Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC36IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9695 OF2013ASMA LATEEF & ANR. APPELLANTS VS. SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.The Challenge 1. Respondents 1 to 3 had filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC, hereafter) in an execution application filed before the Executing Court by the appellants. It was urged, based on the case pleaded therein, that the decree put to execution was inexecutable. The Executing Court, on 19th March, 2008, allowed the objections of the respondents 1 to 3, resulting in dismissal of the execution application. 12. A revision was carried by the appellants from the order dated 19th March, 2008 before the Revisional Court which, vide its order dated 21st February, 2009, dismissed the objection filed by the respondents 1 to 3 and directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution of the decree whilst treating such objection as non-maintainable.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The present appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereafter the Act ?) is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, dated 17.02.2010 in OMP 40/2000. The impugned judgment dismissed the objections of the appellant (hereafter MMTC ?) to the majority award of a three member Arbitral tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal ?) dated 23.08.1999. The award had directed payments to the claimant/respondent (hereafter Belcom ?) by MMTC. 2. The facts relevant for this case are that on 14.10.1991, Contract No.35 was executed between MMTC and Belcom for sale of 50,000 metric tonnes of Muriate of Potash (MOP) at a price of Rs. 2,766.50 per metric ton. This was an F.O.B. contract.. The said contract contained a payment clause by which MMTC was to open a Letter of Credit with the Bank for Foreign Trade of USSR, Minsk “ Bank of Foreign Economic Affairs [hereafter BFEA ?], valid for a period of 90 days. The relevant portion of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA Nos. 188/2010 + % KEDAR NATH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS3d November, 2016 Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. versus ..... Appellant ..... Respondent RAJINDER TIWARI CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA Through: To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant who was the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction impugning the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 26.7.2010 affirming the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 1.2.2010 whereby the suit for possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed against the appellant/defendant who was pleaded to be a tenant of the respondent/plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff by the suit sought a decree of permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant from selling etc the RSA No.188/2010 Page 1 of 10 suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:12. 10.2018 Pronounced on:22. 04.2019 LPA No.359/2017, CM Nos.17922/2017, 20160/2017, 33383- 84/2017, 47167/2017 & 660/2018 BAYER CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh and Mr. Shashwat Jain, Advs. for R-1 & 6. Ms. Rajeshwari, Adv. for R-2 & 5. Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advocates for Interveners. RFA(OS)(COMM) 6/2017, CM Nos.17508/2017 & 32128- 29/2017 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Nishchal Anand and Mr. Sanchith Shivakumar, Advs. versus ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. FAO (OS) (COMM) 169/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Tamilnadu Petroproducts Ltd., is whether the Modvat credit of the duty paid on Caustic Soda Lye, Hydrochloric Acid, cation & Anion Resins, Chlorine, Betz C-38 C41 & 2020 Sulphuric Acid, Hydrochloric Acid, Butyle mercaptain, Ceramic Alumina Balls is available to them under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.2.1. Shri S.Ignatius, Learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacturer Linear Alkyle Benzene (LAB) and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the impugned inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product; that in addition they were availing Modvat credit in respect of Activated Alumina, Butyl Mercaptain and heart Transfer Oil (HOT oil); that a show cause notice dated 28.12.89 was issued to them for disallowing the Modvat Credit on all the inputs; that t he Assistant Collector, under Adjudication Order No.15/90 dated 15.5.90, disallowed the Modvat Credit on all goods, except Activated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(5)BomCR568; 2004(2)MhLj1058
B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.3. The point involved in both the writ petitions is similar in nature and, therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of by common judgment.4. The respondent Sahebrao Dagaduba Khandwe, r/o Shindephal, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad (respondent in Writ Petition No. 4700 of 2003) has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 2003 against the petitioner claiming specific performance of agreement and actual possession of the suit property. Bhagwan Mitharam Chaudhari, r/o Bahadurpura, Tq. Parola, District Jalgaon (respondent in writ petition No. 4688 of 2003) has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 76 of 2003 against the very petitioner claiming specific performance of contract and possession of the suit property. The suit summons in Regular Civil Suit Nos. 77 of 2003 and 76 of 2003 were duly served on the original defendant Prabhakar Mule (petitioner in both the writ petitions)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1984WLN585
G.M. Lodha, J.1. All the petitioners mentioned above claim to be the Managers of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Socities in Bharatpur District holding substantive posts and alleged that they are permanent employees. They have now received the orders which are impugned orders issued by the Managing Director, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur directing their compulsory retirement under Rule 17 of the Krishi Rin Datri Sahkari Samitiyon ke Vyavasthapakon ke Chayan, Niyukti and Seva Niyam, 1977 thereinafter referred to as, `the Rules, 19J7) in pursuance of the decision of the Committee. A specimen copy of the order passed in Ismail Khan's case is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:dk;kZy; nh Hkjriqj lsUVy dksvksijsfVo cSd fy0] Hkjriqjdzekad@_.k@293 fnukad 8&1&83 14&2&83Jh blekbZy [kak O;oLFkkid xzke lgdkjh lfefr fy0 }kjklgk;d vf/k'kk'kh vf/kdkjh i0 lfefr uxjfo'k; & vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr ckcr Afnukad 8&7&83 dks desVh dh cSBd gqbZ A ftl cSBd es vkidk ekeyk izLrqr gqvk...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1991(53)ELT312(Mad)
S. Mohan, Off. C.J.1. All these appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment. They arise out of the order passed by our learned brother Nainar Sundaram, J., in W.P. No. 4062 to 4067 of 1980. 2. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions were as follows : We will confine ourselves to the facts in W.A. No. 321 of 1987 which will be sufficient to highlight the issue. The petitioners-appellants are a Small Scale Unit holding Registration Certificate No. 18/07/20688/PMT/SSI dated 7-12-1976. They are manufactures of Stainless Steel Utensils among other things. For the purpose of the manufacture of stainless steel utensils, they import Stainless Steel Circles. They imported H. T. Stainless Steel Circles as per s.s. S. 737 for the manufacture of stainless steel utensils and cleared the goods under Bill of Entry No. 147 dated 4-9-1979. The duty was assessed by the concerned Customs Officer under the Item 73.15(2) of the Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad434; 1963CriLJ636
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal, filed against the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., raises a question as to the constitutional validity of Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act. That provision has been challenged as void before us on the ground that it contravenes Articles 14 and 20(3) of the Constitution. But the objection to the validity of the section under the first head, namely, that it denies equal protection of laws to persons similarly situate, was not taken before the learned Judge; nor even in the grounds of appeal before us. But in view of importance of the matter and as the learned Advocate-General had no objection to the question being raised at this stage, we have allowed learned counsel for the appellant to argue that point.2. We shall now set out the circumstances which have necessitated the appellant to call to his aid the Fundamental Rights declared under Articles 14 and 20(3).3. The appellant is a merchant at Madras trading under the name of Rainbow Trading ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)2MLJ367
Srinivasan, J.1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993 a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b)) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other writ petitions the prayer is for either issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaints or for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints.2. The petitions can be classified into three Groups:A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Institutions:...
Tag this Judgment!