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!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE4H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No.15400 OF2024(EDN-RES) BETWEEN: MEGHANA KURUVALLI, AGED18YEARS, D/O RENUKA REDDY KURUVALLI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VALMARK CITYVILLE, VILLAMENT533 14TH BLOCK, OFF BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, THEJASWINI NAGAR PHASE1 HOBLI CHANDRASHEKARPURA, VILLAGE BEGUR, BENGALURU-560 076. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 3 . DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA, - 2 - BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (OLD BUILDING), K.R. ROAD, FORT, BENGALURU-560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR....
Tag this Judgment!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 : Karnataka
- 1 - NC:2024. KHC:35389 CRL.P No.8341 of 2018 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8341 OF2018BETWEEN:1. M/S ZIM LABORATORIES LTD., B-21/22, MIDC AREA, KALMESHWAR-441501 DISTRICT NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. ANWAR SIRAJ DAUD AND CHAIRMAN, ZAKIRABHAI SULEHBHAI VALI2 MR. ZAKIRBHAI SALEHBHAI VALI, AGED ABOUT76YEARS, S/O MR.SALEHBHAI ABDULALI VALI, CHAIRMAN OF M/S ZIM LABORATIORIES LTD., B-21/22, MIDC AREA, KALMESHWAR-44 1501. DISTRICT NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA.3. MR. ANWAR SIRAJ DAUD AGED ABOUT55YEARS, S/O MR. SIRAJ MEHFUZ DAUD, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S ZIM LABORATORIES LTD., B-21/22, MIDC AREA, KALMESHWAR-441 501. DISTRICT NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA.-. 2 - NC:2024. KHC:35389 CRL.P No.8341 of 2018 4. MR. RIYAZ AHMED KIKABHAI KAMAL AGED ABOUT64YEARS, S/O MR. KIKABHAI TAHERALI KAMAL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF M/S ZIM LABORATORIES LTD., B-21/22, MIDC AREA, KALM...
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!