Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jun-15-2023
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2845 of 2017 COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.896/2018 in C.A. No.2845/2017 T.C.(C) No.19/2023 T.C.(C) No.20/2023 T.C.(C) Nos.16-18/2023 T.C.(C) No.21/2023 JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. The Civil Appeal is directed against the Order passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal), by which Order, the Tribunal affirmed the findings and conclusion recorded by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as CCI) on various facets of abuse of dominant position. The abuse of dominant position was ascribed to the appellants. The appeal was dismissed. 12. The second respondent had provided information to the CCI which the CCI proceeded to consider and it found the abuse of dominant position by the appellants.3. The appellants have filed Interlocuto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-30-2023
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF MAY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1610/2017 BETWEEN: RANGARAJU @ VAJAPEYI, S/O. KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT20YEARS, R/AT GOLIGENA HALLI VILLAGE, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI HANUMANTHARAYA C. H. ADVOCATE, ALONG WITH Ms. ABHINAYA K, SRI K.V.MANOJ, AND SRI NITHIN RAMESH, AMICUS CURIAE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SIRA POLICE STATION, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. RESPONDENT (BY SRI KIRAN S JAVALI, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-I A/W SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) 2 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED0908.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, IN S.C.No.82/2015- CONVICTING T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-30-2023
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF MAY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND THE HONBLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION No.21879/2014 (GM-RES)-PIL BETWEEN: SRI.N.P.AMRUTESH, S/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED54YEARS, R/O NO.28(103), 10TH MAIN, BEHIND AMBEDKAR B.ED COLLEGE, J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 086. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI V.R., DATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI N. K. SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 . THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL. 3 . THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 4 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND JUSTICE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5 . THE AUDITOR AND COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF INDIA, HAVING HIS OFFICE, OPP: VIDHANA SOUDHA (NORTH), BA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-19-2023
1 Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO./2023 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.3212/2023]. Neville Dadi Master @ Neville Master Appellant(s) VS. The State of West Bengal & Anr. ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.Leave granted.2. On the basis of a complaint dated 9th August, 2017 lodged by the second respondent, an F.I.R. of even date under sections 419/353/447/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, hereafter) read with section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act, hereafter) was registered against the appellant. Investigation that followed culminated in a report (charge-sheet) being filed under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C., hereafter). Since the offence under section 12 of the P.C. Act is exclusively triable by the Special Court, 2 the case was accordingly committed to such court by the relevant Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM, hereafter). The appellant then applied for disc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-09-2023
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3533 OF2023(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5698 OF2021 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. SATHYANARAYANA SERVICE STATION & ANR RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3534 OF2023(Arising out of SLP (C)No.5591 OF2021 M.P. PARVATHI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. SATHYANARANA SERVICE STATION AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. Leave granted.2. In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) 5698 OF2021 the appellants are the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as IOC, for short), 1 the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the first appellant, Bangalore and the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the Mangalore Division. The second respondent in the said appeal is one Smt. M.P. Parvati, referred to as new dealer, who is the appellant in the other appeal, namely, civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) 5591 OF2021 THE FACTS3 On 31.10.2003, IOC entered into petrol/hsd pum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-01-2023
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No.1118 OF2014SHILPA SAILESH ..... PETITIONER VERSUS VARUN SREENIVASAN ..... RESPONDENT W I T H TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.96 OF2014TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.339 OF2014TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.382 OF2014TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.468 OF2014A N D TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1481-1482 OF2014JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.Background. T.P. (C) No.1118 of 2014 & Ors. Page 1 of 61 The issues before this Constitution Bench, as adumbrated below, arise primarily from the order dated 12.05.2010 passed in T.P. (C) No.899 of 2007, Neeti Malviya v. Rakesh Malviya, wherein a bench of two judges had doubted the view expressed in Anjana Kishore v. Puneet Kishore1 and Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel2 that this Court, in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cannot reduce or waive the period of six months for moving the second motion as stipulated in sub-section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-28-2023
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.575 OF2011SANTOSH @ BHURE Appellant VERSUS STATE (G.N.C.T.) OF DELHI Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.576 OF2011STATE Appellant VERSUS NEERAJ Respondent JUDGMENT MANOJ MISRA, J.1. These two appeals preferred against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court (for short the High Court) dated March 5, 2009 in two connected appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.682 of 2008 and 316 of 2008 are being decided by a common judgment. Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2011 Etc. Page 1 of 792. Two persons, namely, Santosh @ Bhure (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2011) and Neeraj (respondent in Criminal Appeal No.576 of 2011) were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC). The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi (for short the Trial Court) vide order dated 27.02.2008 found them guilty for offence punishable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-28-2023
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2717 OF2023Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. ...Appellant(s) Versus Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Revision Petition (CRP) No.179/2021, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said revision petition and has affirmed the order Page 1 of 26 passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing/rejecting the application submitted by the appellants herein original defendant Nos. 9 & 10 under Order VII Rule XI of CPC, the original defendant Nos. 9 & 10 have preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: - 2.1 That one Nasyam Jamal Saheb was the owner of 4 acres 16 cents of land in Survey No.700/A7B and Survey No.706/A9 of Nandyal Town and Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, and several other prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-25-2023
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.1031 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1214 of 2018) Ravinder Singh ... Appellant (s) Versus The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi. ... Respondent (s) JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar, J1 Convicted and sentenced for the dastardly and most depraved of offences the rape of his own 9-year-old daughter, the appellant is before this Court. 22. By judgment dated 18.02.2013 in Sessions Case No.01 of 2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, held the appellant guilty under Sections 376, 377 and 506 IPC. By order of sentence dated 23.02.2013, the appellant was imposed with imprisonment for life under Section 376 IPC and payment of fine of 25,000/-; imprisonment for life under Section 377 IPC and payment of fine of 25,000/-; and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 506 IPC along with payment of fine of 10,000/-. Default in payment of fines ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-11-2023
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.4241 of 2019) Surendra Singh Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan and Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for 1 Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur passed in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.818 of 2013 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent accused Vijendra Singh and has set aside the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC but has convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, the original complainant/informant has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:2. 1 An FIR was lodged by the police on 01.12.2010 for an incident which took place on 28.11.2010. In the FIR it was alleged that on 28.11.201...
Tag this Judgment!