Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC650REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10039-40 OF2024[@S.L.P. (CIVIL) NOS. 7249-7250 OF2022 SEETHARAMA SHETTY APPELLANT(S) Versus MONAPPA SHETTY RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S.V.N. BHATTI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Civil Appeals arise from an order dated 14.09.2021 in Review Petition No.340 of 2019 and Writ Petition No.30734 of 2019.3. In these Civil Appeals, the scope of Sections 33, 34, 37, and 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (for short, the Act) arises for consideration. I. FACTUAL MATRIX4 The appellant filed O.S. No.295 of 2013 for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the appellants peaceful 1 possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property consists of agricultural land in Kavoor village of Mangalore taluk. The prayer for injunction rests on the plea that the respondent entered into the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999 with the appellant. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC649NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10038 OF2024[@S.L.P. (CIVIL) No.19165 OF2021 N.M. THEERTHEGOWDA APPELLANT(S) Versus Y.M. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S.V.N. BHATTI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant filed O.S. No.610 of 2015 for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 04.11.1996, stated to have been executed by the respondents. The appellant also prayed to set aside the sale deed dated 13.08.2003, which the first and second respondents executed in favour of the third respondent. The appellant claims possession of suit schedule property as part performance under the agreement of sale dated 04.11.1996. An agreement of sale coupled with possession is deemed to be a conveyance warranting payment of ad 1 valorem stamp duty. Admittedly, the suit agreement is written on stamp papers worth Rs.200/-. Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule of the Act, read with amended Stamp Act No.8 of 1995, prescri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC640REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9975-9976 OF2024[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.5034-5035 OF2019]. A. B. GOVARDHAN APPELLANT VERSUS P. RAGOTHAMAN RESPONDENT JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned Senior counsel for the respondent.2. Leave granted. The pending applications shall be dealt with in the final pages of this judgment.3. The present appeals germinate from the:3. 1. Final Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the First Impugned Order)1 passed by a Division Bench of the 1 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 11918 | (2017) 3 CTC777| (2017) 3 Mad LJ522| (2017) 4 LW421 2 High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) in Original Side Appeal2 No.189 of 2011, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and Judgment dated 01.04.2010 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2024INSC657IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.3642-3646/2018 AKSHAY & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS ADITYA & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT1 This set of five Appeals arises out of the common Judgment and Order dated 28-11-2017 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (here-in-after, referred to as NCDRC) in First Appeal Nos.1664-1668 of 2017, whereby the NCDRC has dismissed the said Appeals filed by the present appellants challenging the Judgment and Order dated 10-7-2017 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur (here-in-after, referred to as State Commission) in a Consumer Complaint No.85 of 2015.2. The appellants herein are the owners of the land in question. They entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Respondent No.2 Glandstone Mahaveer Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for the development of the land and for 2 construction of flats as mentioned herein.It a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9059-9061 OF20222024 INSC659REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9059-9061 OF2022V.S. PALANIVEL . APPELLANT Versus P. SRIRAM, CS, LIQUIDATOR, ETC. . RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT HIMA KOHLI, J.A. BACKDROP1 The appellant - V.S. Palanivel (shareholder/former Managing Director of M/s Sri Lakshmi Hotel Private Limited) has filed the present appeals against the judgment and order dated 16th September, 2022, passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench1 in three Company Appeals2 preferred by him. The details of the said Company Appeals are (i) Company Appeal No.336 of 2021 (subject matter of Civil Appeal No.9059 of 2022) filed against the common judgment dated 17th November, 2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench3 rejecting an application4 1 In short Tribunal 2 Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins} No.336 of 2021; Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.339 of 2021 and Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2024INSC656IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos.of 2024 ARISING OUT OF DIARY No.17948 OF2024NAVIN KUMAR & ORS. PETITIONERS Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENTS WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10295 OF2024WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(s). OF2024(ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.20149 OF2024 WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(s). OF2024(ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.20848 OF2024 WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.13756 OF2024WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(s). OF2024(ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.36283 OF2024 WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(s). OF2024(ARISING OUT OF DIARY NO.37276 OF2024 2 ORDER1 In Devesh Sharma v. Union of India1 (delivered on 11.08.2023), there was before us a challenge to the judgement of the Rajasthan High Court dated 25.11.2021 where it was held that for appointment of primary school teachers (i.e., teachers of Class I to Class V), the essential qualification is D.El.Ed. (i.e., Diploma in Elementary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC634REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF2024(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 13484-13488 of 2019) K. NIRMALA & ORS. .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CANARA BANK & ANR. .RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF2024(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 19877 of 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF2024(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 23500-23501 of 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF2024(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 13453 of 2019) JUDGMENT Mehta, J.1. Heard.2. Leave granted. 13. This batch of appeals, which involves identical questions of fact and law, arises from the judgments delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, as listed in the table below. Given the similarities, the appeals have been heard together and are being decided collectively. SLP No(s). Writ Date of Concerned Community Appeal Impugned Respondents/ (Scheduled No(s). Judgement Employer Caste/Scheduled Tribe) Special Writ Appeal 24th April, The Canara Kotegara (S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC623IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1659-1660 OF2024M/S. KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHER ..APPELLANTS Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..RESPONDENT INDEX S. No.Details Paras No.Page No.1. A. PREFACE12 1 2. B. FACTUAL BACKDROP33.10.5 2 3. 3.1 Joint Venture Agreement 3.1.1 3.1.4 3-9 4. 3.2 Correspondence 3.2.1 3.2.3 9-13 5. 3.3 Fuel Supply Agreement 3.3.1-3.3.3 13-18 6. 3.4 Memorandum of Understanding 3.4.1 3.4.2 18-21 7. 3.5 Washability Report of the Central 3.5.1 21-22 Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Nagpur 8. 3.6 Revised Mining Plan 3.6.1 3.6.2 22-23 9. 3.7 Information submitted by KECML to 3.7.1 3.7.2 23-25 the Coal Controller 10. 3.8 Audit Objection raised by the CAG38.1 3.8.3 25-29 11. 3.9 Preliminary Enquiry registered by 3.9.1 3.9.2 29-31 respondent CBI12 3.10 Litigation between KPCL and 3.10.1 -3.10.6 31-33 KECML13 C. SUBMISSIONS14 4. Arguments by Counsel for the 4.1 4.17 33-42 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC625IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2622 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) No.8081 OF2023 SHAJAN SKARIA APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: - A. FACTUAL MATRIX ...................................................................................2 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ....................... 10 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT ................. 13 D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE................................... 15 E. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS .......................................... 16 F. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ......................................................... 20 G. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 21 i. Evolution of the concept of anticipatory bail ................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC647REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.294/2015 SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH Petitioner VERSUS THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL & ANR Respondent JUDGMENT1 Heard Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents High Court of Manipur and the Registrar General are represented by Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel.2. While deciding this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, there was a difference of opinion and having regard to the conflicting judgments rendered by the two learned Judges on 7.10.2016, the matter was directed to be placed before a three-judge Bench. Page 1 of 26 Thereafter, when a similar question of law was found pending before the Constitution Bench i.e., in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others1 (for short Tej Prakash Pathak), this case was tagged with the said case. On 12.07.2023, however submission was ...
Tag this Judgment!