Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs.440441 0F2020TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs.1314 0F2020CIVIL APPEAL NOs.442443 0F2020CIVIL APPEAL NOs.1920 0F2020CIVIL APPEAL NOs.444445 0F2020CIVIL APPEAL NOs.448449 0F2020CIVIL APPEAL NOs.263264 0F2020CIVIL APPEAL NO.1802 0F2020JUDGMENT1 Lis in the Appeals 1.1 Tata Sons (Private) Limited has come up with two appeals in Civil Appeal Nos.1314 of 2020, challenging a final order dated 18122019 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT for short) (i) holding as illegal, the proceedings of 2 the sixth meeting of the Board of Directors of TATA Sons Limited held on 24.10.2016 in so far as it relates to the removal of Shri Cyrus Pallonji Mistry (CPM for short); (ii) restoring the position of CPM as the Executive Chairman of Tata Sons Limited and consequently as a Director of the Tata Compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.29432944 OF2020KALPRAJ DHARAMSHI & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS KOTAK INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD. & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.31383139 OF2020CIVIL APPEAL No.29492950 OF2020CIVIL APPEAL No.847848 /2021 [D.NO.24125 OF2020 JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave to file Civil Appeal in Diary No.24125 of 2020 is granted. 22. All these appeals, assail the judgment and order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as NCLAT) dated 5.8.2020, passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 344345 of 2020.3. By the said judgment and order dated 5.8.2020, NCLAT has allowed the appeals filed by Kotak Investment Advisors Limited (hereinafter referred to as KIAL), respondent No.1 herein, aggrieved by two separate orders dated 28.11.2019 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (hereinafter referred to as NCLT or Adjudicating Authority) in M.A. No.10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... in our country could happen. therefore the government is now taking steps which should have been taken at least 15 days earlier. on 11 february, icmr had forewarned, later rahul gandhi did the same by writing a letter on 12 february and again 13 february but the government kept sleeping. writ petition (criminal) no.154 of 2020 vinod dua vs. union ..... to garner votes or that the prime minister had garnered votes through acts of terrorism, were not made in the talk show. the true translation of the original episode in hindi, has been placed on record. no such assertions find place in the true translation nor were any objections raised that the translated version was in any way incorrect. the petitioner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2024INSC242CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3835 3836 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 5741 5742 OF2024 [DIARY No.26172 OF2023 AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED Respondent(s) (PREVIOUSLY NAMED HPEIF HOLDINGS1LIMITED) ORDER1 Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Vikram Nankani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants (Award Debtors). Also heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. Darius Khambata, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent (Award Holder).4. The challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 25.04.2023 in the Arbitration Petition No.833 of 2015 and Notice of Motion No.2475 of 2016 respectively whereunder, the High Court has facilitated the enforcement of the final Award dated 27.09.2014 issued in the SIAC Arbitration No.088 of 2012. The appellants objection to enforcement of the foreign Award, in terms of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2326 OF 201.[Arising out of SLP (Civil) NO.12960 OF 2008]. State of U.P. .. Appellant Versus Hari Ram .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2327 OF 201.arising out of SLP(C)No.10625/2006 CIVIL APPEAL No.2328 OF 201.arising out of SLP(C)No.10626/2006 CIVIL APPEAL No.2329 OF 201.arising out of SLP(C)No.10627/2006 CIVIL APPEAL No.2330 OF 201.arising out of SLP(C)No.5484/2006 CIVIL APPEAL No.2331 OF 201.arising out of SLP(C)No.5721/2006 CIVIL APPEAL No.2332 OF 201.arising out of SLP(C)No.19154/2007 CIVIL APPEAL No.2333 OF 201.arising out of SLP(C)No.11553/2007 CIVIL APPEAL No.2334 OF 201.arising out of SLP(C)No.1947/2008 CIVIL APPEAL No.2335 OF 201.arising out of SLP(C)No.17580/2006 CIVIL APPEAL No.2336 OF 201.arising out of SLP(C)No.18486/2006 CIVIL APPEAL No.2337 OF 201.arising out of SLP(C)No.12955/2008 CIVIL APPEAL No.2338 OF 201.arising out of SLP(C)No.12956/2008 CIVIL APPEAL No.2339 OF 201.arising out ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... at; or ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision, such decision would necessarily be perverse. a good working test of perversity is contained in two judgments. in h.b. gandhi, excise and taxation officer-cum-assessing authority v. gopi nath & sons, 1992 supp (2) scc312at p. 317, it was held: ".7. ...................it is, no doubt, true that if a finding .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4476 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4210 of 2018) 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD.) & ORS. APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT CIVIL APPEAL No.4478 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4652 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL No.4477 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4239 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL No.4479 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4659 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL No.4481 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4816 of 2018) WITH WITH WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4480 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4720 of 2018) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.368 OF2019WITH1JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.1.2. Leave granted. This batch of appeals and writ petition raises questions as to the applicability and construction of Section 396 of the Companies Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... no.34322/2022 (application for permission to file additional documents) filed by the respondent no.2 liquidator. submissions of the respondent no.7 - welspun20 arguments advanced by mr. aman raj gandhi, learned counsel for welspun, respondent no.7 in civil appeal no.7722 of 2021 and appellant in civil appeal no.7731 of 2021 are broadly on the same lines as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC269IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2595 OF2023SHOMA KANTI SEN ...APPELLANT(S) VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.The appellant before us assails the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed on 17.01.2023, disposing her application for bail with liberty to approach the Trial Court for filing a fresh application for bail.2. The appellant was detained on 06.06.2018 in connection with First Investigation Report (FIR) No.04/2018 dated 08.01.2018 registered with Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune 1 alleging commission of offences under Sections 153A, 505 (1b), 117 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (1860 Code). The complaints therein related to violence that broke out at a function organised by Elgar Parishad. Certain acts of violence had taken place at Shanivarwada, Pune on 31.12.2017 thereafter. The prosecutions case is that in the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 3766-3767 of 2020 Neena Aneja & Anr. .... Appellants Versus Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. .... Respondent 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Index A. Background B. Submissions B.1. Submissions of the appellants B.2. Submissions of the respondent C. Position of law on change of forum: An analysis of precedent C.1. Venugopala Reddiar (1943- Federal Court 3 judges) C.2. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954- Supreme Court 4 judges) C.3. Garikapati (1957- Supreme Court Constitution Bench) C.4. Mohd. Idris (1965- Supreme Court Constitution Bench) C.5. Manujendra Dutt (1966- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.6. New India Assurance (1975- Supreme Court 3 judges) C.7. Maria Cristina (1978- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.8. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (1994- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.9. Sudhir G Angur (2005- Supreme Court 3 judges) C.10. Ramesh Kumar Soni (2013- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.11. Dhadi Sahu (1992- Supreme Court ...
Tag this Judgment!