Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-02-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.11133 OF2011M/S ADANI POWER (MUNDRA) LTD. .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ORS. ....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. The appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (the Appellate Tribunal for short) in Appeal No.184 of 2010 dated 07.09.2011 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission for short) dated 31.08.2010.2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under. 2 Respondent No.2, namely, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the procurer) is a holding company engaged in the business of bulk purchases from the power generators and supply to the distribution companies in the State of Gujarat. On 01.02.2006, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-02-2019
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:2. d July, 2019 LPA8652015 and C.M. Appl. No.28936/2015 (for stay) UNION BANK OF INDIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Advocate. versus S.K. DHAWAN & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai and Mr. Rohit Napal, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGEMENT JYOTI SINGH, J.(ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 4.9.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 8216/2002 whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the report of the Inquiry Officer, penalty order, appellate order as well as the order passed in the review filed by the respondent.2. Brief facts necessary for the present appeal are that the respondent was appointed as a clerk on 1.3.1966 in the appellant-Bank and during the course of his service earned several promotions. Between the period LPA8652015 Page 1 of 17 16.5.1996 and 20.2.1998 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-01-2019
+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:28. h May 2019 Pronounced on:1. t July 2019 O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 96/2019 & I.A. 4839/2019 GVK AIRPORT HOLDINGS LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartik Nayar, Advocate, Mr. Sarthak Malhotra and Mr. Rishab Kumar, Advocate. versus BID SERVICES DIVISION (MAURITIUS) LIMITED & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Ms. Roopali Singh, Mr. Arvind Ramesh, Mr. Aditya Chatterjee and Mr. Mugeet Drabu, Advocates for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sujoy Dattar, Advocate Respondent No.2. Mr. AbinavVasisht, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Rai and Ms. Priya Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.3. for CORAM: JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J1 The present Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act) has been filed, inter alia seeking grant of interim/ ad interim relief of temporary injunction against Resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-06-2019
$~ * + + % 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 660/2017 SIKODH MAHTO ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.B.Dandapani, Adv. STATE CRL.A. 698/2017 versus ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State with ASI Yashin Khan, PS Crime Branch PRABHU MAHTO ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Jivesh Kr. Tiwari, Adv. STATE versus ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State with ASI Yashin Khan, PS Crime Branch CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT6h June, 2019 Vide judgment dated 26th April, 2017, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as the learned ASJ) has convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to CRL.A. 660/2017 & CRL.A. 698/2017 Page 1 of 40 as the NDPS Act). As a consequence, vide separate order dated 29th April, 2017, the learned ASJ has sentenced each appellant to 10 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) and fine of 1 lakh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-06-2019
$~ * + + % 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 660/2017 SIKODH MAHTO ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.B.Dandapani, Adv. STATE CRL.A. 698/2017 versus ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State with ASI Yashin Khan, PS Crime Branch PRABHU MAHTO ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Jivesh Kr. Tiwari, Adv. STATE versus ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State with ASI Yashin Khan, PS Crime Branch CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT6h June, 2019 Vide judgment dated 26th April, 2017, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as the learned ASJ) has convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to CRL.A. 660/2017 & CRL.A. 698/2017 Page 1 of 40 as the NDPS Act). As a consequence, vide separate order dated 29th April, 2017, the learned ASJ has sentenced each appellant to 10 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) and fine of 1 lakh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-27-2019
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 701/2017 % Judgment reserved on:20. h May, 2019 Judgment pronounced on:27. h May, 2019 MANNU STATE Through: Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate. ....Appellant Versus Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for State. ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J1 The present Appeal is instituted on behalf of the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.03.2017 and order on sentence dated 03.04.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge (NDPS-01), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Session Case No.56203/2016 in FIR No.455/2012, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-2019
$~ * + + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 955/2018 SEEMA alias PRABHA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate with versus Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocate THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State with SI Raju Yadav, PS Sultanpuri, Delhi. AND CRL.A. 757/2018 KISHORE KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Bipin Kumar Jha, Advocate with Mr. Narsingh Narain Rai and Mr. Indu Bhushan Vimal, Advocates. versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State with SI Raju Yadav, PS Sultanpuri, Delhi. Date of Decision:24. h May, 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL Crl.A.No.757/2018 & 955/2018 JUDGMENT Page 1 of 47 MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. While Crl.A.955/2018 has been filed by appellant-accused Seema @ Prabha, Crl.A. 757/2018 has been filed by appellant-accused Kishore Kumar challenging the judgment dated 22nd December, 2017 convicting them under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-2019
$~ * + + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.A. 955/2018 SEEMA alias PRABHA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate with versus Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocate THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State with SI Raju Yadav, PS Sultanpuri, Delhi. AND CRL.A. 757/2018 KISHORE KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Bipin Kumar Jha, Advocate with Mr. Narsingh Narain Rai and Mr. Indu Bhushan Vimal, Advocates. versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for State with SI Raju Yadav, PS Sultanpuri, Delhi. Date of Decision:24. h May, 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL Crl.A.No.757/2018 & 955/2018 JUDGMENT Page 1 of 47 MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. While Crl.A.955/2018 has been filed by appellant-accused Seema @ Prabha, Crl.A. 757/2018 has been filed by appellant-accused Kishore Kumar challenging the judgment dated 22nd December, 2017 convicting them under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-17-2019
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h May, 2019 CS(OS) NO.578/2016 SATISH KUMAR ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. V.K. Jain & Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advs. Versus PURSHOTTAM MAHESHWARI & ANR. ...Defendants Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Ms. Sanyogita Jain & Mr. Sajal Jain, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of Rs.2,35,12,000/ jointly and severally from the two defendants viz. Purshottam Maheshwari and Lalit Maheshwari, pleading that (i) the two defendants being brothers and claiming to be Kartas of Purshottam Maheshwari (HUF) and Lalit Maheshwari (HUF) respectively, on 14th October, 2014 represented to the plaintiff to be the owner of 30% share in Kothi No.61, having an area of 2 acres, 2 rod and 5 poles situated at Civil Lines, Roorkee, district Haridwar; (ii) the defendants further represented that the said share in the property had devolved on them by virtue of registered Will of their deceased mothe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-10-2019
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1223 OF2015RAKESH TIWARI, ADVOCATE APPELLANT VERSUS ALOK PANDEY, C.J.M. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The appellant, advocate, has been convicted for his undesirable conduct by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order under the Contempt of Courts Act and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. He has also been directed not to enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a period of six months w.e.f. 15.7.2015 and the contemnor shall remain under constant watch of the District Judge, Allahabad, for a period of two years; and in case of any objectionable conduct, causing interference in peaceful and smooth functioning of the court, the District Judge has been asked to report the matter to the High Court.2. The contemnor has be...
Tag this Judgment!