Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-22-2021
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF DECEMBER2021PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE COMAP NO.101 OF2021BETWEEN: ANHEUSER BUSCH INBEV INDIA LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS SABMILLER INDIA LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIT NO.301-302, THIRD FLOOR DYNASTY BUSINESS PARK, B WING ANDHERI KURLA ROAD ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400059. AND ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT6H FLOOR, GREEN HEART BUILDING MFAR, MANYATA TECH PARK PHASE IV NAGAVARA VILLAGE BANGALORE-560045. ... APPELLANT (BY MR. ADITY SONDHI, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. PRASANTH V.G. ADV.,) AND: SCARPE MARKETING PVT LTD302& 305, PLOT NO.32-34 AND3941 KTC ILLUMINATION, GAFOOR NAGAR MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD (TELANGANA)-500081. 2 ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. SALMAN KURSHID, SR. COUNSEL FOR MRS. IRFANA NAZEER, ADV., A/W MR. DUVVA PAVANKUMAR, ADV., MR. ZAFAR KHURSHID, ADV., MR. LUBNA NAAZ, ADV., MR. MOHD. WASAY KHAN, ADV., Ms. SAKSHI KOTIYAL, ADV., MRS. SHRADDHA GUPTA, ADV.,)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-22-2021
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.753 OF2017ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.756 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.754-755 OF2017JUDGMENT M.M. SUNDRESH, J.1. All these appeals sprout from a common occurrence. One set of appeals are filed by the accused qua the charges framed on the first occasion. The other set of appeals are filed by the de facto complainant over a trial started in 1 pursuance to the order passed invoking Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), facilitating further investigation, leading to the addition of ten more accused. No appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the appeal against acquittal and allowing the appeal against convictions qua the first trial. On the appeals filed by the convicted individuals, the de facto complainant filed his application for intervention. We deem it appropriate to deal with them by our common ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-18-2021
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1410 OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.925 OF2021 ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SATISH AND ANOTHER .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1411 OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.1339 OF2021 NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER.... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1412 OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.1159 OF2021 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SATISH .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1413 OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.5071 OF2021 1 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS LIBNUS .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1414 OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.7472 OF2021 SATISH ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. Leave granted in all appeals.2. The four Appeals filed by the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-18-2021
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1240 OF2021(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.6223 OF2021 RISHIPAL SINGH SOLANKI ..APPELLANT(S) VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA J.The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.430 of 2021 whereby the High Court rejected the aforesaid criminal revision filed against the judgment and order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge POCSO Act (Exclusive Court), Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2020. The said criminal appeal was filed against the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the Principal 2 Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat allowing the Miscellaneous Case No.16 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.116 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 34 of the I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-10-2021
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6112 OF2021(Arising out of SLP(C) No.11267/2021) RATNAM SUDESH IYER Appellant Versus JACKIE KAKUBHAI SHROFF Respondent JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. Business associations can sour and that is what has happened in the present case. That the association was across the seas is another aspect. The two parties before us were shareholders in the investment holding company called Atlas Equifin Private Limited, India (for short Atlas) which held 11,05,829 equity shares of Rs.10 each in Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd. (for short MSM). It appears that the appellant had been attempting to sell the shares in MSM since 2002. In furtherance of the said objective, a placement instruction dated 1 15.11.2005 was signed by the parties authorising Standard Chartered Bank (for short SCB) as their agent to identify the purchaser for the appellants shares in Atlas. The dispute apparently commenced on account of the stand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-08-2021
CIVIL APPEAL No.4353 OF2010REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4353 OF2010STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. .. APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S SAL UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED .. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT HIMA KOHLI, J.1. The appellant-State of Chhattisgarh is aggrieved by a common judgment dated 21st October, 2009 passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court disposing of two appeals; one preferred by the appellant1 and the other preferred by the respondent-M/s. Sal Udyog Private Limited2, whereby the order dated 14th March, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Raipur in a petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19963 has been partially modified and the interest awarded in favour of the respondent from the date of the 1 Appeal No.22 of 2006 2 M.A. No.727 of 2006 3 For short the 1996 Act Page 1 of 21 CIVIL APPEAL No.4353 OF2010notice i.e. 6th December, 2009 till realisation, has been reduced from 18 per cent per annu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-29-2021
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3135 OF2011THE TRANSPORT CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. THROUGH SANTNU PATRA MANAGER - LEGAL .. APPELLANT v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN. & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. The appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 29th March 2010 passed by a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal. The first respondent is the Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short the Insurance Corporation) established under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the said Act of 1948).2. By a notice dated 6th April 1990, a demand was made by the Insurance Corporation in the sum of Rs.8,01,510/- by way of contribution 2 payable by the appellant for the period from 30th July 1975 to 31st March 1988. The contribution was demanded as per the provisions of Regulations 29, 31 and 33 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (for sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-29-2021
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.1301 of 2021 Sarabjeet Singh Mokha ....Appellant Versus The District Magistrate, Jabalpur & Ors. .... Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J A Facts ....................................................................................................................3 B Submissions of counsel .................................................................................... 9 C Right to make a representation: Constitutional safeguards and legislative scheme of the NSA ................................................................................................. 17 D Analysis .............................................................................................................2 5 D.1 Delay in considering the representation .................................................. 25 D.2 Failure to communicate decision on the representation ........................ 38 E Conclusio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-08-2021
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos. 1051-1054 of 2021 Nasib Singh Appellant Versus The State of Punjab & Anr. Respondents With Criminal Appeal Nos. 1055-1059 of 2021 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1 These appeals arise from a judgment dated 20 December 2019 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a batch of nine criminal appeals. The High Court remitted the orders of acquittal and conviction arising out of two separate FIRs for fresh trial and directed that the proceedings arising out of both the FIRs be clubbed together under Section 223 CrPC and be tried together by one 1 court. The issue that arises for consideration is whether holding separate trials arising out of two FIRs warrants the direction of the High Court for a de novo trial.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13 November 2012, the prosecutrix along with Shinderpal Kaur went to Gugga Mari near Ghaggar river for lighting earthen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-01-2021
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2506 OF2021THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MANDALA RAMULAMMA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.2507 OF2021JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh whereby revision under Section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 19551 was allowed on 3.6.2019 while setting aside the order dated 19.2.1982 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer granting occupancy rights to Shri Thota Balakrishna Reddy, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants2 in respect of the land measuring 31.05 guntas falling in survey Nos. 53, 54, 55, 56, 61 and 62 in Village Jeedimetla as well as the order dated 1 For short, the Inams Act 2 Hereinafter referred to as the purchaser 1 4.12.2017 passed by the Joint Collector whereby the appe...
Tag this Judgment!