admin

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.7 SECTION III SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [Civil Appeal No(S). 6620 of 2003] Date: 09/05/2014 This Appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Shalini Kumar, […]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1144 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 8965/2013] KURIAN, J.: 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore. As per the impugned order, the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482

[I.A. No.3 in C.A. No.4440 of 2013] [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36179 of 2013] K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This Court, while disposing of the case titled G. Sundarrajan vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC 620, gave 15 directions for due compliance by AERB, NPCIL, DAE, MoEF, TNPCB, State of Tamil Nadu, etc.

[Civil Appeal No. 5514 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2715 of 2009] [Civil Appeal No. 5515 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11371 of 2009] RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. By notification dated 21.10.1969 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as

[Civil Appeal No. 5513 of 2014 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35943 of 2012] RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants, who are the landlords, seek to challenge the order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi granting leave to the respondent-tenant to contest the proceedings for his

[Criminal Appeal No.1133 of 2014 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 2531 of 2014] N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant, who is the wife of one Cherukuri Narendra Chowdari-detenu, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh alleging that her husband

[Civil Appeal No.4223 of 2012] A.K.SIKRI,J. 1. Respondent No.3 is a consumer (hereinafter referred to as the “consumer”) of electricity (LT-II Category) whose premises are situated within area of supply of the appellant namely Brihanmumbai Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST). In April 2009, he approached respondent No.2 i.e. Tata Power Company Limited (TPC) with

[Civil Appeal No. 5989 of 2008] [Civil Appeal No.5992 of 2008] [Civil Appeal No.5993 of 2008] A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. The Appellant herein, National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO) has established two schools for the benefit of the wards of its- employees. These schools are known as Saraswati Vidaya Mandir (SVM) and located at NALCO Nagar

[Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6873 of 2010] [SLP (C) No. 23796-23798/2010 Contmt. Pet. (CRL.) No. 4/13 in SLP (CRL.) No. 6873 of 2010] A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. A spate of litigation between the two groups depicts a severe fight between them where settlement appears to be a distant dream, at least as of now,

[Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 24297-24302 of 2007] DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These appeals have arisen from the impugned judgment and order dated 11.5.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 2529 of 1985; 889 of 1986; 988 of 1986; 2155 of 1987;