Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1933 of 2022 The TATA Power Company Limited Transmission .... Appellant Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. ....Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI A glossary of defined terms used in the judgment has been provided below: Glossary of Terms Defined Term Definition Act Electricity Act, 2003 AEMIL/ Adani Electricity Mumbai Infra Limited second respondent AEML-T Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited third respondent Transmission APTEL Appellate Tribunal for Electricity CEA Central Electricity Authority Development Guidelines Guidelines for encouraging Competition in Development of Transmission Projects DPR Detailed Progress Report EC/ fifth respondent Empowered Committee FoR Forum of Regulators GoMs GR Government of Maharashtras, Government Resolution dated 04.01.2019 HVDC High Voltage Direct Current HVDC Project 1000 MW HVDC (VSC based) link between 400 kV MSETCL K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal Nos. ____ of 2022 @ SLP(C) No.3524 of 2022 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS._7939-7940 OF2022Arising out of Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.3524-25 OF2022UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .. APPELLANTS versus SUBRATA NATH ... RESPONDENT AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS._7941-7942 OF2022Arising out of PETITIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) No.11021-22 OF2022SUBRATA NATH APPELLANT versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT HIMA KOHLI, J.1-2 By this order, we propose to decide two appeals preferred by the Union of India and the connected appeals preferred by the private respondent against the common Page 1 of 20 Civil Appeal Nos. ____ of 2022 @ SLP(C) No.3524 of 2022 judgment and order dated 9th September, 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in FMA No.679 of 2019 and FMA No.680 of 2019.3. For the sake of convenience, the facts stated in the Civil Appeals shall be referred to....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8818 OF2022(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.11570 of 2021) M/s. Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. APPELLANT Vs. M/s. Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA , J.Leave granted.2. This Civil Appeal has been filed by assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Arbitration Application No.55 of 2020 whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1996, for the sake of convenience) filed by the appellant herein. 23. The appellant herein M/s. Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of producing power through running and operating thermal/solar/hydro power plants. The respondent No.1 M/s. Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones Pvt. Ltd. is the owner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8714 OF2022(Arising Out of SLP (CIVIL) NO.18607 OF2004 KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JSW ENERGY LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS JINDAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED & JINDAL TRACTABEL POWER COMPANY LIMITED) & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) With CIVIL APPEAL NO.8715 OF2022(Arising Out of SLP (CIVIL) NO.23793 OF2004 KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JINDAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. Leave granted. Being connected, the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. 12. The appellant, in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.18607/04, is the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and hereinafter referred to as the appellant.3. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4795 of 2002 filed by the first respondent herein, viz., JSW Energy Ltd., ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE21T DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION No.9398 OF2018C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.9399 OF2018CRIMINAL PETITION No.9430 OF2018BETWEEN: IN CRL.P. NO.9398/2018 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALURU EAST (KADRI) POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 01. PETITIONER (BY SRI.KIRAN S JAVALI, SPP) AND1 RAJENDRA KUMAR @ BANNANJE RAJ @ KUMARA RAJ @ HEMANTH HEGDE S/O M SUNDARA SHETTIGAR AGED ABOUT49YEARS, R/AT RADHAKRISHNA VILLA BAPUTHOTA, MALPE, UDUPI DISTRICT - 2 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 574 118. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED1411.2018 IN S.C.NO.105/2016 PENDING ON TH...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE21T DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION No.9398 OF2018C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.9399 OF2018CRIMINAL PETITION No.9430 OF2018BETWEEN: IN CRL.P. NO.9398/2018 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALURU EAST (KADRI) POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 01. PETITIONER (BY SRI.KIRAN S JAVALI, SPP) AND1 RAJENDRA KUMAR @ BANNANJE RAJ @ KUMARA RAJ @ HEMANTH HEGDE S/O M SUNDARA SHETTIGAR AGED ABOUT49YEARS, R/AT RADHAKRISHNA VILLA BAPUTHOTA, MALPE, UDUPI DISTRICT - 2 - CRL.P No.9398 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No.9399 of 2018 CRL.P No.9430 of 2018 574 118. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED1411.2018 IN S.C.NO.105/2016 PENDING ON TH...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8571__/2022 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.907 OF2020THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S SEW CONSTRUCTION LIMITED & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in an Arbitration Revision No.4 of 2009 under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 19831 whereby the award of the Arbitral Tribunal was upheld.3. The short facts leading to the Arbitral Award and thereafter the decision of the High Court may be stated as under.4. The State issued a tender notice2 for the construction of a Masonry Dam and eventually, Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) 1 hereinafter referred to as The Adhiniyam. 2 Tender Notice No.1/1992-1993. Page 1 of 12 was selected as the successful bidder. A contract was entered into on 06.11.1993 for a total considera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8260 OF2022M/s Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Income Tax Appeal No.623/2007, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue, the assessee has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:1. That the appellant assessee is having a manufacturing unit at Pune in which the appellant assessee is manufacturing polyurethane foam, which is ultimately used as automobile seat. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 and claimed deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act (for short, IT Act). The assessing officer disallowed the deduction under Section 80-IB of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - WP No.20983 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE17H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.20983 OF2022(GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. K. B. NAIK AGED ABOUT63YEARS, S/O SRI NAIK BHIMAPPA, ADVOCATE, FLAT227 BLOCK D, RADIANT JASMINE TERRACE, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD, SURABHI LAYOUT, NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 064 ALSO AT: PLOT NO.16, SECTOR NO.II, SHIVABASAVANAGAR, BELAGAVI 578 278. PETITIONER (BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI SAGAR G.NAHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:1. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA (STATUTORY BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE ADVOCATES ACT1961 NO.21, ROSE AVENUE, - 2 - WP No.20983 of 2022 INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEAR BALBHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 002 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.2. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL OLD ELECTION COMMISSIONER BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.3. SRI BASAVARAJ MURUGESH JARALI S/O MURUGESH JARALI, AGE31YEARS, ADVOCATE, 1ST CROSS, ADARSH NAGAR, GANESH APARTMENTS, BELAGAVI 578 274. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8470 OF2022(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No(s).30038 of 2019) VARIMADUGU OBI REDDY .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS B. SREENIVASULU & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of the auction purchaser (appellant herein) assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 20th November, 2019 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad setting aside the e auction sale held by the respondent Bank (secured creditor) under 1 the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter being referred to as the SARFAESI Act, 2002).3. The relevant facts in brief to appreciate the controversy are that respondent nos.13 have availed three loan facilities vide Mortgage Loan of Rs.10 lakhs, Cash Credit Loan of Rs.8 lakhs and Car Loan of Rs.8 lakhs...
Tag this Judgment!