Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 2109-2110 of 2004 K C Ninan ... Appellant versus Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. Respondents With Civil Appeal No 2108 of 2004 With Civil Appeal Nos 5312-5313 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 5314 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 6587 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 7303 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 6579 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 6593-6594 of 2022 With 1 Civil Appeal No 3018 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No 7169 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6591 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6595 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 6879-6881 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6592 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 7103-7104 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6828 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 7064 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6590 of 2022 And with Civil Appeal No 3640 of 2022 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Overview 4 B. Regulatory Regime 5 C. The position in law 10 D. Issues 14 E. Submissions 15 F. Analysis 25 G....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Date of order 07-02-2017 Co.P.No.57/2012 & connected matters IAE International Aero Engines AG and others Vs.United Breweries (Holdings) Limited R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU1244 DATED THIS THE7H DAY OF FEBRUARY2017BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Co.P.No.57/2012 C/W Co.P.No.121/2012, Co.P.No.122/2012, Co.P.No.185/2012, Co.P.No.248/2012, Co.P.No.51/2013, Co.P.No.99/2013, Co.P.No.162/2013, Co.P.No.265/2013 & Co.P.No.148/2016 Company Petition No.57/2012 Between: IAE International Aero Engines AG628Hebron Avenue, Suite 400 Glastonbury Connecticut 06033, USA Represented herein by its Attorney, Mr. Parminder Singh Dadhwal. ... Petitioner (By Mr. Shreyas Jayasimha, for AZB & Partners) And: United Breweries (Holdings) Limited UB City, Level 12, UB Tower 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560 001. ... Respondent (By Mr. Udaya Holla, Senior Counsel for M/s. Holla & Holla, Date of order 07-02-2017 Co.P.No.57/2012 & connected matters IAE International Aero Engines AG and o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed under Section 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (in short VAT Act) after remand of the matter by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow. The impugned assessment order imposing tax has been assailed pointing out the jurisdictional error claiming transaction to be Inter-State sales. 2. In this bunch of writ petitions, common question of law and facts are involved and the same assessment order has been challenged, hence with the consent of the parties' counsel, arguments were heard and now decided by common judgment. Writ petition No. 6281 of 2010 is treated as leading writ petition to adjudicate the controversy. 3. Keeping in view lengthy argument advanced by the parties' counsel, we are adjudicating the dispute under the following heads: (I) Facts (II) Maintainability of Writ Petition (III) Constitutional and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT West Bengal
1. As several common issues are involved in all these appeals, we propose to dispose of these appeals by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Deducibility of liability arising out of Bhopal accident - This issue is common in all the appeals other than ITA Nos. 108 and 2184 (Cal.) of 1993 and 1339 (Cal.) of 1997. Facts and circumstances leading to the dispute are as follows: Assessee-company derives income from manufacture and sale of batteries, chemicals, pesticides, etc. having its registered office at Calcutta and factories and branches located at several places in India. Union Carbide Corporation, USA is its parent company having majority shareholding. For the assessment year 1985-86, the previous year of the assessee ended on 25-12-1984. However, for the assessment year 1989-90 onwards, due to introduction of uniform previous year, financial year became the previous year.3. On the fateful night of 2nd December, 1984, there was an unprecedented occurrence in the company's ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC920IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1011 of 2022 Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. Petitioners Versus Union of India Respondent With Writ Petition (Civil) No.93 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.5 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.8 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.9 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.11 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.12 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1020 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1105 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1141 of 2022 1 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1142 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.1150 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.159 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.129 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.260 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.6 of 2023 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.319 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.7 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.10 of 2023 With T. C. (Civil) No.13 of 2023 And with Writ Petition (Civil) No.478 of 2023 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.76 OF2016NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE WITH Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.572 OF2016WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.88 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.100 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.101 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.121 OF2018JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI (for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) C O N T E N T S S. No(s). Heading Page No(s) A. B. Introduction 3-11 The Reference 11-15 2 Submissions on behalf of the petitioners 15-30 Submissions on behalf of the respondents and other intervenors.. 31-44 Decisions in Naz Foundation and Suresh Koushal.... Other judicial pronouncements on Section 377 IPC ... The Constitution an organic charter of progressive rights Transformative constitutionalism and the rights of LGBT community. 45-48 48-57 57-64 65-74 Constitutional morality and Section 377 IPC. 74-81 P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: Crl. A. No.835/2014 is filed Under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Advocate for the Appellant/Accused No.1 Praying that this Honble Court may be Pleased to set aside the Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence Both Dated: 27.09.2014 Passed by the 36th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha and Others) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 Convicting the Appellant/Accused No.1 for the Offence Punishable Under Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the Appellant/Accused No.1 is Sentenced to Undergo Simple Imprisonment for a Period of Four Years, and to pay a Fine of Rs.100 Crores. In Default to pay the Fine Amount, she shall Undergo Further Imprisonment for One Year For the Offence Punishable Under Section 13(1)(E) read ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We are in these appeals concerned with an issue of considerable national and international importance, pertaining to the setting up of a nuclear power plant in the South-Eastern tip of India, at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. The incidents occurred in Three Miles Island Power Plant USA, Chernobyl, Ukraine, USSR, Fukoshima, Japan, Union Carbide, Bhopal might be haunting the memory of the people living in and around Kudankulam, leading to large-scale agitation and emotional reaction to the setting up of the Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) and its commissioning. The nature of potential adverse effect of ionizing radiation, adds to fears and unrest which might not have even thought of by Enrico Fermi a noble laureate in physics in 1938, who was responsible for the setting up of the first Nuclear reactor in a Doubles quash Court at Slagg Field, at the Chicago University, USA. Since then, it is history, India has now 20 Nuclear Reactors, in place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4440 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27335 of 2012) G. Sundarrajan . Appellant Versus Union of India and others Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4441 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27813 of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4442 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.29121 of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4443 OF 200.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32013 of 2012) JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are in these appeals concerned with an issue of considerable national and international importance, pertaining to the setting up of a nuclear power plant in the South-Eastern tip of India, at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. The incidents occurred in Three Miles Island Power Plant USA, Chernobyl, Ukraine, USSR, Fukoshima, Japan, Union Carbide, Bhopal might be haunting the memory of the people living in and around Kudankulam, leading to large-scale agitation and emotional reaction to t...
Tag this Judgment!