Court : Supreme Court of India
SudhansuJyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the order of Division Bench of Orissa High Court, Cuttack dated 14th July, 2010 in W.P. (C) No.23 of 2009 whereby the writ petition preferred by Geomin Minerals & Marketing (P) Ltd. was allowed and the recommendation made by the State Government dated 9th January, 2009 in favour of POSCO India (P) Ltd. was set aside with a direction to the State Government to take a fresh decision in terms of order dated 27th September, 2007 passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision Application File No.22 (41)/2007-RC-1 by giving the Geomin Minerals & Marketing (P) Ltd. the preferential right of consideration. The Division Bench further observed that in the event the State Government decides to invoke the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “MM(D&R;) Act”) , “special reasons&r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
H.L. Gokhale J.This statutory appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951, seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 12.11.2012, allowing the Election Petition No. 1(AP) of 2009, renumbered as Election Petition No. 1 (AP) of 2012, filed by the Respondent No. 1 whereby the election of the appellant from 20-Tali (ST) constituency of the Arunanchal Pradesh Assembly was declared void, and whereby the first respondent was declared elected to the State Legislative Assembly from the said constituency. After passing of the said judgment and order, the appellant applied for the stay of the said order, and the learned Judge by his order dated 16.11.2012 stayed the impugned judgment and order for a period of 14 days from the date of the said order. He made it clear that the appellant will have the right to participate in the assembly proceedings but will not have the right to vote and will not be entitled to any remuneration as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION T.C.(C) NO.98 OF 201.CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS ...Petitioners VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...Respondents WITH T.C.(C) NO.99/2012 T.C.(C) NO.101/2012 T.C.(C) NO.100/2012 T.C.(C) NO.102/2012 T.C.(C) NO.103/2012 W.P.(C) NO.480/2012 T.C.(C) NO.104/2012 T.C.(C) NO.105/2012 W.P.(C) NO.468/2012 W.P.(C) NO.467/2012 W.P.(C) NO.478/2012 T.C.(C) NO.107/2012 T.C.(C) NO.108/2012 W.P.(C) NO.481/2012 W.P.(C) NO.464/2012 T.C.(C) NO.110/2012 T.C.(C) NOS.132-134/2012 T.C.(C) NOS.117-118/2012 T.C.(C) NOS.115-116/2012 T.C.(C) NOS.125-127/2012 T.C.(C) NOS.113-114/2012 T.C.(C) NOS.128-130/2012 T.C.(C) NOS.121-122/2012 T.C.(C) NO.112/2012 T.C.(C) NO.131/2012 T.C.(C) NOS.123-124/2012 T.C.(C) NO.111/2012 T.C.(C) NO.120/2012 T.C.(C) NO.119/2012 T.C.(C) NOS.135-137/2012 T.C.(C) NOS.138-139/2012 W.P.(C) NO.495/2012 W.P.(C) NO.511/2012 W.P.(C) NO.512/2012 W.P.(C) NO.514/2012 W.P.(C) NO.516/2012 W.P.(C) NO.519/2012 W.P.(C) NO....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner, through this Public Interest Litigation, has challenged the approval granted by the Government of India dated 24.1.2012 for the acquisition of majority stake in Cairn India Limited (CIL) for US $8.48 billion and also for a direction to the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India (ONGC) to exercise its right of pre-emption over sale of shares of CIL on the same terms without causing any loss or profit to the Cairn Energy, and also for a direction to CBI to investigate the reasons for ONGC, a Government of India Undertaking, in not exercising their legal rights under the Right of First Refusal (RoFR) and giving clearance to the CAIRN – Vedanta Deal on the basis of the existing right to share the royalty and cess on pro-rata basis and also for the consequential reliefs.FACTS2. Government of India had, earlier, retained the exclusive privilege for mining of hydrocarbons, which was carried out on nomination basis through the statutory corporations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
M.Y. Eqbal, J.Leave granted.2. Since common questions of law are involved, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, the factual matrix giving rise to these cases as alleged in the civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 13120 of 2013 is set out hereinafter.3. The appellant – Chandran Ratnaswami, alleged to have settled in Canada since 1974, is an officer of Hamblin Watsa Investment Counsel, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (in short, “Fairfax”) which is based in Canada and has also made investments in India worth more than USD 1 billion. The said appellant is also a Director on the Boards of various renowned companies including ORE Holdings Limited (in short, “ORE”), a Fairfax Group company, based in Mauritius, and has to travel to India on business commitments. The said holding company, ORE on 30th January, 2004 entered into a Joint Venture...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.6 OF 201.Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. ...Petitioner VERSUS Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Respondent JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks a direction from this Court for appointment of the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent and also appointment of third Arbitrator (Presiding Arbitrator) in the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes arises between the parties.2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated and registered under the law of Hong Kong having its project office in India and one of the base offices at Mumbai. The respondent is a Corporation registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Jivan Bharti Tower-2, 124, Circus New Delhi.3. In its counter-affidavit, the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.69 OF 201.Arun Kumar Agrawal .. Petitioner Versus Union of India & Others .. Respondents JUDGMENT K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. Petitioner, through this Public Interest Litigation, has challenged the approval granted by the Government of India dated 24.1.2012 for the acquisition of majority stake in Cairn India Limited (CIL) for US $8.48 billion and also for a direction to the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India (ONGC) to exercise its right of pre-emption over sale of shares of CIL on the same terms without causing any loss or profit to the Cairn Energy, and also for a direction to CBI to investigate the reasons for ONGC, a Government of India Undertaking, in not exercising their legal rights under the Right of First Refusal (RoFR) and giving clearance to the CAIRN Vedanta Deal on the basis of the existing right to share the royalty and cess on pro-rata basis and also for the consequenti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.728 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.9706 of 2012) Nimmagadda Prasad .... Appellant(s) Versus Central Bureau of Investigation .... Respondent(s3. JUDGMENT P.Sathasivam, J.1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 08.10.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.6732 of 2012 in R.C. 19(A)/2011-CBI- Hyderabad, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein for grant of bail. 3) The only question posed for consideration is whether the appellant- herein has made out a case for bail. Brief facts:4. On the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos. 794, 6604 and 6979 of 2011 dated 10.08.2011, the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the CBI), Hyderabad, registered a case being R.C. No.19(A)/2011-CBI-Hyderabad dated 17.08.2011 under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.__4540________OF 201.[Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.13120 OF 2013]. CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI APPELLANT VERSUS K.C. PALANISAMY AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 736-737 __________OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.3273-3274 OF 2013.CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE & ANOTHER RESPONDENTS AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 731-733 __________OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.1924-1926 OF 2013.K.C. PALANISAMY APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE & ANOTHER ETC. ETC. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4537-4538 __________OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.11342-11343 OF 2013.K.C. PALANISAMY APPELLANT VERSUS RAMASWAMY ATHAPPAN & OTHERS ETC. ETC. RESPONDENTS AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 734-735 __________OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.1947-1948 OF 2013.PAUL RIVETT APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE & ANOTHER RESPONDENTS AND CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.166 OF 201.IN S.L.P.(C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks a direction from this Court for appointment of the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent and also appointment of third Arbitrator (Presiding Arbitrator) in the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes arises between the parties. 2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated and registered under the law of Hong Kong having its project office in India and one of the base offices at Mumbai. The respondent is a Corporation registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Jivan Bharti Tower-2, 124, Circus New Delhi. 3. In its counter-affidavit, the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. It is submitted by the respondent that the petitioner has filed the present case only to bring unnecessary litigation. The arbitration petition is an abuse of process of law and the claims made are barred ...
Tag this Judgment!