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 : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9017 OF2013(Arising out of SLP (C) No.24290 of 2012) Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Appellants Versus State of Kerala and others Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 9020, 9029 & 9023 OF2013(Arising out of SLP (C) No.24291 of 2012, 13796 and 13797 of 2013) JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in these appeals, concerned with the question whether a co- operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short the Societies Act) will fall within the definition of public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the RTI Act) and be bound by the obligations to provide information sought for by a citizen under the RTI Act.3. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, in its judgment reported in AIR2012Ker 124, answered the question in the affirmative and upheld the Circular No.23 of 2006 dated 01.06.2006, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 2109-2110 of 2004 K C Ninan ... Appellant versus Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. Respondents With Civil Appeal No 2108 of 2004 With Civil Appeal Nos 5312-5313 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 5314 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 6587 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 7303 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No 6579 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 6593-6594 of 2022 With 1 Civil Appeal No 3018 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No 7169 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6591 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6595 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 6879-6881 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6592 of 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos 7103-7104 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6828 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 7064 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No 6590 of 2022 And with Civil Appeal No 3640 of 2022 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Overview 4 B. Regulatory Regime 5 C. The position in law 10 D. Issues 14 E. Submissions 15 F. Analysis 25 G....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD1; 2004(1)ALT659
P.S. Narayana, J.1. Ranga Reddy District Sarpanches Association, represented by its President and Convenor Sri Girish Sanghi and others had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning certain provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and certain Government Orders and Rules by filing W.P. No. 12348/2002. Federation for Empowerment of Local Government by its Presidum Member, Lok Satta by its General Secretary and Dr. Jayaprakash Narayana filed W.P.MP. No. 22300/2003 in W.P. No. 12348/2002 to implead them as Respondents 3 to 5 and in view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application the said W.P.M.P. No. 22300/2003 is allowed and proposed parties are impleaded as Respondents 3 to 5. The contesting parties had put in lengthy pleadings and also placed ample material before the Court in support of their respective contentions. Likewise, Prasanna, Chairperson, District Level Committee, Zilla Parishad, Nalgond...
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 : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 607-608 OF2017(arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 3119-3120 of 2014) Mukesh & Anr. Appellants Versus State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 609-610 OF2017(arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 5027-5028 of 2014) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.[for himself and Ashok Bhushan, J.]. The cold evening of Delhi on 16th December, 2012 could not have even remotely planted the feeling in the twenty-three year old lady, a para- medical student, who had gone with her friend to watch a film at PVR Select City Walk Mall, Saket, that in the next few hours, the shattering cold night that was gradually stepping in would bring with it the devastating hour of darkness when she, alongwith her friend, would get into a bus at Munirka bus stand to be dropped at a particular place; and possibly could not have imagined that she would be a prey to the savage lust of a gang of six, face brutal a...
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
1. IT(SS) A. No. 411/Del/04 is an appeal by the assessee and IT(SS) A.No. 45/Del/05 is an appeal by the Revenue. Both these appeals arise out of the order of learned CIT(A)-III, New Delhi dated 30/11/2004. 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/04 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 Pvt.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 power ...
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!