Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC709IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10662 of 2024 (Arising out of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14286 of 2022) M/s. ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS MAST RAM & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: - INDEX I. FACTUAL MATRIX 3 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ...8 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1-6 .12 IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No.10 13 V. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No.11 ..15 VI. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION .17 VII. ANALYSIS .18 A. Scheme of Arrangement between the Appellant and JAL under Sections 391 to 394 respectively of the Companies Act, 1956 18 B. Return of acquired land under the 2013 Act ..25 C. Impugned Order of the High Court ....28 D. Role of the State under Article 300-A of the Constitution ...30 VIII. CONCLUSION ..37 2 1. Leave Granted.2. This appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC695NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8374 OF2024SRI SIDDARAJA MANICKA PRABHU TEMPLE APPELLANT VERSUS THE IDOL OF ARULMIGHU KAMAKALA KAMESHWARAR TEMPLE ... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.1. The challenge in this Appeal pertains to the Judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Madras High Court) in Original Side Appeal No.272 of 2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the Appellant-Defendant was dismissed.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present challenge are succinctly enumerated as follows. The subject matter in question comprises of Civil Appeal No.8374 of 2024 Page 1 of 22 an immovable property located adjacent to the Respondent-Plaintiff-Temple, namely, Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple (hereinafter referred to as the suit property or Schedule A property). The suit property and the Respondent-Plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2024INSC689IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.20580 of 2023) KIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHING APPELLANT VERSUS KENN RAIKHAN & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant before this Court is a Member of Legislative Assembly (hereinafter MLA) and was elected from the 46-Saikul Assembly Constituency in the 12th General Elections to the Manipur Legislative Assembly, which were held in 2022. 2 The respondent, who was also a contestant from the same seat, filed an Election Petition before the High Court of Manipur challenging the result of the election on the grounds that the appellant has not disclosed her assets in her nomination papers and that she had indulged in corrupt practices in the election. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC692REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9702 OF2024KUKREJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & OTHERS APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9703 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9704 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9705 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9706 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9707 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9708 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9709 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9710 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9711 OF2024CIVIL APPEAL NO.9712 OF2024Page 1 of 86 JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J.These appeals have been filed against three impugned judgments and orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, namely, i) Judgment dated 18.12.2018 whereby Writ Petition Nos. 1898/2009, 1823/2012, 839/2015, 2871/2015, 2107/2016, 2170/2016, 384/2017 and 541/2017 were rejected on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petitioners therein/appellants herein have filed an appeal. Writ Petition Nos. 203/2014 and 2262/2010 were allowed and Writ Petition No.1860/2017 was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC688IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.. OF2024(Arising out of SLP (C) No.24805 of 2023) RASHMI KANT VIJAY CHANDRA & ORS. APPELLANT(S) Versus BAIJNATH CHOUBEY & COMPANY RESPONDENT(S) ORDER Leave Granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2023 passed in S.A.No.100 of 2021 by the High Court of Calcutta, whereby the judgment and order dated 12th December, 2019 passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta1 in Title Appeal No.14/2018 was set aside. The First Appellate Court set aside the findings returned by the Presidency Small 1 Hereinafter referred as First Appellate Court 1 | SLP (C) No . 2 4805/2023 Cause Court2 in favour of the respondent-tenant, at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.1079 of 2002 by order dated 27th November, 2017.3. The issue inter se the parties, is one between a landlord and tenant. The facts stretch about 90 years in time beginning on 19th February, 1933, when one Harak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC686IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23320 of 2023) ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... APPELLANT VERSUS BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED ..... RESPONDENT W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24489 of 2023) CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26938 of 2023) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26990-26991 of 2023) CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27353 of 2023) CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1344 of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2115 of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8131 of 2024) CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12170 of 2024) A N D CIVIL APP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC682IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 258-259 OF2021PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SUS ROAD BANER VIKAS MANCH AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 265-266 OF2021JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. These Civil Appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 27th October 2020 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi1 in Original Application2 No.210 of 20203 wherein the Tribunal disposed of the OA preferred by the Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch, 1 Hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal. 2 Hereinafter referred to as OA3Earlier OA No.34 of 2019 (WZ). Initially the OA was preferred before the Tribunal, Western Zone, and was subsequently transferred to the Principal Bench, New Delhi. 1 Respondent No.1 herein, by directing the Pune Municipal Corporation4 to close the Garbage Processing Plant5 operated by Noble Exchange Environment Solution Pune LLP6, at Baner, Pune and to shift the same to an alte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC669IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2501 OF2024(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6942 of 2024) DHANRAJ ASWANI APPELLANT VERSUS AMAR S. MULCHANDANI & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:- For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: A. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ........................... 4 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No.1 (ORIGINAL ACCUSED) ............................................................................. 7 C. VIEWS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION ................................................................................................. 10 D. ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 25 i. Evolution of the concept of anticipatory bail ....................................... 25 ii. Whether a person, while in custody for a particular offence, can ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC668IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 2221-2222 OF2023ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. Both these Appeals are arising out of the Common Impugned Order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P (Crl.) No.1808 of 2021 and Crl. M.C. No.2442 of 2021, filed by the Appellants (Original Petitioners), whereby the High Court has dismissed the same.2. The Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1808 of 2021 was filed by the Appellants - Abhishek Banerjee and Rujira Banerjee seeking quashing of the Summons dated 10.09.2021 issued to them by the Respondent ED under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the PMLA), and seeking further direction 1 against the Respondent not to issue any Summons under Section 50 of the said Act to the Appellants for their appearance in New Delhi, rather than their homet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC670IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION No.38 OF2020COX & KINGS LTD. PETITIONER VERSUS SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:1. Cox & Kings Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has filed the present petition in terms of Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act, 1996), seeking appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims in terms of clause 15.7 of the Services General Terms and Conditions Agreement dated 30.10.2015 entered into between the Petitioner and SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No.1) A. FACTUAL MATRIX2 The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of providing tourism packages and hospitality services to its customers.3. Respondent No.1 is also a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is enga...
Tag this Judgment!