Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC382REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF2024[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 3747 of 2020]. JATINDER KUMAR SAPRA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ANUPAMA SAPRA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.1. Leave granted.2. The instant appeal assails the correctness of an order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (the High Court) in FAO-146-M-2005 (O&M) (the Impugned Order). Pertinently, vide the Impugned Order, the High Court dismissed the appeal; and accordingly upheld the correctness of an order dated 09.12.2004 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge (Ad. Hoc), Faridabad (the Family Court) whereunder the Family Court dismissed a petition instituted by the Appellant herein under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce (the Underlying Order). SLP (C) No.3747 of 2020 Page 1 of 63. The Appellant and the Respondent before this C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC360REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1627 OF2016RAM BALAK SINGH APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for possession and confirmation of his possession over the suit land which was decreed in his favour by the court of first instance but the decree was set aside in First Appeal and was affirmed by the High Court.2. The dispute in the suit is regarding 0.32 decimal of land of R.S.P. No.821 situate in village Kishanpur, district Sit- amarhi, Bihar. This area of land was carved out from C.S.P. 1 No.332 of Khata No.196 which belonged to Rambati Kuwer, the ex-landlord.3. The aforesaid ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer settled the above area of the suit land in favour of Makhan Singh, son of late Ram Govind Singh vide lease deed (patta) of 1341 fasli whereupon the said Makhan Singh continued in possession of it during his lifetime. The said Mak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC358REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3391 OF2011LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3849 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL No.3393 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL No.3394 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL No.3395 OF2011JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.1. The issue for consideration is whether the state of Rajasthan has the power and jurisdiction to levy and collect stamp duty on policies of insurance issued within the state. For the reasons to follow, we have rejected the contention of the Life Insurance Corporation, the appellant herein, regarding the lack of legislative competence of the state and have also affirmed the power to levy and collect stamp duty under the Rajasthan Stamp Law 1 (Adaptation) Act, 19521 and the rules made thereunder. While dismissing the appeal, we have however set aside certain findings of the High Court and granted relief to the appellant in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC354REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1121 OF2016COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELAPUR APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JINDAL DRUGS LTD. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 788-790 OF2022JUDGMENT UJJAL BHUYAN, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Issue raised in the present batch of appeals is identical. Therefore, the civil appeals were heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment and order. 23. However, Civil Appeal No.1121 of 2016 was argued as the lead appeal. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we would refer to the facts of this appeal.4. This is an appeal by the revenue under Section 35L (1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (referred to hereinafter as the Central Excise Act) against the order dated 16.04.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (briefly CESTAT hereinafter) in Appeal No.E/86389/13-Mum. (Jindal Drugs Limited Vs. Commissioner of Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC356IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2759 OF2009New India Assurance Company Ltd. Appellant (s) Through its Manager Versus M/s Tata Steel Ltd. ...Respondent(s) with Civil Appeal No._______ of 2024 (@ SLP (C) No.10001 of 2009) C.A. Nos. 5242-5243 of 2009 JUDGMENT K.V. Viswanathan, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No.10001 of 2009.2. I.A. No.48152 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No.2759 of 2009 is filed by the Respondent [earlier known as M/s Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd, hereinafter referred to as the Complainant or the Insured]. seeking change of its name in the proceedings to Tata Steel Ltd. The Complainant/Insured has filed similar IAs in the 1 connected appeals filed by it. It is stated that the name of the Complainant/Insured was changed to Bhushan Steel Ltd in the year 2007. Thereafter while these appeals were pending, the company underwent a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and was successfully taken over by Tata Steel Lt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC341IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRA-ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.434 OF2023ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS .... P ETITIONER VERSUS ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER .... R E SPONDENTS W I T H WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.184 OF2024A N D WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.OF2024(DIARY No.35782 OF2023 JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.Delay in refiling is condoned.2. At the outset, we take on record that the counsel for the petitioners, in unison, have stated that the petitioners do not attribute any motive or malice to the Election Commission of India1, or for that matter contend that the Electronic Voting Machines2 have been tutored or configured to favour or disfavour a candidate or political party. However, due to 1 For short, ECI. 2 For short, EVMs Writ Petition (C) No.434 of 2023 & Ors. Page 1 of 38 possibility of manipulating the EVMs there is suspicion and, therefore, this Court should step in to instil confidence in the voters3 and the people....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC348IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5366-5367 OF2024FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA APPELLANTS LIMITED & ORS. VERSUS M/S COROMANDAL SACKS PRIVATE LIMITED RESPONDENT JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: - INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................................................. 2 i. Case of the original plaintiff before the trial court ...................................... 4 ii. Case of the original defendants before the trial court .................................. 6 iii. Appeals before the High Court .................................................................... 9 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS .................................................................................................... 10 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF ..........
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC339Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. ...-. ... of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 15621-15622 of 2021) Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi Appellant Versus Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar and others Respondents JUDGMENT SANJAY KUMAR, J1 Leave granted.2. Acceptance of Change Reports in relation to the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, a Public Trust, is in issue. A learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay invalidated such acceptance and remanded the matters to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Solapur Region, Solapur, for consideration afresh. Hence, these appeals.3. Though, no interim orders were passed by this Court, we are informed that the orders of remand have not been acted upon owing to the pendency of these cases. Further, in terms of the High Courts directions, 1 the Vahiwatdar and the Trustees, whose names were already entered in the records, are cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-reportable 2024 INSC337IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO._________ OF2024(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.21401 of 2022) SHRIRAM MANOHAR BANDE APPELLANT VERSUS UKTRANTI MANDAL & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar, J.1. Heard.2. Leave granted.3. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.05.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.1976 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenging the Order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Ld. School Tribunal 1 (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal), Amravati whereunder termination of respondent No.1 (appellant herein) had been set aside and directed the reinstatement with 50% back wages and other consequential benefits came to be set aside has challenged the same. Parties are referred to as per their rank/status in writ court. Facts in Brief:4. Respondent No.1 is an educational society that runs Respondent No.2 i.e., Vasantrao Naik High School which runs on a grant-i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC319REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3851 OF2023INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA ...APPELLANT (S) VERSUS SATYANARAYAN BANKATLAL MALU & ORS. ...RESPONDENT (S) INDEX I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Paras 1 to 2 II. SUBMISSIONS Paras 3 to 17 III. CONSIDERATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS Paras 18 to 25 IV. CONSIDERATION OF PRECEDENTS Paras 26 to 40 V. CONCLUSION Paras 41 to 49 JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 This appeal challenges the judgement and order dated 14th February 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.2592 of 2021, thereby allowing the petition filed by Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Ramesh Satyanarayan Malu, the Ex-Directors of M/s. 1 SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) challenging the order dated 17th March 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 58th Court in Special Case No.853 of 2020 (l...
Tag this Judgment!