Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC348IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5366-5367 OF2024FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA APPELLANTS LIMITED & ORS. VERSUS M/S COROMANDAL SACKS PRIVATE LIMITED RESPONDENT JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: - INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................................................. 2 i. Case of the original plaintiff before the trial court ...................................... 4 ii. Case of the original defendants before the trial court .................................. 6 iii. Appeals before the High Court .................................................................... 9 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS .................................................................................................... 10 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF ..........
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC920; 1971MhLJ520(SC); (1970)1SCC425; [1970]3SCR740
A.N. Grover, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversing the order of the Company Judge in an application made by respondent No. 1 for an inquiry into the allegation that the consideration for 18,000 shares of the Vikram Sugar Mills Ltd. (now under liquidation) valued at Rs. 18 lakhs was not fully paid up by the shareholders, namely, the present appellants.2. The facts may be succintly stated. Appellant No. 1, the Alote Estate, was a firm consisting of two partners at the material time. It came into existence in 1944 when Vikram Sugar Mills Ltd., hereinafter called the 'company', was proposed to be floated. The two partners of the firm were His Highness Col. Sir Vikramsingh Rao Pawar, Ruler of the State of Devas (Senior) and R. K. N. Gajapati Raju of Vaizagapatnam who died sometime in 1946 with the result that the firm was dissolved. In 1947 the ruler of Dewas (senior) was taken in adoption by Her Highness th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC44; (1971)73BOMLR112; 1971CriLJ5; 1983(13)ELT1413(SC); (1969)2SCC662; [1970]1SCR821
G.K. Mitter, J.1. [After stating the facts His Lordship proceeded :]2. The High Court dealt generally with the charge of conspiracy against all the accused and individually with respect to the charges raised against each accused and considered the explanations given by them with regard to the circumstances tending to criminate them. Mr. Jethmalani who argued the case of the first appellant at some length raised various questions of law with regard to the admissibility of the evidence afforded by statements before the Customs Officers under Section 171-A, the conclusion of the High Court that his client had custody or possession of all the exhibits found as a result of the search of the premises of H.B. Advani Brothers on 21st July, 1950, the correctness of the finding of the High Court that Ex. F.-2 contained a complete account with regard to the consignment per s.s. Canton, the finding of the High Court that the C.I.F. value of the goods exceeded the invoice value many times over by r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2631; JT2001(5)SC416; 2001(4)SCALE327; (2001)6SCC50; [2001]3SCR969
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 23.6.1999 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 14282 of 1998 in which the orders of the State Government appointing the Commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act'), vide G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 5.2.1997 and G.O.Ms. No. 468 dated 2.6.1997 were set aside holding, inter alia, that the Government did not form any opinion to appoint the Commission under the Act.3. The factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus :4. For construction of Yeleru Left Canal, land in Visakhapatnam District was acquired on the requisition of the Irrigation Department. Awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer after completing the formalities under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officers, the Awardees sought reference under Section 18. The Subor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2021(arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5102 of 2020) Bhima Razu Prasad ...Appellant Versus State, rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SPE/ACUII Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2021(arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.6720 of 2020) AND CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2021(arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.6327 of 2020) JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.1. Leave granted. 12. These appeals arise out of judgment dated 6.01.2020 in Crl. A. Nos. 1089, 1090 and 1091 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (High Court). Since they involve common facts and question of law, appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5102 of 2020 shall be taken as the leading case.3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:3. 1 The Appellant/Accused No.1 was working as Regional Manager (South) at Chennai with the Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. On 4.01.2001 case was registered against the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 569 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.4728 of 2019) Prakash Gupta .... Appellant Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India .... Respondent 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are: A The Appeal B The IPO, SEBIs Investigation and the criminal complaint C Application for Compounding D Counsels submissions E Analysis E.1 Structure of the SEBI Act E.2 SEBI Circulars in relation to Section 24A E.3 Jurisprudential basis for Compounding E.4 Compounding outside of CrPC E.5 Regulatory role of SEBI F Guidelines for Compounding under Section 24A G Analysis on facts and conclusion 2 PART A A The Appeal 1 The appellant is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 24(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act). The appellant sought the compounding of the offence under Section 24A. By an order da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.1137 OF2018MS. X ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court in the instant writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to quash and set aside the order dated 11.01.2018 of Chief Justice of the High Court communicated on 25.1.18 of Madhya Pradesh passed after the Full Court Meeting, rejecting the application 1 for reinstatement as violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 r/w. 233, 235 & 311 of the Constitution of India and Natural Justice; b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the Petitioner's resignation from the post of Additional District Judge VIII, Gwalior dated 15.07.2014 amounts to constructi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2004(5)SC72; 2004(6)SCALE75; (2004)12SCC673
Ruma Pal, J.1. Consequent of the creation of the State of Haryana from the erstwhile State of Punjab, the question of apportionment of the river waters made available to the erstwhile State of Punjab between Haryana and Punjab arose. A notification was issued by the Union of India on 24th March, 1976 under Section 78 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, inter alia dividing the river waters between the two States. The Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Project covering about 214 KMs. was to be constructed through the States of Punjab and Haryana. Out of the 214 KMs, 122 KMs were to run through the territory of Punjab and 92 KMs through Haryana. The cost of completion of the canal was to be met by the Central Government. Haryana's portion of the canal was completed by June 1980. The State of Punjab had not completed its share of the canal although it had been paid the amount necessary for the purpose as also for the recurring expenditure towards maintenance of the canal.2. A suit was filed by the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5397 OF2010M/S NATESAN AGENCIES (PLANTATIONS) .......APPELLANT(S) VS. STATE REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT ....... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.Introduction 1. In this appeal by special leave, the plaintiff-appellant, said to be a partnership firm, has called in question the common judgment and decree dated 26.02.2007 in O.S.A. Nos. 193 of 2002 and 178 of 2003 (with C.M.P. No.8947 of 2006) whereby, the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras, while allowing the appeal filed by the defendant-State and while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant, has reversed the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2001, as passed by the learned Single 1 Judge in C.S. No.561 of 1998; and has dismissed the appellants suit for recovery of damages. 1.1. This matter, arising out of the aforesaid suit for recovery of damages, carries a peculiar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.6905 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14623 of 2020) Mohd. Mustafa .... Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Ors. . Respondent(s) W I T H Civil Appeal Nos. 6906-6909 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14982-14985 of 2020) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Governor of Punjab by which Mr. Dinkar Gupta was appointed as Director General of Police (Head of Police Force) (hereinafter referred to "DGP (HoPF)), the Appellants filed original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. By an order dated 17.01.2020, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 07.02.2019 on the ground 1 | Pa ge that preparation of the panel for selection of DGP (HoPF) for the State of Punjab was in contravention of a judgement of this Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India1 apart from others. Further, a direction was give...
Tag this Judgment!