Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6810 of 2022 (@SLP (C) NO.11216 of 2022) Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita ..Appellant(s) Versus Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. (WIL) ..Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated Civil Appeal No.6810 of 2022 Page 1 of 4423.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, at Kalaburagi in Misc. First Appeal No.201018/2018 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayapur (hereinafter referred to as trial Court) in rejecting the application for condonation of delay caused in preferring the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Arbitration Act) , the original applicant has preferred the present appeal.2. The brief facts leading to fili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.11826 OF2018HARYANA POWER PURCHASE CENTRE Appellant(s) VERSUS SASAN POWER LTD & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.11927 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.12190 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.1670 OF2019CIVIL APPEAL No.12232 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.1742 OF2019JUDGMENT K. M. JOSEPH, J.(1) The six appeals with which we are concerned have been filed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as Act for 1 CIVIL APPEAL No.11826 OF2018etc. brevity). The appeals are directed against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for brevity) in an appeal carried by the first respondent under Section 111 of the Act. (2) The appeal before the Tribunal, in turn, was lodged against the order passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission for brevity). The Commission passed the order purporting to be one un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.911 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29096 OF2019 Income Tax Officer Appellant(s) Versus Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia Respondent(s) With CIVIL APPEAL No.912 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29109 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.913 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29115 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.914 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29116 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.915 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29118 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.916 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29119 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.911 OF2022Page 1 of 67 CIVIL APPEAL No.917 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29120 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.918 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29121 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.919 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29122 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.920 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29123 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.921 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29124 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.922 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29126 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.923 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29128 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.924 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29129 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL No.925 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.29130 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.8129 of 2022 Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited Appellant Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents With Civil Appeal No.8130 of 2022 And with Civil Appeal No.8131 of 2022 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI This judgment consists of the following sections: A. Facts .................................................................................................................. 4 B. Submissions .................................................................................................... 15 1 C. Issues .............................................................................................................. 19 D. Requirement of security clearance for renewal of permission ......................... 21 E. Judicial Review on procedural grounds ........................................................... 26 E. 1 Principles of natural justice: purpose and content....................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
- 1 - RFA No.1659 of 2007 C/W RFA.CROB No.101 of 2008 R ` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE5H DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1659 OF2007(PAR-) C/W RFA CROSS OBJ NO.101 OF2008IN RFA NO.1659/2007 BETWEEN:1. SMT. THIRAKAVVA W/O KANNAPPA NARASAGOUDAR, AGE:51. YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: BASAVANGUDI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR 581115.2. SMT. ROOPA W/O ISHWARAPPA HALIYANNAVAR, AGE:32. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BASAVANGUDI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR 581115. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND:1. RATNAVVA W/O SURESH KALLEDEVARA, AGE:34. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: RANEBENNUR. PIN:58111. .2. SHANTAVVA W/O KANNAPPA NARASAGONDRA, AGE:55. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: KANCHAGARA ONI, BASAVANAGUDI NAGARA, RANEBENNUR- 581115.3. LAKSHMAVVA W/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA GOLANNANAVARA, AGE:48. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MEDLERI ROAD, - 2 - RFA No.1659 of 2007 C/W RFA.CROB No.101 of 2008 RANEBENNUR 581115....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
- 1 - RFA No.1659 of 2007 C/W RFA.CROB No.101 of 2008 R ` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE5H DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1659 OF2007(PAR-) C/W RFA CROSS OBJ NO.101 OF2008IN RFA NO.1659/2007 BETWEEN:1. SMT. THIRAKAVVA W/O KANNAPPA NARASAGOUDAR, AGE:51. YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: BASAVANGUDI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR 581115.2. SMT. ROOPA W/O ISHWARAPPA HALIYANNAVAR, AGE:32. YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BASAVANGUDI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR 581115. APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND:1. RATNAVVA W/O SURESH KALLEDEVARA, AGE:34. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: RANEBENNUR. PIN:58111. .2. SHANTAVVA W/O KANNAPPA NARASAGONDRA, AGE:55. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: KANCHAGARA ONI, BASAVANAGUDI NAGARA, RANEBENNUR- 581115.3. LAKSHMAVVA W/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA GOLANNANAVARA, AGE:48. YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MEDLERI ROAD, - 2 - RFA No.1659 of 2007 C/W RFA.CROB No.101 of 2008 RANEBENNUR 581115....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - WP No.10575 of 2021 C/W WP No.17163 of 2021 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE31T DAY OF MARCH, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR WRIT PETITION No.10575 OF2021(S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION No.17163 OF2021(S-KSAT) IN W.P.NO.10575/2021 IN APPLICATION NO:5773. 5786/2020 BETWEEN:1. HARSHA N AGED ABOUT35YEARS S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY Y K R/O DOOR NO.496 6TH CROSS, VIDYAMANYANAGARA, ANDHRAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 091 2. SURESH N AGED ABOUT33YEARS S/O SATHYANARAYANA N R/O NEAR DURGAGUDIKASBE CAMP KALLUR POST, RAICHUR - 584 118 3. MAHESH PATIL AGED ABOUT35YEARS S/O SB PATIL R/O L-96, 5TH CROSS, BASVESHVARANAGARA3D STAGE, KIRLOSKAR COLONY BANGALORE 560079.-. 2 - WP No.10575 of 2021 C/W WP No.17163 of 2021 4. PRASANNA KUMAR R AGED ABOUT31YEARS S/O RANGAIAH T, R/O SLR NILAYA VIJAYANAGAR EXTENSION HULIYANE POST, C N HALLI (TQ) TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 218 5. KRISHNAMURTHY V AGED ABOUT34YEARS S/O V IYYAPPA R/O SR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - WP No.10575 of 2021 C/W WP No.17163 of 2021 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE31T DAY OF MARCH, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR WRIT PETITION No.10575 OF2021(S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION No.17163 OF2021(S-KSAT) IN W.P.NO.10575/2021 IN APPLICATION NO:5773. 5786/2020 BETWEEN:1. HARSHA N AGED ABOUT35YEARS S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY Y K R/O DOOR NO.496 6TH CROSS, VIDYAMANYANAGARA, ANDHRAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 091 2. SURESH N AGED ABOUT33YEARS S/O SATHYANARAYANA N R/O NEAR DURGAGUDIKASBE CAMP KALLUR POST, RAICHUR - 584 118 3. MAHESH PATIL AGED ABOUT35YEARS S/O SB PATIL R/O L-96, 5TH CROSS, BASVESHVARANAGARA3D STAGE, KIRLOSKAR COLONY BANGALORE 560079.-. 2 - WP No.10575 of 2021 C/W WP No.17163 of 2021 4. PRASANNA KUMAR R AGED ABOUT31YEARS S/O RANGAIAH T, R/O SLR NILAYA VIJAYANAGAR EXTENSION HULIYANE POST, C N HALLI (TQ) TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 218 5. KRISHNAMURTHY V AGED ABOUT34YEARS S/O V IYYAPPA R/O SR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF MARCH2023BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV ELECTION PETITION No.1 OF2018Between:- Sri B. Suresh Gowda, S/o late Sri Bettaiah, Aged about 53 years, Residing at Kempanahalli Village & Post, Hutalidurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District 572 126. And also at: No.220, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross AECS Layout, Sanjaynagar Bengaluru 560 094. ... Petitioner (By: Ms.Nalina Mayegowda, Senior Advocate for Sri Manjunath Hiral. H, Advocate) And:1. Sri D.C.Gowrishankaraswamy S/o Sri C.Chennigappa 2 Aged about 41 years Residing at Doddahuchaiahnapalya Nelamangala Taluk Bengaluru Rural District 562 123.2. Sri Rayasandra Ravikumar S/o Sri Shanmukha Swamy Aged major Residing at No.14, Rayasandra Machenahalli Post, Dandinashivara Hobali Turuvekere Taluk Tumkur District 572 215.3. Sri Tajuddin Shariff S/o Sri Husain Shariff Aged major Residing at 1 to 5th Cross, Housing Board Main Road, Jaipur, Tumkur City 572 101.4. Sri S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.10215 of 2011 Shivshankara & Anr. Appellants Versus H.P. Vedavyasa Char Respondent JUDGMENT C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.1. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No.6456 of 1993 on the file of the Court of XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, filed this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Honble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA No.1966 of 2007. They are the sons of the third defendant in the said suit, who died during its pendency. They filed the stated first appeal on being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2007 in O.S. No.6456 of 1993. During the pendency of the captioned appeal, the Page 1 of 48 second appellant died and consequently his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants 2.1 to 2.4. Ergo, in this appeal, hereafter the original first appellant and the ...
Tag this Judgment!