Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Reportable CRIMINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISIDCTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.67 OF2011Securities and Exchange Board of India Appellant(s) Classic Credit Ltd. versus With Respondent(s) Criminal Appeal Nos. 68 to 73 of 2011 Civil Appeal Nos. 102-103 of 2011 Criminal Appeal No.1096 of 2013 Writ Petition (Crl.) No.67 of 2016 Criminal Appeal No.1450 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.3593 of 2011) Civil Appeal No.10729 of 2017 Arising out of SLP(C) No.21394 of 2011 JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI.1.2. Leave granted, in all the special leave petitions. Complaints were filed against the private parties herein, for offences punishable under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the SEBI Act). At the time when the complaints were filed under Section 26(2) of the SEBI Act, the concerned accused were to be tried by a Metropolitan Magistrate (or, a 1 Judicial Magistrate of the first class). In this bunch of cases, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(4)ALLMR50; (1997)99BOMLR425
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The present appellants are the heirs of the original defendant and the present respondents are the heirs of the original plaintiffs. The original plaintiffs filed a suit against the original defendant being Civil Suit No. 30/69 before the Court of the Civil Judge S.D., Panaji. The suit was filed under Decree No. 43525 of the Portuguese Rent Legislation then applicable to the area where the suit house was situated. The cause of action insofar as the Plaintiffs were concerned was that the Defendant had failed to deposit the rent reserved and further the rent had also not been paid on time. The original Plaintiffs in paragraph 14 of the plaint claimed an amount of Rs. 8,665.32 on various counts as arrears of rent. The original Defendant contested the claim of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant contended that there was another proceeding between the parties which was disposed by judgment and decree dated 22.12.63 by making some observations. The said observations though plead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)140PLR313; [2005]141STC119(P& H)
Viney Mittal, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of orders passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Range)-cum-Revisional Authority, Ambala (respondent No. 2).2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts from C.W.P. No. 15749 of 2004.Petitioner-Hindustan Construction Company Limited, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-company') is engaged in the business of construction and claims to have its area of operation across the entire country. In the State of Haryana, it is duly registered as a dealer under the provision of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act') and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') and is being assessed by Assessing Authority, Yamuna Nagar. For the assessment year 1998-99, the petitioner-Company had returned a gross turnover of Rs. 20,65,04,077/-. as per the return, tax liability of the petitioner-Company was Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H381
Bishan Narain, J. 1. The question that is required to be determined by this Bench is whether or not Section 7-A read with Schedule IV of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 contravenes and violates Article! 14 of the Constitution. 2. The facts which have led to the raising of this question are these. S.N. Bhalla is the owner of the residential premises constructed on plot No : 17A/ 35, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi; The construction of these premises was admittedly not completed before the commencement of the 1947-Act on 24-3-1947 nor were they let to a tenant before that date. S.N. Bhalla let the premises on lease to G.D. Soni who agreed to pay rent at Rs. 175/-per mensem excluding house-tax. During the tenancy Soni applied for fixation of standard rent under pection 7-A read with Schedule J,V of the 1947 Rent Control Act. The Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 110/- which was ultimately raised by this Court to Rs. 124/-8/- by order dated 3-5-1953...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
"REPORTABLE" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.117 OF2005Videocon International Ltd. ... Appellant versus Securities & Exchange Board of India ... Respondent JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as, the SEBI Act) was enacted to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as, the Board) was vested with statutory powers to effectively deal with all matters relating to the capital market.2. The functions of the Board have been depicted in Section 11 of the SEBI Act. Under Section 11 of the SEBI Act, the powers of the Board include, the power to suspend the trading of any security in a recognized stock-exchange; the power to restrain from accessing the securities market and prohibit any person associated with the securities mark...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR299; 2005(5)BomCR832
Britto N.A., J.1. These are plaintiffs second appeals.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the suits.3. The plaintiff is the owner of a property known as 'Maddem' having land registration No. 29031, Matriz No. 2290 surveyed under No. 114/5 with a house in it, situated in Umtawaddo of Calangute village.4. The plaintiff by virtue of an agreement dated 24-9-1976 let out to defendant No. 1 the said house as per the plan attached with compound at the back of the house and a strip of land which went up to the seashore; on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 775/-. The lease was for a period of 22 years from 1-4-1976, for the purpose of running a guest house. Considering the nature of the business, it was agreed between the parties that rent would be Rs. 425/- per month for the first year and with a proportionate increase of Rs. 50/- every subsequent year. Clause 9 of the said deed, which is most relevant, reads as follows :-'The lessee sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1030Mad; (1992)IIMLJ573
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. I. Introduction : By an order of reference dated April 23, 1992, a Division Bench referred seven of the above writ petitions to a larger Bench. The Honourable the Chief Justice constituted this Bench for hearing the cases. The matters were listed for orders on April 30, 1992 and with the consent of counsel, we fixed the date of hearing as June 22, 1992. At the instance of counsel appearing in the other writ petitions, the Honourable the Chief Justice directed those matters also to be posted before us as the questions involved are common. When the matters were heard, 18 writ petitions were posted in all for hearing. In the course of the hearing, it was pointed out that several writ petitions had been filed for similar reliefs by persons in similar position after the Division Bench heard the matters and reserved orders and before it made the order of reference. Counsel had no objection to our passing orders on those writ petitions too, as no further argument was inv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi820
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) These cross-appeals (Nos. 50-D and 103-D) were filed against the judgment and decree in a suit instituted on October 1, 1955 on behalf of Messrs Birdhi Chand Girdhari Lal Jain and six others. The suit was against Messrs Kannya Lal Sham Lal and five others. On April 15, 1961 it was partly decreed by Shri R. L. Lamba, Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi. The decree passed in favor of the plaintiffs was for ejectment of the defendants from the portions shown red and yellow in the plan (Exhibit P/l) attached to the plaint and for recovering Rs. 20,836/10/8. The amount decreed comprised of Rs. 14,400.00 on account of arrears of rent, Rs. 4,836/10/8 as damages and Rs. 1,600.00 as electric charges. The plaintiffs were as well allowed proportionate cost of the suit. (2) In this appeal the defendants claimed that no decree should have been passed against them either for eviction or recovering any amount on account of arrears of rent, damages or electric charges. The judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR657
V. Gopalagowda, J.1. This review Petition is filed by respondents 5 to 7 in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 requesting this Court to review the judgment dt. 8/8/2005 passed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 and further requested to set aside the same and dismiss the appeal with costs urging various legal contentions.2. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to, as has been assigned in the Misc. First Appeal.3. The first ground urged in this petition is that no appeal lies Under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the BPT Act) against the order dt. 24/9/2001 passed in Misc. No. 26/1998 on the file of the District Judge, Uttar Kannada District, Karwar, rejecting the claim of second appellant to appoint him as the Trustee of the Trust of SREE Vinayaka Devaru Temple, Idagunji. Therefore the order passed by this Court allowing the appeal is without jurisdiction, hence the judgment sought to be reviewed suffers f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4732; 2004(3)KarLJ49
ORDERSrinivasa Reddy, J.1. All these petitions give rise to a common question of law, for my consideration. The question is, whether by operation of Section 5 of The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the present Act' for short) the landlords of the premises involved in these petitions are entitled to recover possession of the premises without the need to take recourse to Section 27 of the Act.2. Let me first refer to the background which has given rise to this question. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) provided for inheritability of tenancy by the legal representatives of the original tenant. The inheritance was automatic and there was no end for this inheritance, in that, after the wife or husband of the original tenant, the sons and daughters and after them the grandson and grand-daughters could stake claim because the repealed Act recognized them all as statutory tenants by including in the definition of the term, 'tenant' the surviving spouse or any son ...
Tag this Judgment!