Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1380 OF2023(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.11673/2019) KUNTI AND ANR. .APPELLANTS V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.Leave Granted.1. The present appeal arising out of special leave petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) in Application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, (hereafter CrPC) No.32337 of 2013, filed by the Appellants praying for quashing the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial 2 Magistrate, Bulandshahr, in Case No.6695 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.421 of 2012 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 417 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the said judgement, the Honble High Court dismissed the Application filed by the Appellant(s) and held that no grounds to interfere are found....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2305-2307 OF2022Union of India and Another Appellants Versus Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP & Anr.Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2302-2303 OF2022CIVIL APPEAL No.793 OF2022CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2298 OF2022CIVIL APPEAL No.801 OF2022CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2299 OF2022CIVIL APPEAL No.877 OF2022CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2300 OF2022CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2304 OF2022Criminal Appeal Nos.2305-2307/2022 Etc. Page 1 of 103 JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.Appeals under consideration:1. This batch of Criminal Appeals/Civil Appeals raise common question(s) of law pertaining to the interpretation of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013) and the Investigation Report dated 28.05.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the IFIN SFIO Report) in respect of IL&FS Financial Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as the IFIN). 1.1 Criminal Appeal Nos. 2305-2307/2022, Criminal Appeal Nos. 23...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No.421 OF2019Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma Appellant(s) Versus Union of India and Ors. Respondent(s) WITH WRIT PETITION (C) No.777 OF2020Manoj Kumar Nagar Appellant(s) Versus Union of India Respondent(s) AND WRIT PETITION (C) No.712 OF2020Raj Kumar Verma Appellant(s) Versus Union of India Respondent(s) Writ Petition (C) No.421 of 2019 Page 1 of 74 JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.Writ Petition (C) No.421 of 2019 1. By way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, filed by the writ petitioner Moser Baer Karamchari Union have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order striking down Section 327(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013) as arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also prayed to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus so as to leave the stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.11330 of 2018 CC and CE and ST, NOIDA ...Appellant(s) Versus M/s Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated Civil Appeal No.11330 of 2018 Page 1 of 64 2 09.11.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent and has set aside the Order inOriginal dated 31.03.2017 disallowing the CENVAT Credit, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:2. 1 The respondent assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture, supply and erection at the site of prefabricated/preengineered steel buildings and parts thereof classifiable under Civil Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1011 OF2023JUDGEBIR SINGH @ JASBIR SINGH .... APPELLANT(S) SAMRA @ JASBIR & ORS. VERSUS NATIONAL INVESTIGATION .... RESPONDENT(S) AGENCY WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1012 OF2023JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J:1. As the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are common and the challenge is also to the self-same order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. These appeals by special leave are at the instance of five under trial accused charged with having committed offences punishable under Section CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1011 OF2023Page 1 of 53 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC), Sections 17, 18, 18B and 20 respectively of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, the UAPA) and Sections 4 and 5 respectively of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, the 1908 Act) and are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 290 OF2023UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COSMO FILMS LIMITED ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 298 OF2023CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 303 OF2023CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 297 OF2023CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 296 OF2023CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 295 OF2023CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 294 OF2023CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 293 OF2023CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 292 OF2023TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 1526 OF20202 JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. These appeals are directed against a judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court,1 wherein mandatory fulfilment of a pre-import condition2 incorporated in the Foreign Trade Policy of 2015-2020 (FTP) and Handbook of Procedures 2015-2020 (HBP) by Notification No.33 / 2015-20 and Notification No.79 / 2015-Customs, both dated 13.10.2017, was set aside. According to the High Court, such fulfilment in order to claim exemption of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST)3 and GST compensation ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2717 OF2023Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. ...Appellant(s) Versus Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Revision Petition (CRP) No.179/2021, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said revision petition and has affirmed the order Page 1 of 26 passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing/rejecting the application submitted by the appellants herein original defendant Nos. 9 & 10 under Order VII Rule XI of CPC, the original defendant Nos. 9 & 10 have preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: - 2.1 That one Nasyam Jamal Saheb was the owner of 4 acres 16 cents of land in Survey No.700/A7B and Survey No.706/A9 of Nandyal Town and Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, and several other prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.2950/2023 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2950 of 2023 The Belgaum Urban Development Authority Appellant Versus Dhruva & Anr. Respondents WITH Civil Appeal No.2951 of 2023 Civil Appeal No.2952 of 2023 JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.1. This order will dispose of bunch of appeals bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 2950-2952 of 2023. The common judgment of the High Court vide which five Regular Second Appeals were decided has been impugned.2. From the matters listed before this Court, it is evident that the judgment of the High Court has been challenged only Page 1 of 15 Civil Appeal No.2950/2023 in R.S.A. Nos. 759, 760 and 864 of 2008 and there are no appeals filed in R.S.A. No.758 and 863 of 2008. The learned counsel for the appellant did not point out at the time of hearing that there is any other appeal pending in this Court challenging the common judgment of the High Court with reference to the aforesaid two appeals. FACTS OF ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5217 of 2011 PRASANNA AND OTHERS APPELLANT(S) Versus MUDEGOWDA (D) BY LRS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar, J.1. The father of the appellants late Srinivas Shetty filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction as an indigent person in Misc. Petition No.24 of 1984 which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on 5.5.1984. A suit in O.S. No.22 of 1986 was filed by the appellants herein seeking partition and separate possession against their father late Srinivas Shetty and the purchaser of suit schedule property, namely, Mudegowda (the deceased respondent) who was arrayed as 2nd defendant. The said suit O.S. No.22 of 1986 came to be dismissed vide judgment dated Page 1 of 1010.9.1987 on the ground that on the date when Srinivas Shetty executed the sale deed in favour of Mudegowda, he was not married and appellants were not even born. However, an observation came to be made by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3134-3135 OF2023[@ SLP (CIVIL) NO(S).8708-8709/2019 ]. THE SUB REGISTRAR, AMUDALAVALASA & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S DANKUNI STEELS LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. By order dated 13.06.2002, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh ordered M/s. Midwest Iron & Steel company Ltd. (which is Respondent No.3 in the appeals) to be wound up. Though pursuant to order dated 22.09.2003, efforts were made to sell the property of respondent no.3 in three lots, finally, based on an auction for a consolidated sale, the 1 second respondent herein, namely, M/s. SMC Marketing Private Ltd. who figured as the highest bidder, became the successful auction purchaser. It bid for the property which consisted of land, building, civil works, plant & machinery and current assets, etc. The amount for which the second respondent was declared the highest bidder was Rs.8.35 crore...
Tag this Judgment!