Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1715 OF2023VIRENDRASING APPELLANT Versus THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.The Factual Scenario:1. The appellant was elected as a member of the Zilla Parishad, Chimthane Block, Taluq Shindkheda, District Dhule, on 08.01.2020, as the candidate of a recognized party. However, he was disqualified from this position by an order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, which came in a petition filed by respondent no.3, who had lost the Zilla Parishad election. CA No.1715 of 2023 Page 1 of 172. Respondent no.3 had filed the aforesaid petition under Sections 40 and 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Respondent No.3 claimed the appellants disqualification on the basis that the appellant had misused his elected post with the object of gaining undue personal fina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF2023[Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 22021-22022 of 2022]. M/S. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC. ..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT M.M. SUNDRESH, J.1. Leave granted.2. Seeking enforcement of a unilateral offer concerning private financial transactions, while questioning the steps taken to recover the dues on the failure to comply with the one-time settlements, extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court was sought to be invoked. Acceding to the request made by duly interfering with the action taken by the Appellants, orders were passed, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court of Kerala, which are impugned in the present appeals.3. Heard Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents. 14. Two loans were obtained b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi
R1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE13H DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM R.S.A NO.7044 OF2009(DEC & INJ) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ ALIAS SHIVABASAPPA S/O SHARANAPPA MANKAR AGE: ABOUT16YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN NATURAL FATHER SHIVARAYA S/O CHANNABASAPPA MANKAR AGE:46. YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HALCHAIR OF TALUKA CHINCHOLI DISTRICT: GULBARGA 585228 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.SANJEEVKUMAR C.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:1. SARSWATHI W/O SHARANAPPA MANKAR AGED:45. YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O VILLAGE HALCHAIR TALUKA CHINCHOLI DISTRICT: GULBARGA 585 228 2 2. IRAMMA W/O SHARANAPPA MANKAR AGE:50. YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O HALCHAIR TALUKA: CHINCHOLI DISTRICT: GULBARGA 585 228 RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.S.SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; R.2 SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED1301.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AT CHINCHOLI DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING TH...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7086-7087 OF2009SABIR ALI KHAN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SYED MOHD. AHMAD ALI KHAN AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. The Appeals are lodged against the Order passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Revision Nos. 595 and 596 of 2003. The Revisions, in turn, were directed against the Order passed by the Waqf Tribunal on an Appeal filed by the first respondent before us. The first respondent again, in turn, put in issue the Order passed by the Collector, Bulandshahar. The Order passed by the Collector was passed under Section 52(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 1 Finally, we must point out at this stage that the Collector was acting on the basis of a requisition given by the Controller of Waqf Board to obtain and deliver possession of the land in dispute to the Waqf Board. The requisition was made under Section 52(1) of the Act.2. By the Order passed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1144-1146 OF2011Anil Agarwal Foundation Etc. Etc. Appellant(s) Versus State of Orissa and Ors. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1148-1150 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1152-1154 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1161-1169 OF2011JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Orissa dated 16.11.2010 passed in Writ Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011 Page 1 of 103 Petition Nos. 10325 of 2008, 12948 of 2008 and 6863 of 2009 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has quashed the land acquisition proceedings in question including the notifications under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1894) and the awards passed in the land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of lands in favour of the appellant beneficiary company and directed th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE11H DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH R.S.A.NO.580/2017 (DEC) BETWEEN: SRI. THAMMAIAH S/O. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT79YEARS R/AT JOGIHALLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214. APPELLANT (BY SRI SHANTHA VEERAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: LATE PUTTAIAH S/O. SEEBAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS1. RAVI S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT69YEARS2. SEEBAIAH S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT55YEARS3. MURTHY S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT44YEARS2ALL ARE RESIDING AT DIBBADAHALLI, NEAR BHAVANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, C.N. HALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214. RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHRUTHI S.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.VINAYA KEERTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO3 THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION100OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED1612.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.2/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ITINERATE COURT, C.N.HALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED1112.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.22/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1056310569 OF2017THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC. ETC. .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS TAMIL NADU MAKKAL NALA PANIYALARGAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. .RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10570 OF2017JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. The instant appeals have been preferred at the instance of State of Tamil Nadu assailing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dated 19th August, 2014 affirming order of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd 1 January, 2012 in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the State Government to create the posts under the designation Village Level Workers which is called as Makkal Nala Paniyalargal (hereinafter being referred to as MNP) or by any other name but shall accommodate the persons who were on the rolls of MNP on the date of issuance of G.O.M No.86 dated 8th November, 2011 against any vacant post in the State Government...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2729 OF2023(Arising out of SLP(C) NO.24939 OF2019 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF BHAGWANI DEVI, BHARAT BHUSAN APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 06.03.2019, thereby allowing the intra court appeal filed by the respondents/State, which was in turn filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.12.2007 allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 13. The facts in the present case are not disputed. The land in question was allotted to Shri Lal Chand, son of Shri Ghasi Ram, and sanad was issued in his favour. The said Lal Chand proceeded to sell the land for consideration by way of agreement to sell dated 05.06.1986 in favour of Bela Ram, son of Chamba Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1335 OF2010M/s Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. ..Appellant VERSUS Commissioner Commercial Taxes & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.Civil Appeal No.1335 of 2010 Page 1 of 321. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OT Appeal No.6 of 2006 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner with respect to the classification of the goods in question, the assessee has preferred the present appeal.2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the issue pertains to the classification of the appellants products namely (i) Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers; and (ii) Mortein Insect Killers; (iii) Harpic Toilet Cleaner and Lizol Floor Cleaners; and (iv) Dettol Antiseptic Liquid for the purposes of Kerala VAT Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4822 OF2022(@SLP (C) No.17539 OF2016 M/s. Saraf Exports Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 04.02.2016 in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.7 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue and has held that the assessee is not entitled to the deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1961) with respect to the receipts under the Duty Drawback Scheme CIVIL APPEAL No.4822 OF2022Page 1 of 36 (hereinafter referred to as Duty Drawback) and on transfer of Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (hereinafter referred to as DEPB), the assessee has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as un...
Tag this Judgment!