Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC709IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10662 of 2024 (Arising out of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14286 of 2022) M/s. ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS MAST RAM & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: - INDEX I. FACTUAL MATRIX 3 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ...8 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1-6 .12 IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No.10 13 V. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No.11 ..15 VI. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION .17 VII. ANALYSIS .18 A. Scheme of Arrangement between the Appellant and JAL under Sections 391 to 394 respectively of the Companies Act, 1956 18 B. Return of acquired land under the 2013 Act ..25 C. Impugned Order of the High Court ....28 D. Role of the State under Article 300-A of the Constitution ...30 VIII. CONCLUSION ..37 2 1. Leave Granted.2. This appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
- 1 - NC:2024. KHC-K:5691 CRL.P No.200895 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE5H DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200895 OF2024(482) BETWEEN: KAWAL JEET KAUR W/O JANG BAHADUR SINGH, AGE:69. YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O3201, LIC FLAT, SECTOR NO.6, VIDYA NAGAR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302039, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY, HOLDER SRI. RAJESH SHARMA S/O SHRI. SHYAM SUNDAR SHARMA, AGE:42. YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O G22, GANESH NAGAR, NEAR GAYATRI NAGAR, HARMANDA, JAPUR (RAJASTHAN)-302039. PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, INDI, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) - 2 - NC:2024. KHC-K:5691 CRL.P No.200895 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH ORDER DATED1007.2024 PASSED BY THE HO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - NC:2024. KHC:27788-DB WP No.20806 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE18H DAY OF JULY, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION No.20806 OF2023(GM-RES) BETWEEN: Dr. Sabeel Ahmed @ Motu Doctor S/o Maqbool Ahmed Aged about 39 years R/at No.1981, 26th Cross, Banashankari, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560070. Petitioner (By Sri. Kiran S. Javali, Senior Advocate, for Sri. Mohammed Tahir, Advocate) AND: National Investigating Agency Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India Hyderabad Branch Rep. by their Standing Counsel Mr. P. Prasanna Kumar Office at High Court Complex Opp. to Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru-560001. Respondent (By Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Spl. PP) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Cr.P.C.-. 2 - NC:2024. KHC:27788-DB WP No.20806 of 2023 praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC447IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2668 OF2024(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9052 of 2021) NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY NEW DELHI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS OWAIS AMIN @ CHERRY & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT M. M. Sundresh, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in Criminal Appeal (D) No.11/2020 dated 27.04.2021 by which the judgment rendered by the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency (NIA) (3rd Additional Sessions Judge) Jammu, has been confirmed in part, while remitting the issue pertaining to the charges framed under Sections 306 and 411 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code SVT., 1989 (hereinafter referred to as RPC, 1989) along with Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as UAPA, 1967) for taking cognizance afresh. 13. Heard Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Addit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC387REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3033 of 2024) CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER Appellant (s) VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.Leave granted. BRIEF FACTS2 The present appeal has been filed by Child in Conflict with Law1 impugning the order2 passed by the High Court3. 1 Hereinafter referred to as CCL. 2 Order dated 15.11.2023 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.1243 of 2023. 3 High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. Page 1 of 773. Vide aforesaid order, the High Court set aside the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Board4.4. Briefly, the facts as available on record are that FIR5 was registered against the CCL for commission of offences under sections 376(i), 342 IPC and sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20126. After his apprehension on 03.11.2021, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC327REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5062-5099 of 2024 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Nos. 26571-26608 of 2017 PERNOD RICARD INDIA (P) LTD. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.1. Leave Granted.2. The short question for our consideration is the applicability of the relevant rule for imposition of penalty; whether it is the rule that existed when the violation occurred during the license period of 2009-10 or the rule that was substituted in 2011 when proceedings for penalty were initiated. As the substituted rule reduced the quantum of penalty, the appellant insists on its application but the statutory authorities as well as the Division 1 Bench of the High Court rejected his case and imposed higher penalty under the old rule. 2.1 For the reasons to follow, we have accepted the contention of the appellant and, in allowing the appeal, determined that the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC161IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.451 of 2019 Sita Soren Appellant Versus Union of India Respondent Page 1 of 135 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Reference 4 B. Overview of the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao 8 C. Submissions 14 D. Reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao does not violate the principle of stare decisis 22 E. History of parliamentary privilege in India 34 F. Purport of parliamentary privilege in India 44 I. Functional analysis 44 II. Parliamentary privilege as a collective right of the House 54 III. Necessity test to claim and exercise a privilege 60 G. Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege 65 I. Bribery is not in respect of anything said or any vote given 65 II. The Constitution envisions probity in public life 72 III. Courts and the House exercise parallel jurisdiction over allegations of bribery 76 Page 2 of 135 IV. Delivery of results is irrelevant to the offence of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE2D DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH M.F.A. NO.8528/2022 (CPC) BETWEEN:1. . RANGA TRILOCHANA BEDI @ R.T.BEDI S/O BABA PYAARE LAL BEDI AGED ABOUT87YEARS RESIDING AT185, 3RD CROSS NANDIDURGA EXTENSION JAYAMAHAL BENGALURU-560 046. APPELLANT (BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND:1. . MR. KABIR BEDI S/O LATE B.P.L. BEDI AGED ABOUT74YEARS RESIDING AT A5 BEACH HOUSE PARK GANDHI GRAM ROAD, JUHU, MUMBAI-400 049 2 . WESTLAND PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [AN AMAZON COMPANY]. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT1T FLOOR A BLOCK EAST WING, PLOT NO.40 SP INFO CITY, DR. MGR SALAI PERUNGUDI, KANDANACHAVADI CHENNAI-600 096 2 REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO/WHOLTIME DIRECTOR MR. GAUTAM PADMANABHAN. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. SRIRANGA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI CHINTAN CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER ORDER43RULE1r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO.830 OF2022(T-IT) CONNECTED WITH WRIT APPEAL NO.831 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.832 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.833 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.834 OF2022(T-IT) IN W.A.NO.830/2022 BETWEEN:1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(4), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001.2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11 ROOM No.322, 3RD FLOOR CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BALBIR SINGH THE THEN ASG; SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ - ADVOCATE) 2 AND: SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA S/O SRI D P SHARMA AGED ABOUT45YEARS NO.328, TIPPU SULTHAN PALACE ROAD KALASIPALYAM BENGALURU 560 002. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI KIRAN S JAVALI SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SREEHARI KUTSA ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION4OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO.830 OF2022(T-IT) CONNECTED WITH WRIT APPEAL NO.831 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.832 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.833 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.834 OF2022(T-IT) IN W.A.NO.830/2022 BETWEEN:1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(4), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001.2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11 ROOM No.322, 3RD FLOOR CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BALBIR SINGH THE THEN ASG; SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ - ADVOCATE) 2 AND: SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA S/O SRI D P SHARMA AGED ABOUT45YEARS NO.328, TIPPU SULTHAN PALACE ROAD KALASIPALYAM BENGALURU 560 002. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI KIRAN S JAVALI SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SREEHARI KUTSA ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION4OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SE...
Tag this Judgment!