Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-16-2015
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8731 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.19617 of 2015) SHAILESH DHAIRYAWAN APPELLANT VERSUS MOHAN BALKRISHNA LULLA ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted.2. The respondent had filed a suit in the Bombay High Court, being Suit No.1927 of 2007, against the appellant and some others seeking a declaration that a development agreement dated 27.12.2004 together with a Power of Attorney of even date had stood terminated, and for certain other reliefs.3. On 3.10.2008, the parties to the suit entered into consent terms largely settling the disputes between them. However, with regard to two specific differences, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 agreed to refer the said differences to the arbitration of a retired Supreme Court Judge as follows:- 8). The Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 agree to and hereby do refer to Arbitration of Mrs. Justice Sujata Manohar (Retd.) the dispute as to (i) t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-22-2015
1. The present writ petition questions the notification issued under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Tranparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the Central Act 30 of 2013') dated 12.06.2015 and the notification as well as notice issued dated 12.06.2015 under Section 15(2) of the Central Act 30 of 2013 proposing to acquire premises No.5-1912, Putli Bowli, Hyderabad admeasuring 1371 sq. yards as illegal and violative of Chapter II of the Central Act 30 of 2013 and the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioners states that a dealership agreement was entered into by and between the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) with the petitioner, as a partner, on 23.10.2012 for sale of petroleum and diesel products. Even before the petitioner entered in the said business, the said petroleum outlet is stated to be running from 15.01.1964 and the income generated is stated to be the only livelihood of the petitioner. Petitioner also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-23-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 27, 2015 Pronounced on: February 23, 2015 + ST.APPL.10/2014 COMMISSIONER OF VAT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. H C Bhatia, Spl. Counsel. Versus JUPITOR EXPORTS Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Puneet Agrawal and Mr. Avjeet Bhujabal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA % 1. This appeal under Section 81 of Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Delhi VAT Act), is directed against the order dated 07.01.2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal : Value Added Tax (VAT) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) in appeal which had been preferred before it and registered vide No.75/STT/05-06, in turn, questioning the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 06.06.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Sales Tax (hereinafter, the Commissioner) rejecting the request of the respondent herein (the Assessee) for compounding the offence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-13-2015
"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 : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-07-2015
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE7H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 PRESENT: THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.58/2014 BETWEEN1 SMT.LOKAMANI W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT44YEARS2 3.4. SRI M.MAHESHA S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT26YEARS SRI M.GIRISHA S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT23YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1 TO3ARE R/AT DANDIKERE VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK-570 010. SMT.NAGARATHNA D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA W/O LOKESH S., AGED ABOUT24YEARS R/AT NO.5/105, HULLIKERE STREET AND:1. 2. 3.4.5. 2 KOLLEGAL TOWN-571440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N. NANJUNDASWAMY-ADV.) SMT.MAHADEVAMMA W/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT49YEARS R/AT CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK-570 010. SMT.PREMA W/O DEVANNA AGED ABOUT49YEARS R/AT DANDIKERE VILLAGE VAJAMANGALA POST VARUNA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK-570 010. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT44YEARS R/AT KALMALLI VILLAGE NANJANAGUD TALUK-571301 SRI P.MAHADEVU S/O L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-07-2015
(Prayer: This RFA filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC., against the Judgment and decree dated 22.06.2013 passed in O.S.No. 33/2009 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, decreeing the suit filed for Partition and separate possession and for declaration.) 1. This regular first appeal is filed by defendants 1 to 3, challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit schedule properties. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred in the original suit. 3. Suit is in respect of four landed properties and one house property, described in the schedule to the plaint as item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. 4. The case of the plaintiffs is that they and late Mahadevappa, the husband of first defendant and father of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of one Sannamadaiah. They along with defendants 1 to 4 const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-12-2015
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents related to the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's land situated in Survey Nos.156/1B and 156/2B admeasuring 0.72.0 Hectares in Block No.6 in Minjur Village, Ponneri Taluk culminating in letter No.168/2010/A1/Unit-4 dated 06.01.2014 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same as being contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and consequently direct the respondents to proceed further in respect of acquisition of land and payment of compensation in respect of the outer ring road project strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, including payment of compensation as a pre-condition t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-03-2015
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015 in Crl.M.P.No.4323 of 2015 in Crime No.304 of 2015 and to issue direction to release the petitioner/Accused No.4 on bail in Crime No.304 of 2015 dated 1.8.2015 on the file of Central Crime Branch-II, EDF-III, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, in accordance with Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 pending disposal of this petition and during investigation and trial.) 1. A very interesting question of law has been raised by Mr.Amit Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, for determination by this Court in this Revision Case. For better appreciation, it may be apposite to state in brief the facts in this case. 2. (a) On a complaint lodged by one K.S.Kumar, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-21-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:21. 05.2015 W.P.(C) 8596/2014 TARUN PAL SINGH & ANR Petitioners versus LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 2888/2014 & CM149922014, 14994/2014 & 16227/2014 & CM99972015 RAJENDER KISHAN GUPTA & ORS. Petitioners Respondent versus UNION OF INDIA + W.P.(C) 4839/2014 & CM96622014 & CM99982015 SUDHIR KISHAN GUPTA Petitioner versus LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI AND ORS + ... Respondents W.P.(C) 4462/2014 & CM88982014 & CM99992015 SANJAY GUPTA WP(C) 8596/2014 & ORS versus LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondent + W.P.(C) 5559/2014 & CM1378513786/2014 VIRENDER KISHAN GUPTA Petitioner versus LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondent + W.P.(C) 6017/2014 & CM176612014& CM100002015 SAROJ KUMARI GUPTA & ORS Petitioners Respondents versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS + W.P.(C) 6290/2014 & CM151902014 & CM99922015 VIJENDER KISHAN GUPTA Petitioners Resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-21-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:21. 05.2015 W.P.(C) 8596/2014 TARUN PAL SINGH & ANR Petitioners versus LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 2888/2014 & CM149922014, 14994/2014 & 16227/2014 & CM99972015 RAJENDER KISHAN GUPTA & ORS. Petitioners Respondent versus UNION OF INDIA + W.P.(C) 4839/2014 & CM96622014 & CM99982015 SUDHIR KISHAN GUPTA Petitioner versus LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI AND ORS + ... Respondents W.P.(C) 4462/2014 & CM88982014 & CM99992015 SANJAY GUPTA WP(C) 8596/2014 & ORS versus LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondent + W.P.(C) 5559/2014 & CM1378513786/2014 VIRENDER KISHAN GUPTA Petitioner versus LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondent + W.P.(C) 6017/2014 & CM176612014& CM100002015 SAROJ KUMARI GUPTA & ORS Petitioners Respondents versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS + W.P.(C) 6290/2014 & CM151902014 & CM99922015 VIJENDER KISHAN GUPTA Petitioners Resp...
Tag this Judgment!