Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2013)1SCC1
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. We are, in these appeals, primarily concerned with the powers of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short 'SEBI') under Section 55A(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 to administer various provisions relating to issue and transfer of securities to the public by listed companies or companies which intend to get their securities listed on any recognized stock exchange in India and also the question whether Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (for short 'OFCDs') offered by the appellants should have been listed on any recognized stock exchange in India, being Public Issue under Section 73 read with Section 60B and allied provisions of the Companies Act and whether they had violated the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 [for short 'DIP Guidelines'] and various regulations of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD566
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This petition is directed against G.O. Ms. No. 99, Law (LA & J.SC.F) Department, dated 25-7-2005 as amended on 30-7-2005, whereby the Government of Andhra Pradesh retired the petitioner, who was a member of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service, on attaining the age of 58 years by invoking proviso to Section 3(1-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (for short, the Act')-2. The petitioner's date of birth is 11-7-1947. He joined judicial service of the State of Andhra Pradesh as District Munsif on 16-8-1976. He was promoted as Sub-Judge on 31-8-1987, as District and Sessions Judge Grade-II with effect from 6-1-1992 and as District and Sessions Judge, Grade-I with effect from 8-4-2002. In terms of the substantive part of Section 3(1A) of the Act, as amended on 22-7-1998, he would have retired from service on 31-7-2007, but, on the recommendations made by High Court, the State Government issued G.O. Ms. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD533; 2007(2)ALT410
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. The petitioners, who purchased different portions of the building known as Amrutha Business Complex, Ameerpet have filed this petition for quashing notice dated 22-8-2006 issued by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the 1955 Act') requiring them to demolish/remove/pull down the unauthorised construction not covered by the Sectioned plan within 24 hours of the date of receipt of the notice with the threat that if they fail to do so, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (for short, 'the Corporation') will take action and demolish/pull down such construction and also recover expenditure from them.2. The background facts:(i) Sri Y.S. Rajesh Reddy, son of Sri Y.S. Anand Reddy, Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, son of Dr. K.L. Reddy, Ms. K. Sunitha Reddy, daughter of Dr. K.L. Reddy and Sri Y.S. Anand Reddy, son of Sri Y.S. Konda Reddy purchased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
WP 21933/2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned notification issued by the first respondent in GSR No.218(E) published in Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II-Section 3-Sub-section (i) dated 16.3.2011 in so far as it relates to item No.(i), i.e., Gatifloxacin formulation of systemic use in human by any route including oral and injectable and direct the respondents to review the prohibition after giving an opportunity to the petitioner.WP 25442/2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned notification issued by the first respondent in GSR No.218(E) published in Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II-Section 3-Sub-section (i) No.139, dated 16.3.2011 and to quash the same in so far as it relates to ite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2009]149CompCas129(Bom); [2008]82SCL303(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. A founder father, late Dhirubhai Ambani set up the Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) some time in the year 1973, who ventured along with the time, into oil, gas, refining and exploration apart from other textile, yarn, polyester, petrochemicals and communication business and later stages of life, with two sons-Mr.Mukesh and Mr. Anil Ambani. All are aware of these facts and figures specially the shareholders of the respective companies at all material times.2. Some time in the year 1999, the Government announced a New Exploration and Licensing Policy, 1999 (NELP) This policy, for the first time, provided that various petroleum blocks could be awarded for exploration, development and production of petroleum and gas to private entities.3. By virtue of Article 297 of the Constitution of India, the Petroleum in its natural state in the territory waters and the continental shelf of India is vested in the Union of India (The Government). The Oil Fields (Regulation and Dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1461; (1973)4SCC225; [1973]SuppSCR1
1. I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts. Part I will deal with Introduction; Part II with interpretation of Golakhnath case; Part III with the interpretation of the original Article 368, as it existed prior to its amendment; Part IV with the validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act; Part V with the validity of Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VI with the validity of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VII with Constitution (Twenty- ninth Amendment) Act; and Part VIII with conclusions.PART I-Introduction2. All the six writ petitions involve common questions as to the validity of the Twenty- fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution. I may give a few facts in Writ petition No. 135 of 1970 to show how the question arises in this petition. Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970 under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2010)228CTR(Kar)1; [2010]186TAXMAN233(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar 1. This is an appeal of the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') directed against the order dated 31.03.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in ITA No. 863/3ang/2002 on the premise that the following two substantial questions of law which arises out of the order of the Tribunal has been wrongly decided by the Tribunal.Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that interest under Section 234B of the Act cannot be levied against the assessee as the computation of income has been made under Section 115JA of the Act.Whether the Tribunal was correct in taking into consideration irrelevant circumstances like 'bonafides of the assessee', 'whether the default was committed deliberately', in failing to pay advance tax under Section 208 of the Act when Section 234B interest is levied automatically as there is no discretion.2. The assessee is a company, assessment year is 1997-98 and the only dispute between the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC355; [1999(81)FLR162]; JT1998(9)SC351; (1999)ILLJ317SC; 1998(6)SCALE424; (1999)1SCC596; [1998]Supp3SCR343; (1999)1UPLBEC336
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. Leave granted in these Special Leave Petitions.2. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties finally in these appeals and they are being disposed of by this judgment. These appeals on special leave bring in challenge the common judgment and order passed on 24.02.1998 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature p at Allahabad in five special Appeals allowing the same and dismissing their writ petitions. Appeals before the Division Bench arose out of the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 07.12.1993, allowing writ petitions filed by the petitioners concerned as the writ petitions challenged identical orders of retrenchment passed by the Respondent management against the concerned petitioner-workmen. In order to appreciate G the nature of controversy posed for our consideration in these appeals, it will be necessary to note relevant background facts.Background Facts :3. While narrating these facts we will refer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE232
1. Permission to file Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18843/2007 and 18846/2007 granted. Delay condoned and leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions. We also condone the delay in filing the applications for substitution and allow the applications for substitution. We also allow the applications for impleadment.2. These Civil Appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 22.12.2006 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in a batch of Writ Petitions in relation to 34 acres and 3 guntas of Inam land in Bangalore District which was allotted by the State Government to an association of teachers for construction of houses and for which the Bangalore Development Authority has sanctioned a lay out plan. The Bangalore Development Authority has filed Civil Appeal No. 3037/2007, the legal representatives of Inamdars have filed Civil Appeal No. 3038/2007, the Teachers' Colony Residents Association has filed Civil Appeal No. 3049/2007 and several owners of the house sites...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(10)SC485; 2003(10)SCALE202; (2004)11SCC26
ORDERS1. (1) These orders may be called the Punjab Excise Fiscal (Second Amendment) Orders, 1996.(2) They shall come into force on and with effect from the first day of April, 1996.2. In the Punjab Excise Fiscal Orders, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the said Orders), in order 1, in the table, under column 'Rate of duty per proof litre'- (a) in item (1), against sub item (c) for the figures '4.00' the figures '3.00' shall be substituted; and(b) in item (3) against sub-item (b) for the figures '3.50' the figures '3.00' shall be substituted. 3. In the said Orders in order 1-B- (a) for the words 'rupees three' the words 'rupees two' shall be substituted; and(b) for Clause (iii) to the proviso, the following clause shall be substituted namely:- '(iii) the Indian Made Beer shall be at the rate of thirty-eight paise per bulk litre.' 4. In the said orders in order 1-D, for item (iii), the following item shall be substituted namely:- '(iii) rupees four and sixty paise per bulk litre.' II. 'S...
Tag this Judgment!