Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4947-4951 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.36274-36278 of 2010) K. Madhava Reddy & Ors. Appellants Versus Govt. of A.P. & Ors. Respondents WITH Contempt Petitions (C) No.445-449 of 2013 JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against an order dated 9th March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the High Court has set aside the order passed by the State Administrate Tribunal in OA No.6334 of 1997 to the extent the same holds the judgment of this Court in V. Jagannadha Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC401 to be prospective in its application. An order dated 3rd November, 2010 passed by the High Court dismissing a review petition filed by the appellants against the said order has also been assailed. The facts in the backdrop are as under:3. In V. Jagannadha Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC24; [1983]1SCR145a
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This reference to the Constitution Bench raises a question in regard to the constitutional validity of death penalty for murder provided in Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentencing procedure embodied in Sub-section (3) of Section 354 of the CrPC, 1973.2. The reference has arisen in these circumstances :Bachan Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1979, was tried and convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai and Veeran Bai by the Sessions Judge. The High Court confirmed his death sentence and dismissed his appeal.3. Bachan Singh's appeal by special leave, came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court (consisting of Sarkaria and Kailasam, JJ.). The only question for consideration in the appeal was, whether the facts found by the Courts below would be 'special reasons' for awarding the death sentence as required under Section 354(3) of the CrPC 1973.4. Shri H.K. Puri, appearing as Amicu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW4319; JT2009(9)SC142; 2009(8)SCALE685; (2009)12SCC110
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant runs a barge repair workshop on a private land at Oudossim, Cortalim on the banks of river Zuari within the jurisdiction of Panaji Port. According to the appellant, there are two types of barge workshops: one is dry dock workshop, and the second is where the barges anchored in the river along side the workshop are repaired. Appellant's workshop falls under the second category as it undertakes repair of barges only when the barge is floating above the waterline. About 1300 sq. mtrs. of the river area adjoining the workshop is used by the anchored barge under repair. The Zuari being a tidal river, the water level therein recedes during low tide and rises back during high tide. Consequently, the barge under repair moored alongside the river bank, would settle on the riverbed during low tide and rise with the water during high tide.2. Appellant opened its workshop in the year 1983, after securing a NOC dated 25.7.1983 from the Captain of Ports, Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC24; 19831SCR145;
1. This reference to the Constitution Bench raises a question in regard to the constitutional validity of death penalty for murder provided in Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentencing procedure embodied in Sub-section (3) of Section 354 of the CrPC, 1973.2. The reference has arisen in these circumstances :Bachan Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1979, was tried and convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai and Veeran Bai by the Sessions Judge. The High Court confirmed his death sentence and dismissed his appeal.3. Bachan Singh's appeal by special leave, came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court (consisting of Sarkaria and Kailasam, JJ.). The only question for consideration in the appeal was, whether the facts found by the Courts below would be "special reasons" for awarding the death sentence as required under Section 354(3) of the CrPC 1973.4. Shri H.K. Puri, appearing as Amicus Curiae on behal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139 of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution, Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned Counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these writ petitions. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.245/2020 LALIT KUMAR JAIN .PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH W.P.(C) No.117/2021, W.P.(C) No.1371/2020, W.P.(C) No.1420/2020, W.P.(C) No.1353/2020, T.P.(C) No.1252/2020, W.P.(C) No.1276/2020, W.P.(C) No.1287/2020, T.P. (C) No.1285/2020, T.P.(C) No.1325/2020, W.P.(C) No.1364/2020, T.C.(C) No.257/2020, W.P.(C) No.1434/2020, W.P.(C) No.38/2021, W.P.(C) No.1419/2020, T.P.(C) No.1202/2020, T.P.(C) No.1220/2020, T.P.(C) No.1203/2020, T.P.(C) No.1193/2020, T.P.(C) No.1196/2020, T.P.(C) No.1289/2020, T.P.(C) No.1323/2020, T.P.(C) No.1333/2020, T.P.(C) No.1292/2020, T.P.(C) No.1299/2020, T.P.(C) No.1331/2020, W.P. (C) No.1342/2020, T.P.(C) No.1339/2020, W.P.(C) No.1348/2020, W.P.(C) No.1344/2020, W.P.(C) No.1343/2020, T.C.(C) No.250/2020, T.C.(C) No.251/2020, T.C. (C) No.247/2020, T.C.(C) No.253/2020, T.C.(C) No.252/2020, T.C.(C) No.248/2020, T.C.(C) No.254/2020, T.C....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.708 of 2020 Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. The State of Gujarat ...Petitioners Versus ...Respondent JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Index A B C D E F G H I The Notifications Grounds of challenge The power under Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1962 Precedent on public emergency and security of the state Interpreting public emergency in Section 5 Scheme and objects of the Factories Act, 1962 Social and economic value of overtime Constitutional vision of social and economic democracy Summation 1 PART A1Invoking its powers under Section 5 of the Factories Act, 19481, the State of Gujarat has exempted factories from observing some of the obligations which employers have to fulfil towards the workmen employed by them. The government justifies the action on the ground that industrial employers are faced with financial stringency in the economic downturn resulting from the outbreak of COVID -19....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3362; (2004)187CTR(SC)97; [2004]266ITR1(SC); JT2004(2)SC510; 2004(2)SCALE512; (2004)9SCC686
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals revolve round the scope and ambit of Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), and are directed against a common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which rejected the three writ petitions filed by the appellants in these two appeals. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Shimla filed a complaint in terms of Section 276CC of the Act in the Court of the CJM who had issued process of taking cognizance of the offence. In each of the writ applications, challenge was made to legality of the proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla (in short the 'CJM').2. The factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief.3. The three appellants were partners of a firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Kailash Nath and Associates. Apart from the three appellants, two other persons were partners and one of them Shri Kailash Nath was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 18111812 OF2022VALLAL RCK ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. These appeals challenge the common judgment dated 28th January 2022 passed by the learned National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Insolvency) Nos. 211 and 212 of 2021, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by the present appellant, which were in turn filed, challenging the two orders dated 12th August 2021 passed by the learned National Company Law Tribunal, Division BenchII, Chennai (hereinafter referred to 1 as the NCLT), thereby rejecting the application filed by the Resolution Professional (RP for short) under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC for short) read with Regulation 30A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2069; [1975]45CompCas136(SC); (1974)2SCC741; [1975]1SCR890; 1974(6)LC783(SC)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by certificate against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay Varying the judgment and decree passed against respondents 1 to 4 by the District Judge of Nagpur on an application under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act 7 of 1913--hereinafter called the Act'.2. It appears that in or about April 1949 the Industrial & Agricultural Engineering Company (C.P.) Ltd.--hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' was formed under the Act with its registered office situated at Nagpur. From the date of the Company's incorporation till August 27, 1952 one Shantilal Nemchand Shah respondent 5 was the Managing Director, while respondents 1 to 4 were the Directors of the Company. On August 27, 1952, respondent 5 resigned as Managing Director and in his place two Directors C.V. Krishnamurthi respondent 2 and M. Ganpatram respondent 3 were appointed DirectOrs. These two new Directors were the employees and Directors of a concern known as Industrial & Agricult...
Tag this Judgment!