  part of Hindu religion, Rule 27 of the U.P. Government  Servants'  Conduct  Rules requiring permission of the  Government  before  contracting  such  marriage must be held to come  under  the  protection  of  Article  25(2)(b)  of  the Constitution- What  is permitted or not prohibited by  a  religion  does  not  become  Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 8224 OF 2012 Judgment Date: Feb 06, 2015

In view of the law laid down by this Court, we are of the view that if any person who is or was a legal practitioner, including a retired Hon'ble Judge is appointed as Inquiry Officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee, the denial of assistance of legal practitioner to the charged employee would be unfair. Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

M/S ANVIL CABLES PVT LTD Vs. COMMNR.OF CENTRAL TAXES & SERVICE TAX

Appeal (Civil), 1651 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 06, 2015

-Looking at the peculiar facts of the case, in the interests of justice, we direct that upon payment of Rs. 25,000/- by way of costs to the sole respondent within two months from today, the impugned Judgment shall be set aside and Tax Appeal No. 3 of 2013 shall be restored to its original number and shall be heard on merits by the High Court.   Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. SIVAKUMAR & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1478 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 05, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

M/S CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN SERVICES Vs. DELHI DEVT.AUTH

Appeal (Civil), 1440-1441 OF 2015 Judgment Date: Feb 04, 2015

Once it is held that even in absence of specific evidence, the respondent could be held to have suffered loss on account of breach of contract, and it is entitled to compensation to the extent of loss suffered, it is for the appellant to show that stipulated damages are by way of penalty - The Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

KANDIVALI CO-OP. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE & ANR Vs. MUNICIPAL CORP. OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1431 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 04, 2015

-Elaborating the distinction between the tax and a fee, this Court in number of decisions held that the element of compulsion or coercion is present in all impositions, though in different degrees and that it is not totally absent in fees. The compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a man in spite of his unwillingness or want of consent Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

S.T. SADIQ Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 3962 of 2007, Judgment Date: Feb 04, 2015

It is well-settled that if a statute requires an authority to exercise power, when such authority is satisfied that conditions exist for exercise of that power, the satisfaction has to be based on the existence of grounds mentioned in the statute. The grounds must be made out on the basis of the relevant material. If the existence of the conditions required for the exercise of the power is challenged, the courts Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

JITENDRA KHIMSHANKAR TRIVEDI & ORS. Vs. KASAM DAUD KUMBHAR & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 1415 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 03, 2015

Even assuming Jayvantiben Jitendra Trivedi was not self- employed doing embroidery and tailoring work, the fact remains that she was a housewife and a home maker. It is hard to monetize the domestic work done by a house-mother. The services of the mother/wife is available 24 hours and her duties are never fixed. Courts have Full Judgment