Kerala High Court

[Kerala%20High%20Court][bleft]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

[Madhya%20Pradesh%20High%20Court][bsummary]

Delhi High Court

[Delhi%20High%20Court][twocolumns]

9 Important Supreme Court of India Judgments Pronounced Today [Friday, 13th April 2018]

1. Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum Vs. State of Kerala

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970 - Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 - Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 - “Paramparya Vaidyas’ - practicing modern / homoeopathic / ayurvedic / siddha / unani - tibbi medicines - Persons who do not fulfill the prescribed qualification and are not duly registered under the relevant Statute, cannot be permitted to practice as ‘Paramparya Vaidyas’.

Judgments Link : http://bit.ly/2H2xIz2
Case Number : C.A. No. 897 / 2009
Petitioner's Advocate : T. G. Narayanan Nair
Respondent's Advocate : G. Prakash
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal

2. M/s Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 - S. 20 - Whether an Umpire has to hear the matter de novo on a Reference or from the stage of disagreement between the Arbitrators? Whether in a case where the matter has been referred to the Umpire owing to disagreement between the Arbitrators, the Umpire has to confine himself only to hear the issues on which the arbitrators disagreed or he has to hear the matter afresh ? What does the word de novo hearing means?

Case Number : C.A. No. 3776 / 2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Pramod B. Agarwala
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal

3. Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India

Procedure for Medical Reimbursement Claim (MRC) in Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) - The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order.

Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 694 / 2015
Petitioner's Advocate : Petitioner-in-person
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By :Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal

4. Hemraj Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Land Acquisition - Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches - Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge observing that there is not a single averment that the possession of the land has not been taken - felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court - the writ petitioners have made specific averments that they are in possession of the land in question - it just and proper to remand the case to the Division Bench of the High Court and request the Division Bench to decide the writ appeal afresh in accordance with law.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3778 / 2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

5. Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Baldev Raj Walia

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 2 Rule 2 Suit to include the whole claim - Relinquishment of part of claim - the sine qua non for invoking Order 2 Rule 2(2) against the plaintiff by the defendant is that the relief which the plaintiff has claimed in the second suit was also available to the plaintiff for being claimed in the previous suit on the causes of action pleaded in the previous suit against the defendant and yet not claimed by the plaintiff.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2GVNFep
Case Number : C.A. No. 3777 / 2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Prerna Mehta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre


6. K.K. Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 199 (2) - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 499 & 500 - Maintainability of a Criminal Prosecution / Proceeding  against the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Judgments Link : http://bit.ly/2qvMLu9
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 547 / 2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Kabir Dixit
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi

7. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Madhan Agro Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) holding that the coconut oil manufactured and packed in “small containers” by the ­assessee (s) is classifiable under Heading 1513 and not under Heading 3305 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the Revenue is in appeal - In view of the difference of opinion in terms of the judgments in the present appeals, the Registry is directed to place the said appeals before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Case Number : C.A. No. 1766 / 2009
Petitioner's Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad
Respondent's Advocate : E. C. Agrawala
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

8. Union Public Service Commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya

Service Law - The Selection Committee may be guided by the classification adopted by the State Government but, for good reasons, the Selection Committee may evolve its own classification which may be at variance with the grading given in the Annual Confidential Reports.

Case Number : C.A. No. 10854 / 2014
Petitioner's Advocate : Binu Tamta
Respondent's Advocate : Chandra Prakash
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

9. Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association Vs. Union of India

Regulation 9(IV) and (VII), after amendment dated 05.04.2018 – Regulation 9(4) and (8) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as framed by the Medical Council of India, are under challenge - placed the matters before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger Bench, emergently.

Case Number : W.P. (c) No. 196 / 2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Khaitan & Co.
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph