Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-11-2023
Reportable 2023 INSC1058IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL WRIT / APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1099 of 2019 IN RE: ARTICLE370OF THE CONSTITUTION With Writ Petition (C) No.871 of 2015 With Writ Petition (C) No.722 of 2014 With SLP (C) No.19618 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.1013 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1082 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1068 of 2019 1 With Writ Petition (C) No.1037 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1062 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1070 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1104 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1165 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1210 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1222 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.396 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.756 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.398 pf 2018 With 2 Writ Petition (C) No.924 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1092 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1162 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1048 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1268 of 2019 And With Writ Petition (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-24-2023
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.889 of 2007 Arup Bhuyan .. Appellant Versus State of Assam & Anr. .. Respondents With Review Petition (Criminal) No.417/2011 In Criminal Appeal No.1383/2007 With Review Petition (Criminal) No.426/2011 In Criminal Appeal No.889/2007 With Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.5971/2019 With Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.5964/2019 With Criminal Appeal No.1383/2007 2 With SLP(Crl.)...CRLMP No.16637/2014 With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5643/2019 With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6270/2019 JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Present reference to the larger Bench is made against the judgment and order in the case of Arup Bhuyan vs. Union of India, (2011) 3 SCC377as well as State of Kerala vs. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC784 pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 26.08.2014, reported as (2015) 12 SCC702 Background of the Reference 2. That the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raneef (supra) wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-29-2023
2023 INSC1030REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4910 OF2023VIJAY Appellant(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL J.1. The issues that arise for consideration of this Court in the present appeal are:1. 1 Whether the bar of admissibility created by Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 18991 applies to the 1 Hereinafter referred to as Stamp Act 1-Civil Appeal No.4910 of 2023 agreement(s) to sell dated 04.02.1988 executed by the parties?. 1.2 Can a copy of a document be adduced as secondary evidence when the original instrument is not in possession of the party?. 1.3 Whether, in the facts of the present case, would the decision of this Court in Jupadi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subha Rao2 be binding as held by both the Courts below?. FACTUAL MATRIX2 Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement to sell on 04.02.1998, and pursuant to that, Plaintiff was allegedly put in possession by Defendant. When ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-06-2023
2023INSC881 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4735-4736 OF2009COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), MUMBAI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S GANPATI OVERSEAS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI YASHPAL SHARMA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT UJJAL BHUYAN, J.Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and final order dated 27.06.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai with parties also being the same, the two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The appeals have been filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai under Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 against the common judgment and final order dated 27.06.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax 2 Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (briefly the CESTAT or the Tribunal hereinafter) in Appeal Nos. C/1347 and 1374 of 2002.3. The issue that arises in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-20-2023
1 REPORTABLE2023INSC942IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1628 OF2023THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S TIRUMALA CONSTRUCTIONS RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No.2502-2513/2023, C.A. No.2644-2686/2023, C.A. No.2732/2023, C.A. No.2733/2023, C.A. No.1654/2023, C.A. No.1683/2023, C.A. No.1662//2023, C.A. No.1663/2023, C.A. No.1629/2023, C.A. No.1658/2023, C.A. No.1630/2023, C.A. No.1653/2023, C.A. No.1655/2023, C.A. No.1657/2023, C.A. No.1672/2023, C.A. No.1676/2023, C.A. No.1656/2023, C.A. No.1661/2023, C.A. No.1664/2023, C.A. No.1660/2023, C.A. No.1682/2023, C.A. No.1665/2023, C.A. No.1666/2023, C.A. No.1667/2023, C.A. No.1668/2023, C.A. No.1669/2023, C.A. No.1659/2023, C.A. No.2690/2023, C.A. No.1670/2023, C.A. No.1673/2023, C.A. No.1671/2023, C.A. No.1674/2023, C.A. No.1675/2023, C.A. No.1677/2023, C.A. No.2687/2023, C.A. No.2688/2023, C.A. No.2689/2023, SLP(C) No.7776/2023, SLP(C) No.13543-13545/2023, SLP(C) No.13529-13530/2023, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-19-2023
1 REPORTABLE2023INSC928IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1420 OF2023ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(2) NEW DELHI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S NESTLE SA RESPONDENT(S) WITH Civil Appeal No.1423/2023, Civil Appeal No.1421-1422/2023, Civil Appeal No.1424/2023, Civil Appeal No.1425/2018, Civil Appeal No.1426/2023, Civil Appeal No.1427/2023, Civil Appeal No.1428/2023, Civil Appeal No.1429/2023, Civil Appeal No.1430/2023, Civil Appeal No.1431/2023, Civil Appeal No.1432/2023 JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.Table of Contents I. Facts...........................................................................................................................2 II. Arguments of parties..................................................................................................6 A. Revenues contentions.........................................................................................................6 B. Contentions of the assessees...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-13-2023
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3991/2023 COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, PATNA APPELLANT VS. M/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3992/2023 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. APPELLANTS VS. M/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.PREFACE1 We are tasked to decide two civil appeals that centre around a common question: whether the educational institutions in question, viz. (i) the Indian Institute of Technology, Patna (IIT Patna, hereafter) and (ii) the National Institute of Technology, Rourkela (NIT Rourkela, hereafter), are covered 1 by the definition of governmental authority in Mega Service Tax Exemption Notification1 (Exemption Notification, hereafter) inter alia exempting various services from the tax network rendered to government, governmental, or local authorities. If governmental authority as defined in the Exemption Notific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-19-2023
1 REPORTABLE2023INSC932IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO(S). 184 OF2023IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 8553 OF2022CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S TRANSTONNELSTROY AFCONS (JV) & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4591 OF2023JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, the applicant (hereinafter referred to as Chennai Metro), a joint venture between the Central Government and the Government of Tamil Nadu, had, pursuant to a public tender, awarded the contract to the respondent (hereafter referred to as Afcons) have called for a project the total value of Rs. 1566 crores. The contract was signed on 31.01.2011. Eventually, on 15.04.2021, Afcons sought a reference of several heads of disputes to arbitration after certain interlocutory proceedings. Eventually on 29.04.2021, 2 it was agreed that two dispute heads (claim 2(b) to 2(d)) and the Chennai Metros counter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-06-2023
REPORTABLE2023INSC1053IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.13771 OF2015COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.13773 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL NO.5524 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL NO.7425 OF2019CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(ARISING FROM SLP (CIVIL) NO.15564 OF2020 CIVIL APPEAL NO.13775 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL NO.13774 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL NO.9920 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL NO.6986 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9781-9782 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL NO.9917 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL NO.941 OF2020CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.5871 OF2020 CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2023(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.792 OF2021 CIVIL APPEAL NO.8983 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL NO.1805 OF2020JUDGMENT2UJJAL BHUYAN, J.There are three special leave petitions in this batch, viz., SLP (C) No.15564 of 2020, SLP (C) No.5871 of 2020 and SLP (C) No.792 of 2021. Leave in these special leave petitions are therefore granted.2. Core issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-11-2023
REPORTABLE2023NSC817 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.377 OF2007CBI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS R.R. KISHORE RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRL. APPEAL No.2763/2023 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) NO.4364 OF2011 JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J.Crl. Appeal No.377/2007.1. This Constitution Bench has been constituted to consider whether the declaration made by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another , that 1 Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 194 being 2 unconstitutional, can be applied retrospectively in context with Article 20 of the Constitution. 1 (2014) 8 SCC6822 In short DSPE Act Crl. Appeal No.377 of 2007 Page 1 of 1062. Necessary facts relevant for the purposes of this case are stated hereunder:2. 1 The appellant-Central Bureau of Investigation 3 after registering the First Information Report at 02:00 pm on 16.12.2004 for offences under the Prevention of Corr...
Tag this Judgment!