Category: Constitution

HELD 1) The construction of the toll plaza at 194 kilometre was not illegal or arbitrary; (2) The direction by the High Court, to shift toll plaza, cannot be upheld and it is liable to be set aside; (3) The appellants will look at the barricades (closing of service roads) in regard to the toll plaza and permit such barricades only as are permitted in Rule 17 of the Rules. Any unauthorised barricades will be removed without any delay and at any rate within 2 weeks from today.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MADHUKAR KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and S. Ravindra…

HELD Our answer with respect to the first prayer in Miscellaneous Application No. 1465 of 2021 will be sufficient to take care of the issue of special audit dealt with in the resolution dated 27.10.2020. The urgency spelt out in the report dated 31.08.2021, however, calls for immediate action. We, therefore, direct that the special audit, as referred to hereinabove, with respect to Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and SPSTT be completed as early as possible and preferably within three months from the date of this order.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…

Judicial Review – Tender jurisdiction – Purpose is to check whether the choice of decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice of decision is sound. In evaluating tenders and awarding contracts, the parties are to be governed by principles of commercial prudence – To that extent, principles of equity and natural justice have to stay at a distance.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  UFLEX LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Labour Court Award – Jurisdiction – Transfer of proceedings from Allahabad High Court to Uttaranchal High Court -Judicial discipline/propriety demand to respect the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and more particularly the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court, in the present case the Allahabad High Court which as such was not under challenge before it – No error was committed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with the liberty to file a fresh writ petition before the court having jurisdiction.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR PRADESH JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BALBIR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Section 25, 25(a) and 25(f) – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 21 – Principal Special Director in Enforcement Directorate – Extension of tenure – Section 25(f) of the CVC Act has to be read as the tenure of office of the Director of Enforcement is for a minimum period of two years – There is no proscription on the Government to appoint a Director of Enforcement beyond a period of two years

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai,…

Scheduled Caste Reservation for post of Mayor in Municipal Corporation Held :- Dominant intent of the said Rules is to give effect to the reservation policy while ensuring that reservations are not repeated in particular Corporations and at the same time in all the Corporations, there shall be reservation, at some point of time, for all the eligible categories by rotation – Legislative intent is to exclude the Corporations which were earlier reserved for a particular category until all the categories are provided reservation.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL — Appellant Vs. SANJAY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Appellant has raised false pleas and attempted to mislead Court, while the officials of NOIDA have not acted bona fide in the discharge of their duties – Appellant has stooped to the point of producing a fabricated sanctioned plan – Therefore, This Court confirm the directions of the High Court including the order of demolition and for sanctioning prosecution – Illegal Construction – Violation of building norms – Sanction of prosecution – Reimbursement to flat owners – Conclusion and directions

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUPERTECH LIMITED — Appellant Vs. EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R.…

High Court had imposed a blanket ban on the operation of DJ services in Uttar Pradesh reason that noise generated by DJ is unpleasant and obnoxious level – Appeal against same – Persons may be permitted to play the music/DJ only in accordance with law and after obtaining the requisite license/permission from the concerned authorities

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SACHIN KASHYAP AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.…

As held, it is declared that Part IXB of the Constitution of India is operative only insofar as it concerns multi State cooperative societies both within the various States and in the Union territories of India – Part IX B of the Constitution consists of Articles 243ZH to 243ZT – Article 243ZH is the definition Article which defines co-operative societies in sub-clause (c) as meaning society registered or deemed to be registered under a State law, as opposed to a multi-State cooperative society defined in sub-clause (d), which is a society with objects not confined to one State and registered under a law for the time being in force relating to such cooperatives

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RAJENDRA N. SHAH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai and K.M. Joseph,…