Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC532IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7821 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.3792 OF2024 SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS KRISH SPINNING RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.7822 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.7220 OF2024 JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: - INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................................................. 3 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ................................... 14 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ............................... 16 D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION .................................................................... 18 E. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 19 i. Whether the execution of a discharge voucher towards the full and final settlement betw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC1495; [1969(18)FLR100]; 1968LabIC1525; [1968]3SCR614
Hidayatullah, C.J.1. This appeal on certificate arises from a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India filed in the High Court at Calcutta by the appellant, the Statesman Private Ltd. This company prints and publishes daily and weekly newspapers and undertakes general printing work at Calcutta. By that writ petition the Company asked for a writ of certiorari against the Second Labour Court, West Bengal with a view to quashing an award, 21 September 1960, reinstating one Sheikh Kaloo, one of its employees. The Company had dismissed the said Kaloo after holding an inquiry but the Second Labour Court ordered his reinstatement with half wages for the period of his forced unemployment'. The writ petition was heard by B. N. Banerjee J. and by his order, 15 February, 1962, the petition was granted and the order of the Tribunal was quashed. The workmen who had sponsored the case of Kaloo appealed in the High Court. During the course of the appeal an application was filed by the Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1361; (1977)3SCC592; [1978]1SCR1
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. Original Suits Nos. 1 to 6 of 1977, before us have been filed on behalf of the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa against the India under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. There are (sic) before us three writ Petitions, Nos. 67 to 69 of 1977, by three members of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Punjab against Union of India and Shri Charan Singh, the Home Minister in the Government of India and Shri Zail Singh, Chief Minister of Punjab. (sic) six suits and the three Writ Petitions raise certain common quesis(sic) of law and fact. They were, therefore, permitted to be argued (sic). We have already dismissed the suits and petitions after ring them at length and now; propose to state our reasons for doing as stated in our order of 29th April 1977. Before dealing with questions of fact and law I will indicate the nature of the reliefs; (sic) by each plaintiff under Article 131 and the grievance of each (sic)tione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)398; JT1996(8)SC67; 1996(6)SCALE551; (1996)6SCC634; [1996]Supp5SCR643; [1998]110STC590(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, 1963 (the Act) levies non-agricultural land assessment (NALA) for each fasli year at the rates specified. The rate varies depending upon the nature of user. Section 3 is the charging section. Section 7 of the Act provides for remission of NALA. It reads:7 Remission : The Government may, by general or special order and for just and sufficient reason to be recorded therein, remit in whole or in part, the assessment payable under this Act in respect of any non-agricultural land in a local area. 3. Section 11 confers upon the government the power to exempt any class of non-agricultural lands from the levy. Since it is this section which falls for consideration in this appeal, it would be appropriate to set it out in full:11. Power to exempt : (1) The Government may, by order, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, setting out the grounds therein, exempt either permanently or for a specified...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. These two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CCC(Crl.) Nos. 7 and 12 of 2002 dated 18.8.2004 by which the appellant has been convicted for committing criminal contempt of court and has been awarded the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the appellant was enrolled as an advocate on 14.8.1998 and since then he has been practicing in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. Prior to joining the Bar, he had been working for the respondent company as Marketing Executive. Being well known to the officials of the company, he was engaged as Retainer for the Company and thus, the appellant used to report to the company's officials about the progress of its cases pending in various courts in Karnataka. However, on receiving...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT10; AIR2012SCW207; AIR2012SC364; 2012CriLJ1001
1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions filed by Shri Sumedh Singh Saini. 2. These appeals have been preferred against the orders dated 30.5.2007, 22.8.2007, 5.10.2007 and 4.7.2008 in Crl. Misc. No. 152- MA of 2007; order dated 19.9.2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 86286 of 2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 152-MA of 2007; and orders dated 2.11.2007 and 6.11.2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 93535 of 2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 152-MA of 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. For the sake of convenience of disposal of the appeals, we would refer only to the criminal appeals filed by the State. 3. The Appeals herein raise peculiar substantial questions of law as to whether the High Court can pass an order on an application entertained after final disposal of the criminal appeal or even suo motu particularly, in view of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) and as to whether in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC726; 2002(2)ALD1(SC); 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)273; 2002(1)AWC620(SC); 2002(61)DRJ625; JT2002(1)SC262; 2002(1)KLT644(SC); 2002(2)MhLj259; (2002)1MLJ175(SC); 2002MPLJ2(SC);
1. Leave granted.2. Can the reference made by a Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') be dismissed for default? A civil court dismissed the reference for default of the claimant as he failed to be present when the matter was taken up. He made an unsuccessful bid to have the reference restored to the file. The High Court also did not help him as per the impugned order.3. Appellants are the legal heirs of one Khazan Singh. Certain area of land belonging to the said Khazan Singh was acquired under the provisions of the Act and an award was passed by the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) on 16.7.1984, fixing the compensation payable to the land owners. As Khazan Singh was not satisfied with the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer he moved an application under Section 18 of the Act for making a reference to the civil court. The Land Acquisition Officer, acting on the said application made the reference. It was pending before the cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(4)SCALE634; (1995)1SCC5; [1994]Supp4SCR639; (1995)1UPLBEC201
ORDER1. The 'Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability', a group of members of the legal profession, has brought this petition for suo motu initiation of proceedings for criminal contempt against the respondent. The matter is stated to arise out of a letter dated 21st January, 1992 which the respondent wrote to the Enquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 in certain proceedings for removal of the respondent initiated by the Parliament. In this letter the respondent is said to have made certain sweeping allegations against certain Judges and the Judiciary. A copy of that letter is Annexure 'A' to the petition.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have sought the assistance of Sri Dipankar Gupta, learned Solicitor General. We place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Counsel on both sides.3. There is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2164. of 1992 filed by Sri K.K. Jha, 'Karhal', Advocate, Patna High...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2420; (2009)8MLJ897(SC); 2009(II)OLR(SC)348; (2009)8SCC366; [2009]94SCL73(SC); 2009(7)LC3168(SC):2009AIRSCW4949
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted in both the Special leave petitions.2. The respondent firm and its sister concern, M/s. Ashok Woodworks, which is also a partnership firm, availed of various loans from the appellant Bank which were secured by movable and immovable assets. The loanee firms having defaulted in repayment of the loans and since their accounts became Non Performing Assets (hereinafter referred to as `NPA'), the Bank initiated action against them under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `the SARFAESI Act') and issued separate demand notices to the respondent partnership firm and its sister concern under Section 13(2) thereof on 17th September, 2002, and 21st September, 2002, for the recovery of Rs. 1,56,47,638/and Rs. 1,40,18,468.36, respectively.3. As the respondent and its sister concern did not respond to the said demand notices, the appellant Bank invoked ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)KarLJ58; 2008(11)SCALE363; 2008AIRSCW5931; (2008)3SCC(Cri)587; 2008(6)AIRKarR225
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court accepting the petition filed by the respondent under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). Prayer in the petition was to quash the order dated 12.6.2000 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha and investigation pursuant to the said order, including lodging of the first information report.3. At the relevant point of time the respondent was working as an Engineer-in-Chief of Rural Development Engineering Department, Bangalore. The Lokayuktha police had registered a case in respect of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the `Act').4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Search was conducted in the house of the respondent on 15th/16th June, 2000 and certain records and documents were seized. Documents relatin...
Tag this Judgment!