Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1584; 2007(3)ALT1(SC); [2007]137CompCas63(SC); JT2007(5)SC201; 2007(3)KLT302(SC); 2007(3)MhLj434; 2007(5)SCALE366; (2007)6SCC236; 2007AIRSCW2325; 2007(3)AIRKarR406
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.Civil Appeal No. 6069/2005, Civil Appeal No. 6077/2005 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2071/2006 are taken on board. 1. A Bench of two judges before which this batch of twelve civil appeals and five special leave petitions came up for consideration was of the view that looking to the issues involved and the far-reaching consequences which such a decision will leave, these matters require consideration by a larger Bench. This is what the Bench observed in the order dated 1st December, 2005.This batch of Appeals/SLPs involved an important issue regarding right of recovery of debts by the co-operative banks constituted under the Co-operative Societies Acts of the States of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. The issue has arisen in the context of enactment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Under the Co- operative Societies Acts, there is a mechanism for recovery of debts by the Banks constituted under those Acts, which are also called Co-o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(4)ALD582; 2005(4)ALT327; [2005]126CompCas708(AP); [2005]63SCL339(AP)
ORDERGoda Raghuram, J.1. Heard - Sri E. Manohar, Sri J.V. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocates, Sri D.V. Bhadram, Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, Sri Badri Premnath, Advocates for the several petitioners/appellants; learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh; Sri Nooti Ram Mohan Rao, Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, Sri K. Gopala Krishna Murthy, Advocates for the several Co-operative Banks and Sri M. Ratna Reddy, Advocate for the Union of India.2. The several writ petitions were filed at various stages of proceedings before the authorities of the Registration Department of the State. All the writ petitioners had obtained loans or Overdraft facility from the respective Co-operative Banks in sums exceeding Rupees ten lakhs each. In every instance there was a default in the repayment of the instalments or the loan amount and consequently a violation of the terms of the loan agreement. The lending Co-operative Banks had initiated proceedings for recovery of the dues under the provisions of the Andh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1994Ker179
Paripoornan, J. 1. This is a public interest litigation. It concerns the famous Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur -- a very ancient temple of unique importance worshipped and held in great reverence by millions all over the country. The temple owns extensive movable and immovable properties and endowments. The temple has its own heritage and traditions of renowed referred memory, which adds grandeur and majesty to it over the entire globe. Shri C.K. Rajan, Chennara House, P.O. Nhamanghat, via. Kunnamkulam sent a communication to one of us (Paripoornan, J.) dated 3-2-1993 highlighting gross irregularities, corrupt practices, maladministration and mismanagement in Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur. A statement from Shri C.K. Rajan was recorded by the Registrar of this Court on 11-2-1993. He owned the sending of the petition, its content, etc. Gross irregularities, misadministration and various lapses were disclosed. The matter was placed before My Lord the Chief Justice, who, by order dated 11...
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!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE NO.6/2013 STATE THROUGH REFERENCE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Swati Goswami and Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocates. versus RAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate for Akshay Kumar and Vinay Sharma. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for Mukesh and Pawan Kumar Gupta. + CRL. APP. NO.1398/2013 PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA Through: versus STATE Through: + ..... Appellant Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Swati Goswami and Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocates. CRL. APP. NO.1399/2013 MUKESH Through: ..... Appellant Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Swati Goswami and Ms. Manvi Priya, Advocates. DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE NO.6/2013, + CRL. APP. NO.1414/2013 VINAY SHARMA AND AN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)558
1. IT(SS)A No. 411/Del/2004 is an appeal by the assessee and IT(SS)A No. 45/Del/2005 is an appeal by the Revenue. Both these appeals arise out of the order of learned CIT(A)-III, New Delhi dt. 30th Nov., 2004.They are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. First we shall take up the assessee's appeal, i.e., IT(SS)A No.411/Del/2004 for consideration. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal by the assessee are as follows. The assessee is a company. M/s HCL Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s HCLCL'), M/s Shiv Nadar Investment (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s SNIPL') and the assessee-company were promoters of a company by name, M/s HCL Consulting Ltd. The main objects of these three companies were making investments in various companies. The investments are in the form of contribution to share capital of various companies. They promote companies and hold shares of companies promoted. The shares are held by these companies in order to have po...
Tag this Judgment!