Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10466 OF2017MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. DATAR SWITCHGEAR LIMITED & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The appellant herein had awarded a contract to the respondent. Dispute had arisen leading to the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal (having regard to the Arbitration Agreement contained in the contract between the parties) and those arbitration proceedings culminated in the Arbitral Award dated June 18, 2004. An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the appellant, questioning the correctness of the Award which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide orders dated March 18, 2009 and April 30, 2009 Civil Appeal No.10466 of 2017 Page 1 of 65 thereby affirming the Arbitral Award. Intra-court appeal thereagainst, which was pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1890-91 of 2010 ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS OWNERS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS V. GOPINATH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.7334 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL No.7847-7848 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.591 of 2015 JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. Civil Appeal Nos. 1890-91 of 2010 is connected with the other cases. We are disposing of the Appeals and the Writ Petition filed under Article 32, having generated certain common issues by the following common Judgment. 1 INDEX ABOUT THE CASES AND THE PARTIES ........................................................ 3 The case of Association of Vasanth Apartments Owners ......................... 3 The case of Keyaram Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ....................................................... 8 CREDAI; Writ Petition No.591/15 under Article 32.................................. 19 SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANTS/PETITIONER ............................................ 22 S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1260; 1991(2)BLJR767; (1991)2CompLJ197(SC); 1991CriLJ1438; 1991(2)Crimes113(SC); JT1991(2)SC147; 1992Supp(1)SCC222; [1991]2SCR1; 1992SCC(Cri)192
Kuldip Singh, J. 1. The Bihar State cooperative Marketing Union Limited (BISCOMAUN) (hereinafter called 'BISCO') is an apex body operating in the State of Bihar. It is a federation of Cooperative Societies and its primary function is to supply fertiliser to farmers through its depots and godowns numbering about 550, spread-over the State of Bihar.2. Shri P.P. Sharma, IAS took over as Managing Director of BISCO on May 26, 1986 and continued to hold the said office till June 14, 1987. From December, 31, 1986 to June 14, 1987 he was also Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Bihar and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State of Bihar. G.D. Mishra was working as Advisor to BISCO during 1986-88. He resigned from the said post on August 3, 1988. It may be mentioned that one Tapeshwar Singh was the Chairman of BISCO during the above said period.3. M/s. Rajasthan Multi Fertiliser Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter called the 'firm') was holding a Certificate of Registratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC163; 2008(56)BLJR3078; JT2008(10)SC347; (2008)8MLJ624(SC); 2008(12)SCALE612; 2008(5)LH(SC)3594
D.K. Jain, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th October, 2005 rendered by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 12860 of 2004. By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition, preferred by the appellant assailing the decision of the Election Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Balasore, passed under Section 38 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (for short `the Act').3. The appellant as well as respondent No. 3 in this appeal, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, were elected as Councillors of two different municipal wards in the election held on 19th September, 2003 for the Notified Area Council. Subsequently, on 30th September, 2003, the appellant was also elected as the Chairperson of the Municipal Council. On 15th October, 2003, the complainant filed an Election Petition under Section 38 of the Act questioning the election of the appellant as Councillor and Chairperson, on the gro...
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
Reported in : AIR1962SC797; [1962]Supp1SCR981
Ayyangar, J.1. The two Civil Appeals are by special leave of this Court and the two Writ Petitions have been filed by the respective appellants seeking the same relief as in the appeals, the relief sought being the setting aside of orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Pondicherry as the State Transport appellate authority (under the Motor Vehicles Act). All these four have been heard together because of a common point raised regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the appeals and the petitions. 2. It is manifest that the preliminary point about the jurisdiction of this Court should have first to be considered before dealing with the merits of the contentions raised in the appeals and petitions. It might be convenient to state a few facts to appreciate the context in which the questions debated before us arise and the point concerned in the order now passed. 3. Sivarama Reddiar the appellant in Civil Appeal 43 of 1961 and the petitioner in Writ Petition 298 of 1960, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC1052,JT2010(2)SC7,RLW2010(1)SC722,2010(2)SCALE267,2010(2)LC953(SC)
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th August, 2000 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, `National Commission') in Original Petition No. 116 of 1991.2. The appellants filed a complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs. 45 lakhs attributing deficiency in services and medical negligence in the treatment of the deceased Shri R.K. Sharma (who was the husband of appellant No. 1, Kusum Sharma and the father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3).3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as under:4. Late Shri R.K. Sharma was a Senior Operations Manager in the Indian Oil Corporation (Marketing Division). In June 1989, he developed blood pressure. He was very obese. He complained of swelling and breathlessness while climbing stairs. He visited Mool Chand Hospital on 10.12.1989 but no diagnosis could be made. The Indian Oil Corporation refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2199 OF2021RAJRATAN BABULAL AGARWAL ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SOLARTEX INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K. M. JOSEPH, J.1. By the impugned order, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as NCLAT for brevity) has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as NCLT for brevity) dated 28.05.2020. By the said order, the NCLT admitted an application filed by the first respondent under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as IBC) 1 CA No.2199/ 2021 against the second respondent. The third respondent was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional and a moratorium followed. The appellant is an ex-director of the second respondent.2. The question which falls for decision is whether the appellant has raised a dispute which can be des...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.161 OF2014(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23000 of 2010) Sadashiv Prasad Singh Appellant Versus Harendar Singh & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.162 OF2014(Arising out of SLP (C) No.26550 of 2010) JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. On 11.9.1989, The Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) sanctioned a loan of Rs.12.70 lac to M/s. Amar Timber Works, a partnership firm having three partners, Jagmohan Singh, Payam Shoghi and Dev Kumar Sinha. The above loan was sanctioned to M/s. Amar Timber Works, after its partners had mortgaged certain properties to secure the loan amount. Since the loan amount was not repaid in compliance with the commitment made by M/s. Amar Timber Works, nine years later, in 1998, the Bank preferred Original Application No.107 of 1998 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for the recovery of the Banks dues. The above Original Application was allowed on 21.11.2000. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4233 OF2018(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.25649 OF2017 CANARA BANK APPELLANT VERSUS N.G. SUBBARAYA SETTY & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1.2. Leave granted. Roma locuta est; causa finita est. Rome has spoken, the cause is ended. Rome spoke through her laws. One of the pillars of Roman law is contained in the maxim res judicata pro veritate accipitur (a thing adjudicated is received as the truth). This maxim of Roman law is based upon two other fundamental maxims of Roman law, namely, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it concerns the State that there be an end to law suits) 1 and nemo debet bis vexari pro una at eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice over for the same cause). Indeed, that this maxim is almost universal in all ancient laws, including ancient Hindu texts, was discussed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Singh, AIR1916PC78at 80-81 as follows:The...
Tag this Judgment!