Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1709; 1990CriLJ1710; 1990(2)Crimes705(SC); JT1990(2)SC358; (1990)4SCC389; [1990]2SCR939; 1990(2)LC544(SC)
ORDER1. It is a very tragic and pathetic case-tragic in the sense that 13 persons have been massacred in a gruesome and horrendous manner and pathetic in the sense that the culprits burnt the victims of this barbaric act by covering with sugarcane leaves and sprinkling with diesel oil. At the same time, we are deeply distressed and pained to note that three of the accused persons i.e. A-1, A-2 and A-27, who were in prison on the date of occurrence are falsely implicated as having taken part in the occurrence and the main witness, Nitya Nand (PW-1) has made a deliberate and suborn perjury by naming these three accused persons even in the earliest complaint (Ex. Ka-1) with an oblique motive of obtaining conviction of these accused also.2. Even at the threshold, we would like to point out that as the appellant has not furnished the correct list of the array of the accused with reference to each of the four sessions trials in a chronological manner, we with great difficulty have culled out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IA NOS. 6 AND8OF2016IA NOS. 10, 11, 80176, 96202, 109668, 109720 AND12277 OF2017IA NOS. 68888 AND68897OF2018WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.728 OF2015IN ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.891 OF2016WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.895 OF2016WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.899 OF2016A N D WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.213 OF2017JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Writ Petition (Civil) No.728 of 2015 was filed on September 24, 2015 on behalf of three infants, who are made petitioners in this writ petition. Petitioner No.1 and 2, on the date of filing of this IAs in Writ Petition (Civil) No.728 of 2015 & Ors. Page 1 of 54 writ petition, were six months old and petitioner No.3 was fourteen months old. This petition has been filed through their next friends, i.e. their fathers, who are concerned about the health of their children as they feel that due to the alarming degra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
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
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1669 of 2020 Sabarmati Gas Limited Appellant Versus Shah Alloys Limited Respondents JUDGMENT C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.1. This appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is preferred by Sabarmati Gas Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) against the final judgment dated 19.12.2019 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.820 of 2019. As per the same the NCLAT dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against order dated 27.06.2019 in CP (IB) No.516/9/NCLT/AHM/2018 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, (NCLT) dismissing the Page 1 of 61 application filed under Section 9 of the IBC, in its capacity as operational creditor of Shah Alloys Limited (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).2. In the captioned appeal mainly, twin questions of law call for consideration id est :- (i) Whether in co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC221; 1983(13)ELT1277(SC); [1953]4SCR987
Das, J.1. On the 28th November, 1947, the appellant Hooseni Kasam Dada (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) submitted to the Sales Tax Officer, Akola, a Sales Tax return in Form IV for the first quarter. Notice in Form XI calling upon the assessee to produce evidence in support of the said return having been issued by the Sales Tax Officer, the assessee produced his account books. Not being satisfied by the inspection of the account books as to the correctness of the return and being of opinion that the taxable turnover exceeded rupees two lacs the Sales Tax Officer submitted the case to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Amravati, for assessment. On the 25th January, 1949, the Assistant Commissioner issued a fresh notice in Form XI under section 11 and fixed the case for disposal on the 5th February, 1949. After various adjournments and proceedings to which it is not necessary to refer, the hearing commenced on the 9th June, 1949, when an agent of the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC384; 1968(16)BLJR114; [1968]1SCR372
Hegde, J.1. This appeal by the Collector of Varanasi by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution is directed against the decision dated 11-11-1963 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, in First Appeal No. 60 of 1960 on its file, which in its turn arose from the award made by Shri S. B. Malik, District Judge, Varanasi, in certain land acquisition proceedings under clause (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Before considering the contentions urged on behalf of the parties, to it is necessary to set out the salient facts. For the purpose of constructing the Babatpur aerodrome near Varanasi, the Government acquired in the year 1946 about 500 acres of land. Compensation in respect of most of the lands acquired was settled by agreement. But in respect of the lands with which we are concerned in this appeal 48.01 acres in extent, no settlement was arrived at. Therefore, the question of compensation in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC69; (1951)53BOMLR402; [1951]2SCR51
Fazl Ali, J.1. I have read the judgment prepared by my brother, Mahajan J., and generally agree with his conclusions and reasonings, but, having regard to the importance of the points raised, I wish to add a short judgment of my own. 2. There are really three questions to be decided in this appeal, and they are as follows : (1) Whether the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Act XL of 1948), is ultra vires the Legislature of the State of Bombay; (2) Whether in any event Section 4 of the above Act is ultra vires the State Legislature; and (3) Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. The first and the third questions have been answered by the High Court in favour of the appellant, and the second question has been answered in favour of the respondents. In this Court, the appellant attacked the judgment of the High Court in so far as it concerns the second question, whereas the first respondent attacked it in so far as it concerns the first and the third questions....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(119)ECC326; 2007LC326(SC); 2007(213)ELT4(SC); 2007(8)SCALE151; (2007)5SCC371; 2007(2)LC834(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against a final order dated 07.12.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the CESTAT') passed in Appeal Nos. C/231/04 and C/949/04 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by Respondent herein was allowed and that of Appellant herein was dismissed. 3. Kirloskar Systems Limited entered into an agreement with Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan. It is also a major shareholder in the Respondent- Company. For the purpose of establishing an automobile manufacturing plant, Respondent imported some capital goods and parts thereof. 4. Dispute between the parties revolves round the valuation of the said capital goods and parts imported by the respondent from Toyota Motor Corporation for manufacture of automobile in India. Under the agreements entered into by and between the respondent and the said Toyota Motor Corporation, royalty and know-how fees were to be paid. 5. According to the Revenue su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2147 OF 201.Jatya Pal Singh & Ors. ...Appellants VERSUS Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3933 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.4619 of 2011 M.P. Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.425 OF 201.Vijay Thakur ...Appellant VERSUS VSNL & Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (C) No.689 OF 200.Videsh Sanchar Nigam Scheduled Castes/Tribes Employees Welfare Samiti (Regd.) & Anr. ...Petitioners VERSUS Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5740 OF 201.Ram Prakash ...Appellant VERSUS Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.1. Leave granted in SLP© No.4619 of 2011.2. This judgment will dispose of a group of appeals, details of which are given hereunder, as they raise only one question of law : Proceedings before the Bombay High Court :- 3. Writ Petition No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC863; 1973CriLJ636; (1973)1SCC512; [1973]3SCR328
C.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, by the State of U.P. is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-5-1969 in Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 1969 (Referred No. 21 of 1969) allowing the appeal of the four accused, respondents herein, and setting aside the conviction recorded against them by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Hardoi, under Sections 302 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C.2. The four respondents herein were tried by the Civil and Sessions Judge for the offence of committing the murder of Sikander Khan on October 16, 1967. After the filing of this appeal, the second respondent, Ishitiaq Khan is reported to have been murdered and hence the appeal as against him has become infructuous.3. In this appeal by the State, we are at present concerned only with Iftikhar Khan, son of Mohammad Hasan, Anwar Khan, son of Mohammad Hussan Khan and Syeed Khan, son of Refiq Hussain Khan, who are respondents one, three and four respectively.4. The prosecution case was as fol...
Tag this Judgment!