Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.6336 of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.9733 of 2015) RASHID WALI BEG ... APPELLANT(S) Versus FARID PINDARI & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, holding that a suit for a permanent injunction before a civil court is not barred by Section 85 of the Waqf 1 Act, 1995 (for short the Act), the defendant has come up with the above appeal.2. We have heard Mr. Pradeep Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Kant, learned senior counsel for the first respondent.3. The first respondent herein filed a suit in R.S. No.137 of 2011 against the appellant herein as defendant No.1 and impleading the respondents 2 to 5 herein as defendants 2 to 5. The suit was for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the encroachment made by them and for a permanent injunc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11141 OF2018NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & OTHERS ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MADHUKAR KUMAR & OTHERS ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 17 in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as, the writ petitioners), filed Writ Petition No.5643 of 2012. The relief sought in this Writ Petition was to restrain the construction of a toll plaza at 194 km of NH30 in the four-laning of Patna-Bakhtiyarpur section of NH30, in violation of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as, the Rules, for short). The said Writ Petition 1 was heard along with Writ Petition No.4526 of 2013, filed by one Shri Ritesh Ranjan Singh @ Bittu Singh. By Judgment dated 22.07.2014, the Writ Petitions were allowed in the following manner by the learned Single Judge: 32. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussions, these writ petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.502 of 2021 Madras Bar Association .... Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Another . Respondent (s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.1. The Madras Bar Association has filed this Writ Petition seeking a declaration that Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and Sections 184 and 186 (2) of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 as ultra vires Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as these are violative of the principles of separation of powers and independence of judiciary, apart from being contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras 1 | Pa ge Bar Association1, Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr.2, Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited & Ors.3 and Madras Bar Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3123 of 2020 DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3124 of 2020 SANJEET SHUKLA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3133 of 2020 KRISHNAJI DATTATRAYA MORE ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3134 of 2020 MADHUSHRI NANDKISHOR JETHLIYA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3131 of 2020 DEVENDRA ROOPCHAND JAIN & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3129 of 2020 KAMALAKAR SUKHDEO DARODE @ DARWADE ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH WRIT PETITION (C) NO.915 of 2020 DESHMUKH ESHA GIRISH ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8129 OF2019GHANASHYAM MISHRA AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH THE DIRECTOR & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.____1554_______ OF2021[Arising out of Special Leave Petition No.11232 of 2020]. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1177 OF2020CIVIL APPEAL NOS.______15501553____________ OF2021[Arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos.71477150 of 2020]. JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.21. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11232 of 2020 and 71477150 of 2020.2. The short but important questions, that arise for consideration in this batch of matters, are as under: (i) As to whether any creditor including the Central Government, State Government or any local authority is bound by the Resolution Plan once it is approved by an adjudicating authority under subsection (1) of Section 31 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
-:1. :- R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE29H DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY WRIT APPEAL No.538/2020 (GM-RES) Connected with WRIT APPEAL No.545/2020 (GM-RES) IN W.A.No.538/2020 BETWEEN:1. SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO S/O. LATE U.M. KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT77YEARS, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, I G ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101.2. M/S. VIJAYADEVAN COFFEE ESTATE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT I G ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO.3. M/S. YELLIKUDIGE ESTATE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT YELLIKUDIGE VILLAGE ALDUR HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK 577 111 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS S.V., ADVOCATE) -:2. :- AND: UNION BANK OF INDIA (FORMERLY CORPORATION BANK) M.G. ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
-:1. :- R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE29H DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY WRIT APPEAL No.538/2020 (GM-RES) Connected with WRIT APPEAL No.545/2020 (GM-RES) IN W.A.No.538/2020 BETWEEN:1. SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO S/O. LATE U.M. KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT77YEARS, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, I G ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101.2. M/S. VIJAYADEVAN COFFEE ESTATE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT I G ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO.3. M/S. YELLIKUDIGE ESTATE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT YELLIKUDIGE VILLAGE ALDUR HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK 577 111 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI U.M. RAMESH RAO. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS S.V., ADVOCATE) -:2. :- AND: UNION BANK OF INDIA (FORMERLY CORPORATION BANK) M.G. ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.160 OF2020AMISH DEVGAN ..... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.Applications for intervention are allowed.2. The writ petitioner, Amish Devgan, is a journalist who, it is stated, is presently the managing director of several news channels owned and operated by TV18 Broadcast Limited, including News18 Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand, News18 Madhya Pradesh/ Chhattisgarh and News18 Rajasthan.3. The petitioner hosts and anchors debate shows Aar Paar on News18 India and Takkar on CNBC Awaaz. On 15th June, 2020, at around 7:30 p.m., the petitioner had hosted and anchored a Writ Petition (Criminal) No.160 of 2020 Page 1 of 128 debate on the enactment1 which, while excluding Ayodhya, prohibits conversion and provides for maintenance of the religious character of places of worship as it existed on 15th August, 1947. Some Hindu priest organisatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.152 OF2013TOFAN SINGH Appellant Versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1750 OF2009CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2214 OF2009CRIMINAL APPEAL No.827 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.835 OF2011CRIMINAL APPEAL No.836 OF2011CRIMINAL APPEAL No.344 OF2013CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1826 OF2013CRIMINAL APPEAL No.433 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6338 OF2015CRIMINAL APPEAL No.77 OF2015CRIMINAL APPEAL No.90 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL No.91 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.1202 OF2017JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1.These Appeals and Special Leave Petitions arise by virtue of a reference order of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC31 The facts in that 1 appeal have been set out in that judgment in some detail, and need not be repeated by us. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court recorded that the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5145 OF2016AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED RESPONDENT AND CIVIL APPEAL No.5158 OF2016HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED APPELLANT VERSUS AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.9820 OF2016JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. These two appeals being Civil Appeal No.5145 of 2016 by Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. [Avitel India]. and its promoters [the Jain family]., 1 and the cross appeal being Civil Appeal No.5158 of 2016 by HSBC PL Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. [HSBC]., impugn the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [1996 Act]. dated 31.07.2014. To dispose of the said appeals, we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No.5145 of 2016. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy that arises in the present case are as follows: (i) On 21.04.2011, a Sh...
Tag this Judgment!