Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-11-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) 309/2015 % Judgment delivered on:11. 02.2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED & ANOTHER Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Petitioners : Mr Kapil Sibal, Mr Rajiv Nayar, Sr Advocates with Mr Sanjeev Kapoor, Mr Rajat Jariwal and Mr Aakash Bajaj For the Respondents : Mr Mukul Rohatgi, AG and Mr Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr Akshay Makhija, Mr Shresth Jain and Ms Devanshi Singh. WITH WP (C) 310/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED & OTHERS Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Petitioners : Dr A.M. Singhvi with Mr Jayant Bhushan, Sr Advocates, Mr Sanjeev Kapoor, Mr Prateek Kumar, Ms Diya Chaturvedi and Mr L. Zafeer Ahmed For the Respondents : Mr Mukul Rohatgi, AG and Mr Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr Akshay Makhija, Mr Shresth Jain and Ms Astha Jain. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-11-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) 309/2015 % Judgment delivered on:11. 02.2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED & ANOTHER Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Petitioners : Mr Kapil Sibal, Mr Rajiv Nayar, Sr Advocates with Mr Sanjeev Kapoor, Mr Rajat Jariwal and Mr Aakash Bajaj For the Respondents : Mr Mukul Rohatgi, AG and Mr Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr Akshay Makhija, Mr Shresth Jain and Ms Devanshi Singh. WITH WP (C) 310/2015 JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED & OTHERS Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Petitioners : Dr A.M. Singhvi with Mr Jayant Bhushan, Sr Advocates, Mr Sanjeev Kapoor, Mr Prateek Kumar, Ms Diya Chaturvedi and Mr L. Zafeer Ahmed For the Respondents : Mr Mukul Rohatgi, AG and Mr Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr Akshay Makhija, Mr Shresth Jain and Ms Astha Jain. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-29-2015
ORDER SHEET GA800of 2013 CS45of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE TURNER MORRISON LIMITED Versus BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 29th September, 2015. Appearance: Mr.S.K.Kapoor,Sr.Adv.Mr.R.Bachawat, Sr.Adv.Mr.R.Banerjee, Sr.Adv.Mrs.L.Banerjee, Adv.Mr.S.Ganguly, Adv..for T.M.LTD.Mr.P.K.Dutta, Sr.Adv.Mr.R.Dutta, Adv.Mr.S.Prasad, Adv.Mr.P.Basu, Adv..for the BCCL. The Court: This is an application under chapter 13A of the Original Side Rules of our High Court, the plaintiff claims to be 17,000 Sq.Ft. the owner more or of less a very valuable situated at property the 6, of Lyons Range,Kolkata 700001 which is a business hub of the city. The plaintiff files a suit for recovery of possession after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. That the relationship of the parties is governed by the provision of Transfer of Property Act is not disputed having regard to the composition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-13-2015
Common Order: (A. Shankar Narayana, J.) 1. Challenging the common order and decretal order dated 16.12.2014 in I.A. Nos.859, 860 and 888 of 2014, the respondent in L.G.C. No.10 of 1990 on the file of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, Special Court') filed these three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I.A. No.859 of 2014 was filed seeking amendment of the counter filed in the aforesaid L.G.C.; I.A. No.860 of 2014 was filed for granting of leave to file document; and I.A. No.888 of 2014 was filed for recalling R.W.1 for marking the said document. The Special Court, by the aforesaid common order, dismissed all the three petitions. Hence, the instant writ petitions seeking the relief of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction and quash the said order and prohibit the Special Court from proceeding with any further enquiry in the aforesaid L.G.C. 3. A brief narration of the proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-20-2015
Gita Mittal, J. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., Satya(truth) and Ahimsa(non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system.... In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. In view of the earlier orders, we proceed to admit this petition. Hence, Rule. The respondents waive service. Since all pleadings are complete, by consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is disposed of finally by this judgment. 2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions the legality and validity of the Circulars, namely, Circular No.15 dated 22nd July, 2013, Circular RBI/2013-14/187 // A.P. (DIR Series), Circular No.25 dated 14th August, 2013 and RBI/2013-14/600 // A.P. (DIR Series) and Circular No. 133 dated 21st May, 2014, issued by the second respondent and proceedings consequent thereto initiated vide show-cause notice dated 14th October, 2014 so also the order passed in furtherance thereof dated 14th January, 2015. It is prayed that these be quashed and set aside. 3. The facts lay in a narrow compass. The petitioners claim to be one of the largest bullion dealers and petitioner No.1 is an Associate Mem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-30-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule in both the Petitions made returnable forthwith. 2. By this Petition (WP(Cri.)/1680/2015) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr. P. C.?), the Petitioner challenges the order passed on 7th March, 2015. That order is to the following effect:- ORDER Heard learned counsel for complainant at length. The allegations made are very serious which require thorough investigation. The IO would on investigation, if comes to conclusion about its truthfulness, proceed, or else not. After making of such allegations and on hearing the complainant the Court is duty bound to order investigation. The case/complainant cannot be heard summarily and disposed off. Hence in interest of justice the police to investigate the offence u/s. 156(3) Cr. P. C. and file report. The CP to appoint authorised officer as per the SC/ST Act to investigate it.?...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-13-2015
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing. CHALLENGE: 3. Petitioner “ Company is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer “ Respondent No.2 herein dated 05/06/2015 whereby Petitioner was directed to stop manufacture, sale and distribution etc of nine types of variants of noodles manufactured by them and also gave other directions by the impugned order which is at Exhibit-A to the Petition. Petitioner is also challenging the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Food Safety, State of Maharashtra “ Respondent No. 4 which is at Exhibit-B. 4. Petitioner has challenged these two impugned orders principally on the following five grounds:- (i) Firstly, it was contended that the said two impugned orders have been passed in complete violation of principles of natural ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-09-2015
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.43825/2014 dated 9.10.2014.) 1. This appeal seeks to challenge the order of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The case of the appellant is as follows:- The appellant, a 39 year old man, is said to be the Pontiff of the Shree Samsthana Gokarna - Shree Ramachandrapura Mutta, Hosanagara, Shimoga. The Mutta is said to have been established by the revered Shree Aadi Shankaracharya, about a thousand and three hundred years ago, at Gokarna, Kumta Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. He is said to have ordained a disciple, Shree Vidhyanandacharya, as the first Pontiff to manage the Mutta, the appellant is said to be the 36th Pontiff in the unbroken line of the Guruparampara of Shree Aa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-26-2015
S.J. Vazifdar, Actg.CJ. 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 02.05.2014 issued by respondent No.1-Authority for Advance Rulings under Section 245-R of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and for consequential reliefs restraining respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax from initiating proceedings or taking any coercive action in relation to the matter to be considered by respondent No.1 under section 245-R(4) of the Act. The petitioner has also sought an order declaring that the transaction in question is not designed for avoidance of tax and directing that the consideration paid by the petitioner and received by its seller is not taxable and therefore, the petitioner was not required to withhold the tax in respect of such consideration. Lastly, the petitioner has sought an order remanding the matter to respondent No.1 for consideration of its application on merits. The application for remand was, however, not pressed and we were invit...
Tag this Judgment!