Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.554 OF2006|DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND |.....APPELLANT(S) | |ANOTHER | | |VERSUS | | |M/S. KANAK EXPORTS AND ANOTHER |.....RESPONDENT(S) | W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.658 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.1587 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL No.1589 OF2006TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.32 OF2007TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.33 OF2007TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.36 OF2007TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.1 OF2008TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.3 OF2008WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.27 OF2008TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.49 OF2009WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.343 OF2009WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.246 OF2010A N D TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.OF2015(ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No.568 OF2014 JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Civil Appeal No.554 of 2006 Civil Appeal No.658 of 2006 Civil Appeal No.1587 of 2006 Civil Appeal No.1589 of 2006 Transfer Case (Civil) No.36 of 2007 Transfer Case (Civil) No.1 of 2008 Transfer Case (Civil) No.3 of 2008 Transfer Case (Civil) No.49 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4112 OF2007|M/S. MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES LTD. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The appellant-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn which is 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) constituted as per Export and Import Policy 1997-2002. During the period August, 2000 to March, 2001, it had cleared the aforesaid cotton yarn made to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). While clearing these goods, the appellant did not pay normal excise duty that is chargeable for the aforesaid product. Instead it took benefit of Notification No.8/97-C.E. dated 01.03.1997 and paid duty at concessional rate in terms of the said notification. This notification provides for concessional rate to those products which are cleared to DTA by an EOU. However, one of the conditions for availing the benefit of the said notification is that the products tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.444 OF2015Dr. Sandeep s/o Sadashivrao Kansurkar ... Petitioner(s) and Others Versus Union of India and Others ... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The gravamen of grievance and the substratum of discontent of the petitioners in this writ petition, preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is that though the primary eligibility criteria for appearing in the super-specialty entrance examination conducted in different States in India for admission to D.M. (Doctorate of Medicine) and M.Ch. (Masters of Chirurgiae) course regard being had to the purpose that it endows the students an excellent opportunity to prosecute super specialty subjects and to fulfill their aspirations for a bright and vibrant career as well as to serve the society in the institutes recognized by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and most of the States, namely, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajastha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5293 OF2010Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. ... Appellant Versus New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondents With Civil Appeal No.6641 of 2010 MD Karnataka Road Transport Corpn. & Anr. Appellants Versus Thippamma & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The questions involved in the appeals are whether in the wake of lease agreement entered into by registered owner with Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the KSRTC), the registered owner and insurer along with KSRTC can be fastened with the liability to make payment to the claimants and whether KSRTC can recover the amount from registered owner and its entitlement to seek indemnification from insurer?.2. The facts giving rise to Civil Appeal No.5293 of 2010 reflect that the accident in question was caused by the bus which was driven under the control of KSRTC. The bus was owned by respondent no.2, T.M. Gan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8909 OF2015Arising out of SLP(C) No.1120 of 2015 ASHOK RANGNTH NAGAR .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SHRIKANT GOVINDRAO SANGVIKAR ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A.No.8910/2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1121/2015) C.A.No.8911/2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1122/2015) ORDER Leave granted.2. We have heard Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Chandrakant Giri, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents and perused the common impugned judgment dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Bombay High Court.3. The short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the High Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment without formulating any substantial question of law.4. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the plaintiff- respondents filed a civil suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant-appellant seeking a decree restraining him from alienating the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1416 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8036 of 2015) Rajendra Prakash Agrawal Appellant(s) VERSUS Union of India & Anr. Respondent(s) ORDER Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the final order dated 19.08.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19406 of 2015 filed by the appellant herein whereby the High Court rejected the bail application filed by the appellant herein.3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state the few relevant facts in brief.4. The appellant and others are facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13 (2) and Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pursuant to FIR bearing Case Crime No.RC- 1202013A0003 of 2013 lodged at Police ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.13 OF2015Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another Petitioner(s) versus Union of India Respondent(s) With |WRIT PETITION (C) No.14 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.18 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.23 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.24 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.70 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.83 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.108 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.124 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.209 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.309 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.310 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.323 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.341 OF2015| |TRANSFER PETITION(C) No.391 OF2015 |TRANSFER PETITION (C) No.971 OF2015 | | JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.Index |Sl.No.|Contents |Paragraphs|Pages | |1. |The Recusal Order | 1 - 18| 1 - | | | | |15 | | | | | | |2. |The Reference Order | 1 - 101| 16 - 169| |I |The Challenge | 1 - | 16 - | | | |9 |19 | |II. |The Background to the Challenge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.786 of 2008 KAMAL @ POORIKAMAL & ANR. . Appellants Versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU . Respondent JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. This appeal by Special Leave challenges the judgment and order dated 28.06.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissing Criminal Appeal No.572 of 2003 preferred by the appellants herein and thereby affirming the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Sessions Case No.344 of 2002.2. One Sultan Meeran hereinafter referred to as Sultan, resident of Coimbatore fell in love with a Hindu girl, converted her to Islam and married her. Thereafter he converted another Hindu girl to Islam and married her as well. This conduct on the part of Sultan, according to the prosecution, enraged the first appellant who one month prior to the incident in question had gone to the house of the deceased. He called Sultan a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8731 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.19617 of 2015) SHAILESH DHAIRYAWAN APPELLANT VERSUS MOHAN BALKRISHNA LULLA ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted.2. The respondent had filed a suit in the Bombay High Court, being Suit No.1927 of 2007, against the appellant and some others seeking a declaration that a development agreement dated 27.12.2004 together with a Power of Attorney of even date had stood terminated, and for certain other reliefs.3. On 3.10.2008, the parties to the suit entered into consent terms largely settling the disputes between them. However, with regard to two specific differences, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 agreed to refer the said differences to the arbitration of a retired Supreme Court Judge as follows:- 8). The Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 agree to and hereby do refer to Arbitration of Mrs. Justice Sujata Manohar (Retd.) the dispute as to (i) t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1770 OF2005STATE OF GUJARAT APPELLANT VERSUS M/S KOTHARI AND ASSOCIATES RESPONDENT JUDGMENT VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.1 This Appeal lays siege to the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad which dismissed the appeal of the Appellant before us while allowing the cross-objection filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent by holding it to be entitled to claim interest for an extended period. For the reasons which will follow, we have set aside these concurrent findings against the Appellant State, principally on the ground that the claim of the Respondent stood barred by the principles of prescription as contained in the Limitation Act, 1963. 2 The Appellant State invited tenders for providing lining to the main canal line. The Respondent, a registered partnership, submitted a tender that was accepted by the Appellant State. Thereafter a regular agreement was entered into according to ...
Tag this Judgment!