Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.11396 OF2015UNION OF INDIA PETITIONER VERSUS RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.The present case arises as a sequel to this Courts decision delivered on 28th May, 2014 in Reliance Industries Limited and another v. Union of India, (2014) 7 SCC603 A brief rsum of the facts that led to the judgment of this Court on 28th May, 2014 are as follows:- Two Production Sharing Contracts (hereinafter referred to as PSC) for the Tapti and Panna Mukta Fields were executed between Reliance Industries Limited, the Union of India, Enron Oil and Gas India Limited and the ONGC. The relevant clauses of the PSCs insofar as they are applicable to the present controversy are as follows:- ARTICLE32 APPLICABLE LAW AND LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT321 Subject to the provisions of Article 33.12, this Contract shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of India...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.664 OF2015SNEHASISH MUKHERJEE ... PETITIONER(S) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ha14s already made severalrepresentations on the subject matter of the petition and the last one was made on 5th August, 2015 to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs but the said representations have not been replied so far.2. We are sure that the Ministry of Home Affairs will consider the same and give reply to the said representations of the petitioner at an early date.3. With this hope, we dispose of this writ petition. ..............J.[ANIL R. DAVE]. ..............J.[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]. New Delhi; 21st September, 2015....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1239 OF2015(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.6370 of 2015) VISHAL MAHAJAN ... APPELLANT(S) VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Though served, nobody appears for the respondent-wife.2. Leave granted.3. Upon perusal of the impugned order, we find that a statement had been made by the petitioner-husband with regard to settlement among the parties.4. Looking at the facts of the case, the direction regarding the cost awarded i.e. Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) shall stand deleted as the statement made by the petitioner-husband before the High Court was correct.5. The appeal is disposed of as allowed to the above extent. ..............J.[ANIL R. DAVE]. ................J.[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]. New Delhi; 21st September, 2015....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.169 OF2012IN I.A.NO.2 IN SLP(C)NO.32328 OF2010RAJAT KANODIA (PARTNER) M/S. CLASSIQUE INTERNATIONAL ... PETITIONER(S) VS. R.D.CHAUDHARY (DIRECTOR) M/S. NIJINOY TRADING PVT. LTD. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.241 OF2014IN I.A.NO.2 IN SLP(C)NO.32328 OF2010M/S. NIJINOY TRADING P. LTD. ... PETITIONER(S) VS. RAJAT KANODIA (PARTNER), M/S. CLASSIQUE INTERNATIONAL ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.169 OF2012:1. During the course of hearing, we have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has to recover Rs.3.5 crores (Rupees three crores and fifty lakhs only) from the respondent, whereas according to the respondent, the total amount payable by the respondent to the petitioner is Rs.1.6 crores (Rupees one crore sixty lakhs only).2. Thus, it appears that there is no unanimity with regard to the amount which is to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1257 OF2015(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.6815 of 2015) DR. SHIVRAJ S/O NAMDEO GAIKWAD (LALIKAR) ... APPELLANT(S) VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Heard the learned counsel.2. Leave granted.3. Ad-interim relief granted on 20th August, 2015, is made absolute.4. The appeal is disposed of as allowed to the above extent.5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant shall extend his cooperation to the Investigating Officer. ..............J.[ANIL R. DAVE]. ..............J.[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]. New Delhi; 21st September, 2015. ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).6815/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22/07/2015 in CRLA No.2130/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay At Aurangabad) DR. SHIV...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION No.8 OF2014M/s. TBEA Shenyang Transformers Group Co. Ltd. Petitioner Versus M/s. Alstom Projects India Ltd. Respondent JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. This is a petition under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner company, incorporated in Republic of China, has prayed that an Arbitrator be appointed so as to arbitrate the dispute which the petitioner company is having with the respondent company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, in India.3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner company, the petitioner company had entered into a contract on 24.12.2007 with the respondent company for supply of Transformers and certain other electrical equipments which were necessary for the purpose of setting up Transformers. The said Transfor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1241 OF2015(Arising from S.L.P. (Criminal) No.95/2014) Jasbir Singh Appellant (s) Versus Tara Singh and others Respondent (s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. The de facto complainant has come up in appeal aggrieved by the alleged lenient view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment with regard to the sentence. The party-respondents were tried under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as IPC) for having committed a serious offence of forgery of documents in order to grab the property of one Harbans Singh. The trial court imposed the following sentence:Name of Section R.I. Fine (Rs.) In Default Accused Partapa 466 IPC2years 500/- One month Tara Singh 466/120-B1year 500/- One month 467 IPC3years 1000/- Two months 468 IPC3years 1000/- Two months 471 IPC2years 500/- One months Bhajan Singh 467 IPC3years 1000/- Two months 468 IPC3years 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.1010 OF2014SHUMANA SEN & ANR. ... PETITIONER(S) VS. S.K. SRIVASTAVAAND & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the grievance of the petitioners is that the complaints made by them, which have been referred to in the petition, are not looked into by any one.2. In the circumstances, we direct that the Chairperson of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) will nominate an officer, higher in rank than Respondent No.1, who will look into the grievance of the petitioners within six months from today and shall suggest appropriate action, if any, which should be initiated against the concerned person(s).3. During the course of hearing, the learned Solicitor General has submitted that three chargesheets, which have been annexed to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 - Department concerned, have been filed against R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3219 OF2006Kosha Investments Ltd. ..Appellant Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India & Anr. ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2132 OF2007JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.Both the appeals have been preferred by the same appellant under Section 15Z of the Securities & Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short, SEBI Act). The main appeal is of 2006 and requires detailed consideration. It is directed against order dated 08th August 2005 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal upholding and confirming the order of Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) dated 27th January 2004 directing the appellant to make public announcement in terms of Regulation 11(1) of the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1997). The other appeal is directed against orders passed by SEBI and confirmed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8223 OF2015(Arising out of SLP(C)No.18862 of 2013) INDIAN BANK ... APPELLANT(S) VS. BASHEER M. PICHA & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R DAVE, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard the learned counsel.3. We have considered the peculiar facts and chequered history of the case. We have also noted the fact that the respondent-borrowers and guarantors did not make payment to the appellant-Bank, though, admittedly the amount was due and payable.4. We have gone through the papers and the order passed in OP(DRT)No.3160/2011 by the High Court, wherefrom we find that the respondents were ready and willing to settle the matter by making a further payment of Rs.2 crores (Rupees Two Crores only) in addition to whatever amount had been paid/deposited by the guarantors and the borrowers and the said offer was almost accepted in principle by the appellant Bank.5. The said offer was given by the respondent-guarantors o...
Tag this Judgment!