Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2595 OF2013SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appellant(s) Versus SHRI KANAIYALAL BALDEVBHAI PATEL Respondent (s) With CIVIL APPEAL No.2596 OF2013[SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. SHRI DIPAK PATEL]. [SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. SUJIT KARKERA AND ORS.]. CIVIL APPEAL No.2666 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.5829 OF2014[Pooja Menghani v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11195-11196 OF2014[Vibha Sharma and Anr. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA]. 1 N. V. RAMANA J.JUDGMENT1 The important question of law, arising in these batch of cases, being similar and the facts involved being largely comparable, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.2. This case revolves round the legality of non-intermediary front- running in security market under the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (PROHIBITION OF FRAUDULENT AND UNFAIR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2595 OF2013SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appellant(s) Versus SHRI KANAIYALAL BALDEVBHAI PATEL Respondent (s) With CIVIL APPEAL No.2596 OF2013[SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. SHRI DIPAK PATEL]. [SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. SUJIT KARKERA AND ORS.]. CIVIL APPEAL No.2666 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.5829 OF2014[Pooja Menghani v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11195-11196 OF2014[Vibha Sharma and Anr. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA]. 1 N. V. RAMANA J.JUDGMENT1 The important question of law, arising in these batch of cases, being similar and the facts involved being largely comparable, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.2. This case revolves round the legality of non-intermediary front- running in security market under the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (PROHIBITION OF FRAUDULENT AND UNFAIR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2595 OF2013SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appellant(s) Versus SHRI KANAIYALAL BALDEVBHAI PATEL Respondent (s) With CIVIL APPEAL No.2596 OF2013[SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. SHRI DIPAK PATEL]. [SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. SUJIT KARKERA AND ORS.]. CIVIL APPEAL No.2666 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.5829 OF2014[Pooja Menghani v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11195-11196 OF2014[Vibha Sharma and Anr. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA]. 1 N. V. RAMANA J.JUDGMENT1 The important question of law, arising in these batch of cases, being similar and the facts involved being largely comparable, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.2. This case revolves round the legality of non-intermediary front- running in security market under the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (PROHIBITION OF FRAUDULENT AND UNFAIR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2595 OF2013SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appellant(s) Versus SHRI KANAIYALAL BALDEVBHAI PATEL Respondent (s) With CIVIL APPEAL No.2596 OF2013[SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. SHRI DIPAK PATEL]. [SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. SUJIT KARKERA AND ORS.]. CIVIL APPEAL No.2666 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.5829 OF2014[Pooja Menghani v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11195-11196 OF2014[Vibha Sharma and Anr. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA]. 1 N. V. RAMANA J.JUDGMENT1 The important question of law, arising in these batch of cases, being similar and the facts involved being largely comparable, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.2. This case revolves round the legality of non-intermediary front- running in security market under the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (PROHIBITION OF FRAUDULENT AND UNFAIR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2595 OF2013SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appellant(s) Versus SHRI KANAIYALAL BALDEVBHAI PATEL Respondent (s) With CIVIL APPEAL No.2596 OF2013[SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. SHRI DIPAK PATEL]. [SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. SUJIT KARKERA AND ORS.]. CIVIL APPEAL No.2666 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.5829 OF2014[Pooja Menghani v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA]. CIVIL APPEAL No.11195-11196 OF2014[Vibha Sharma and Anr. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA]. 1 N. V. RAMANA J.JUDGMENT1 The important question of law, arising in these batch of cases, being similar and the facts involved being largely comparable, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.2. This case revolves round the legality of non-intermediary front- running in security market under the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (PROHIBITION OF FRAUDULENT AND UNFAIR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... tests in criminal investigation (selvi), disclosure of bank accounts held overseas (ram jethmalani) and the right of transgenders (nalsa). early cases dealt with police regulations authorising intrusions on liberty, such as surveillance. as indian society has evolved, the assertion of the right to privacy has been considered by ..... techniques and, by design, proceeds surreptitiously, it evades the ordinary checks that constrain abusive law enforcement practices: resources and community hostility limited police the net result is that gps monitoring by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any ..... , presidency jail, calcutta and others air1955sc367 (paras 34 and38) state trading corporation of india ltd. vs. the commercial tax officer and others, air1963sc1811 para 20 indo-china steam navigation co. ltd. vs. jasjit singh, additional collector of customs, calcutta and others, air1964sc1140 (para35) charles sobraj vs. supdt. central jail, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... reported as dr. subramanian swamy v. director, central bureau of investigation, (2014) 8 scc682 dealt with a challenge to section 6-a of the delhi special police establishment act, 1946. this section was ultimately struck down as being discriminatory and hence violative of article 14. a specific reference had been made to the constitution ..... public order, morality and health or by any law providing for social welfare and reform which the impugned legislation clearly does. (at page394) and in commissioner of police v. acharya jagdishwarananda avadhuta, 2004 (12) scc770 it was stated as under:339. for therefore, rituals, 9. the protection guaranteed under articles 25 and 26 ..... as valid for dissolution under muslim law. since infallibility is not an attribute of the judiciary, the view has been ventured by muslim jurists that the indo-anglian judicial exposition of the islamic law of divorce has not exactly been just to the holy prophet or the holy book. marginal distortions are inevitable when .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... which power stood conferred. in this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons". it must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other. (vide: commissioner of police, bombay v. gordhandas bhanji air1952sc16 sirsi municipality v. ceceila kom francis tellis (1973) 1 scc409 the state of punjab and anr. v. gurdial singh and ors. (1980) 2 scc471 the ..... kumar and neera yadav got allotted plots adjacent to each other viz. plot nos.26 and 27, followed by about 8 mts. or 26 feet wide green belt and delhi border in west about 10 page no.27 of 47 ca no.251 of2017with ca no.252 of2017meters or 33 feet very wide green belt in north and 40 feet wide ..... in sector-44. notably, contrary to the rules, he again got his allotment converted to plot no.27 of 300 sq.ms. in the most prestigious sector-14a on delhi border with approval of appellant neera yadav on 15.10.1994. before so getting plot no.27 allotted in his favour, appellant rajiv kumar in conspiracy with neera yadav converted plot .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... principles criminal of jurisprudence. it also aims to protect honest public servants from harassment by prescribing that the investigation against them could be made only by police officials of particular status and by making the sanction of the to 136 government or other appropriate officer a pre-condition for their prosecution. as it ..... of offence of rape committed on her after having witnessed the incident 30 (2013) 5 scc 546 47 either to the local police or to the juvenile justice board, gave certain directions for compliance in future which are necessary to protect the children from such sexual abuses. the court ..... in the schematic backdrop struck a harmonious bond. 43. in shankar kisanrao khade v. state of maharashtra30, the court, taking into consideration the conduct of the police for not registering a case under section 377 ipc against the accused, the agony undergone by a child of 11 years with moderate intellectual disability, non reporting .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... hanging in the abdominal cavity avulsed from its mesentery. rest of the small bowel was non-existent with only patches of mucosa at places and borders of the mesentery were contused. while performing second surgery on 19th december, 2012, surgery team also recorded findings that rectum was longitudinally torn on ..... ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty. it has the potential to significantly improve both the criminal justice system and police investigative practices. the federal government and the states have recognized this, and have developed special approaches to ensure that this evidentiary tool can be effectively ..... was avulsed from its mesentery and was nonviable. rest of small bowel was nonenlistend with only patens of mucosa at places and border of the mesentery was contused. this contused mesentery border initially appeared (during first surgery) as contused small bowel. jejunostomy stoma was gangrenous for approximately 2 cm. stomach and duodenum .....
Tag this Judgment!