Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 19-4-2001, made by the Chairman, Securities & Exchange Board of India. The order prohibits the appellant from accessing the capital market for a period of two years and orders to initiate prosecution proceedings under Section 24 read with Section 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ('the Act') for violation of regulation 4(a) and 4(d) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations 1995 ('the Regulations'), against the appellant, through its directors namely Shri Anil Aggarwal, Shri Tarun Jain and Shri Shashikant.2. The appellant is a large public limited company engaged in copper and aluminium manufacturing business. The appellant's shares are listed on Stock Exchanges at Mumbai (BSE), Calcutta, Delhi, Ahmedabad and also traded at the National Stock Exchange (NSE).3. The respondent is a statutory regulatory...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4823 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP(C) No.20180 of 2010) K. Guruprasad Rao ....Appellant versus State of Karnataka and others ....Respondents JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J.1. Leave granted.2. With the hope of their immortalization, several Emperors, Kings and other rich people got built temples, churches, mosques and other buildings in different parts of the world including India. Many of these structures are not only marvels of architecture, but also represent the culture and heritage of the particular place and period. With the passage of time, these structures acquired the status of historical monuments, the preservation and protection of which has become a herculean task for successive generations. Legislations in other countries 3. The issue of preservation and protection of ancient and historical monuments has been a matter of concern for the Governments and private individuals alike. In his work titled ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 In all these matters, the contention that is raised by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, is that the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2011) 3 SCC 793 (K.K. Baskaran v/s State represented by its Secretary, Tamil Nadu and others) overruling that of a Full Bench of this Court [Vijay C. Puljal v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 4 CTC 705 (Bom.)], will not conclude the matter and particularly the question that the Maharashtra Enactment, namely, the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short MPID Act, 1999) cannot encroach or usurp the field occupied by the laws of Parliament. In his submission, the field in this case is occupied by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Indian Companies Act, 1956. 2 The present cases deal with non banking financial company. When such company invites deposits and the depositors invest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
1. PCS Industries Ltd. (the appellant), is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant holds a certificate of registration granted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (the respondent), to act as a Category-I Registrar to the Issue (RTI) and share transfer agent (STA).2. In August, 1994, CRB Mutual Fund, a mutual fund sponsored by CRB Capital Markets Ltd., launched a scheme, namely, CRB Mutual Fund Arihant Mangal, to raise monies from the public through sale of 1010 lakh units of Rs. 10 each. An offer document was issued for the purpose. The issue opened on 19-8-1994 and closed on 5-9-1994. In the said offer document the appellant's name was shown as Registrar to the Issue.3. The respondent in its capacity as market regulator, carries out inspection of the records of the intermediaries registered with it, mainly with a view to ascertain the extent of compliance of the statutory requirements by them. The appellant was subjected to an inspection. The inspe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1976)17GLR1017
J.B. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner who was a Judge of this Court challenges in this petition the order of his transfer dated May 27, 1976 at Annexure 'A'. The short facts which have given rise to this petition are as under.2. The petitioner was enrolled as an advocate of the Bombay High Court on January 28, 1946. He practised at Bombay since his enrolment until April 30, 1960 and on the formation of the Gujarat State, he shifted his legal practice to this High Court where he practised till April 22, 1969. On April 23, 1969 he was appointed a Judge of the Gujarat High Court for a period of two years and was appointed a permanent puisne Judge on August 5, 1970. The petitioner' would retire on completion of the age of 62 years on January 5, 1981 and so, a period of about four years and six months was left for him to retire from service.3. The petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order to the Andhra Pradesh High Court without obtaining his consent, without consulting him and agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
Introduction The issues arising in this petition centre round interpretation of the proviso appended to Schedule IV of the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges (10th Amendment) Regulations, 2009 as also some of the terms of agreements entered into by and between the parties hereto. Background Facts 2. Certain facts are admitted. Indisputably, the parties had entered into agreements providing for transmission of SMS on diverse dates. Some of the agreements provided for payment of SMS charges at the rates of 30-40 paise per SMS, as would appear from those dated 16.4.2003, 21.10.2003, 10.11.2005 and 04.9.2008, the last being in respect of the service areas of Assam, Jammu and Kashmir and North-East providing for SMS charges originating from either party and terminating in their respective networks at the rate of 30 paise per SMS. On the same date, however, another agreement was entered into by and between the parties hereto, the relevant clauses whereof read as under :- ̶...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN COMPANY APPEAL No.10 OF 201.23-04-2013 Manoj Kumar Kanuga and 3 others Marudhar Power Pvt. Ltd and 18 others Counsel for the appellants: Mrs. Sangeeta Bhaskar Counsel for the respondents:Sri Ch. Ramesh babu Sri Prabhakar Sripada, Sri S. Siva Shanker, Sri K. Surender : CITATIONS:1. AIR 196.SC 163.2) (2005) 127 Comp Cas 336 (AP-DB) 3) (1999) Vol.35 CLA 9.(DB) 4) (1969) 72 ITR 40.(SC) 5) AIR 195.SC 42.6) AIR 196.SC 10.7) (2012) 4 SCALE 17 8) CO.A. (SB) 9/2011, dated 20.04.2011 (Delhi High Court) 9) (2008) 3 SCC 36.10) AIR 196.SC 115.11) AIR 195.SC 55.12) (2011) 101 CLA 34.(Mad 13) AIR 195.SC 5.14) AIR 197.SC 159.15) [1957] 31 ITR 2.(SC) 16) (1998) 92 Comp Cas 910 (Guj) 17) AIR 199.Delhi 51 (FB) 18) (AIR 196.P & H 4.19) AIR 195.Ca20. (1973) 43 Comp Cas 189 (Del-DB) 21) AIR 197.Del 302 (DB) 22) (1983) 54 Comp Cas 301 (DEL) 23) (1989) 66 Comp Cas 684 (All-DB) 24) (1963) 33 Comp Cas 826) (Bom) 25) (1999) 98 Comp.Cas.806 (AP) 26) AIR 199.SC 315.27...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 23, 2013 (i) CWP No.2032 of 2006 (O&M) Pollution Control Committee Amritsar ..Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation Amritsar and others ..Respondents Present: Shri V.K. Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.D. Bawa, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri H.S. Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6. Shri D.S. Patwalia, Advocate and Shri Salil Sabhlok, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 & 5. (ii) CWP No.12188 of 2010 (O&M) M/s AKC Developers Limited ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Present: Shri Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri H.S. Brar, Additional AG, Punjab for respondent No.1 Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No 2. Shri D.S. Patwalia, Advocate and Shri Salil Sabhlok, Advocate, for respondent No.3. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SING...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6128 OF2009Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and another ...Appellants Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board ...Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.6129 of 2009 WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.6130 of 2009 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6131 of 2009 WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.6132 of 2009 WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.6133 of 2009 JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the common Judgment and order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in FAOs (Ord.) Nos. 489, 490, 491, 492, 493 & 494 of 2002 whereby the learned Single Judge overturned the decision dated 17.08.2002 rendered by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, the Commission) constituted under the provisions of Chapter IV of Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 1998 Act).2. The controversy that has emerged for consideration ...
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!