Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.665 OF2014(Arising out of SLP(C) No.13735 OF2009 SH MEDICAL CENTRE HOSPITAL .APPELLANT Versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V.Gopala Gowda, J.Leave granted.2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 13th March, 2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No.362 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ appeal of the appellant holding that the appellant-hospital is not entitled to building tax exemption relying on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Medical Trust Hospital v. State of Kerala[1].. The appellant had filed writ petition No.605 of 2007 before the High Court of Kerala which dismissed the same by order dated 23.01.2007 on the ground that the building of the appellant is not used principally for charitable purposes, pursuant to which the above said writ appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Hence, this appeal.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.6 OF 201.Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. ...Petitioner VERSUS Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Respondent JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks a direction from this Court for appointment of the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent and also appointment of third Arbitrator (Presiding Arbitrator) in the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes arises between the parties.2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated and registered under the law of Hong Kong having its project office in India and one of the base offices at Mumbai. The respondent is a Corporation registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Jivan Bharti Tower-2, 124, Circus New Delhi.3. In its counter-affidavit, the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.7/2020 REPORTABLE IN RE : THE PROPER TREATMENT OF COVID19PATIENTS AND DIGNIFIED HANDLING OF DEAD BODIES IN THE HOSPITALS ETC. ORDER1 This Court issued notice on 12.06.2020 in this Suo Motu writ petition with object to notice deficiencies, shortcomings and lapses in patient care of Covid-19 in different hospitals in National Capital Territory of Delhi and other States. The object was to take remedial action by all concerned to redeem the plight of patients and other persons who needs medical care.2. In response to notice dated 12.06.2020, Union of India, Delhi Government and other States have filed their affidavits. Several applications for intervention have also been filed by different individuals, organisations highlighting one or other aspects of the issue.3. The Union of India in its affidavit after 1 noticing the aberration, which were highlighted by the Court in its order, have brought on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2330; 2009(3)AWC2220(SC); 2009(4)SCALE318; (2009)5SCC665:2009AIRSCW3135:2009(3)LHSC1460
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The Food Corporation of India (`FCI' for short) challenges the order dated 6.3.2006 of the Allahabad High Court, rejecting its appeal against the order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge (Special judge EC), Jhansi ordering attachment of its properties under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) to an extent of Rs. 1,12,24,792.99.Facts of the case:2. In the year 1976, the respondent (Sukh Deo Prasad) offered to construct and let out godowns to FCI. For that purpose, the respondent and his brother V.K. Shukla obtained a term loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from the State Bank of India, Jhansi Branch (for short `the bank') on 31.8.1977 and as security therefor mortgaged their land (in Khard village) and house property (at Jhansi) in favour of the Bank by deposit of title deeds. The repayment of the said loan was also guaranteed by one Raj Narain Khare and Shri Kishan on 6.10.1977. In addition, another sum of Rs. 5 lacs was sancti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6156 OF2013HARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUST .Appellant (s) versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ..Respondent (s) JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 15.9.2008 passed by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court dismissing Writ Petition No.904 of 2008 filed by the appellant, challenging an order dated 3.5.2006, whereby the State Government refused to sanction modification of a Scheme under the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Regional and Town Planning Act). 2 One Thorat family was the owner of Plot No.473 in City 2. Survey No.1092 at Bhamburda in Pune. By a registered deed of conveyance dated 21.12.1956 one Mrs. Krishnabai Gopal Rao Thorat sold the northern part of the plot admeasuring 4910 sq.m. jointly to Swami Dilip Kumar Roy, one of the most eminent disciples of Sri Aurobindo, and Smt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2024INSC575CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS81298130 OF2024(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos 16785-16786 of 2024) (Diary No 29998/2024) Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors Appellants Versus Prakash Kumar dixit Respondent JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI1Delay condoned. 2 Leave granted. 3 A disciplinary proceeding was convened against the petitioner for alleged acts of misconduct when he was posted as Officer Commanding B/30 Bn., CRPF. He was removed from service in July 1995. 4 After the appeal against the order of punishment was rejected, the respondent instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the purpose of present discussion, it is not necessary to deal with all the intervening stages in the proceedings. 5 By an order dated 24 December 2019, the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi directed that : 34 For all of the aforementioned reasons, the order dated 16th October, 2018, passed by the DIG (CR&VIG) in the R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC452REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2715 - 2719 OF2024(@ SLP (Crl.) Nos. 14036-14040 of 2023) UNION OF INDIA rep. by the Inspector of Police National Investigation Agency Chennai Branch APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BARAKATHULLAH ETC. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Central Government in Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division having received a credible information that the office bearers, members and cadres of Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization have been spreading its extremist ideology across Tamil Nadu, by establishing State Headquarters at Purasaiwakkam, Chennai 1 and also offices in various districts of Tamil Nadu and that through their frontal Organizations like Campus Front of India, National Womens Front, Social Democratic Party of India etc., they conspire for committing terrorist acts, raise funds for committing terrorist activities and recruit members fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC978; 84(1997)CLT278(SC); JT1997(1)SC712; (1997)2MLJ52(SC); 1999(I)OLR(SC)214; 1997(1)SCALE472; (1997)3SCC462; [1997]1SCR395
1. Leave granted.2. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa, made on December 16, 1996 in A.H.O. Nos. 40-42/95.3. The admitted facts are that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration that the steps taken by the respondents under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act were illegal and sought permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing its possession. Pending suit, they sought ad interim injunction not to dispossess them from the hotel. The trial Court by order dated July 12, 1994 granted status quo whereby the appellant remained in possession of the suit premises. On appeal filed by the respondents, the learned single Judge vacated the status quo order by order dated May 18, 1995. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal. By the impugned order the Division Bench has held that the appeals are not maintainable. Thus this appeal by special leave.4. Shri A. M. Singhvi, learned Addl. Solicitor ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
'REPORTABLE' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1049 OF2008FORTIS HOSPITAL LTD. ... Appellant VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,IMPORT ... Respondent JUDGMENT A. K. SIKRI, J.The appellant herein, which is the successor of M/s.Wockhardt Hospital and Heart Institute (referred to as the 'Institute' hereinafter) had a hospital at Bangalore. Sometime in the year 1990, the said Institute imported a Cardiac Catherization Laboratory (known as Angiography system) with its spares/accessories valued at Rs.1,14,23,471/-. The said Institute applied for exemption from payment of import duty taking shelter under the Notification No.64/88-cus dated 01.03.1988. This notification provides for exemption on medical equipment imported against Custom Duty Exemption Certificate issued by the Director General of Health Services. Apart from the said certificate, there are certain other conditions which are mentioned in the notification that need to be satisfied to avail the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1941 OF2006|COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-IV |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether Vaseline Intensive Care Heel Guard (for short, 'VHG') is to be treated as merely a skin care preparation or it is a medicament having curing properties. Based on the answer to the aforesaid question, classification of this product will be determined. If it is only a skin care preparation then VHG is classifiable under Chapter Heading 3304.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short, the 'Act'). On the other hand, if it is to be treated as a medicament, VHG would get covered under Chapter Heading 3003.10 of the First Schedule. The rate at which the excise duty is payable depends on the said classification. Chapter 33 under which the Revenue wants to cover VHG...
Tag this Judgment!