Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.786 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.20607 of 2010) D.NAGESWAR RAO APPELLANT VERSUS S.B.I & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT KURIAN,J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant committed default in repaying the loan availed by him from the Respondent No.1-Bank. Consequently, the Bank initiated steps under The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to recover the loan amount and obtained a decree for an amount of Rs.92,94,183/-.3. Since the appellant could not satisfy the decreetal amount, the Bank proceeded further and put the property to auction. Respondent No.3 is the auction purchaser. The property was auctioned for an amount of Rs.48,80,000/-. The Respondent No.3 had deposited the entire amount of Rs.48,80,000/- before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, though belatedly, and the same is kept in an interest bearing account.4. When the matter came up on an earlier occasion, we directed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.527 OF2011TRAINED NURSES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ... PETITIONER(S) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Association, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.37, i.e., Indian Nursing Council and other learned counsel appearing for different States.2. The petitioner-Association has ventilated its grievance with regard to the working conditions of nurses in private hospitals and nursing homes. The prayers made in this petition read as under : a) issue guidelines for improving the working condition of nurses in hospitals/nursing homes; b) direct all the respondents to adhere to the guidelines/rules framed by this Hon'ble Court till necessary legislation is made by the Parliament/State Legislative Assemblies; c) issue necessary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 788-789 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31469-31470 of 2014) MOHAN LAL APPELLANT VERSUS MOHAN LAL & ORS RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT KURIAN,J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 25.07.2013 and 18.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The application filed by the respondent under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) CPC in Suit No.219/2004 on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jodhpur was allowed.3. On the question of limitation on redemption of usufructuary mortgage, the High Court has placed reliance on Sampuran Singh & Others Vs. Niranjan Kaur & Others reported in (1999) 2 SCC679and Prabhakaran & Others Vs. M. Azhagiri Pillai reported in (2006) 4 SCC484 The position taken by the High Court in those decisions has been held to be no more good law in Singh Ram Vs. Sheo Ram and Others reported in (2014) 9 SCC185wherein it has been held...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9748 OF2003M/s. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. Appellant (s) VERSUS Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. Respondent (s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9749 OF2003CIVIL APPEAL NO.9750 OF2003JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.These cases have been referred by a two-Judges Bench of this Court on the question as to whether, in the facts of the case, the principles of promissory estoppel can be invoked in favour of the appellants so as to entitle them to the benefit of concessional tariff of electricity. Civil Appeal No.9748 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No.9750 of 2003 have identical facts. In fact the appellant in Civil Appeal No.9750 of 2003 is the successor-in-interest of the appellant in Civil Appeal No.9748 of 2003. The facts in the third appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No.9749 of 2003 are also largely similar. The appellant in C.A.No.9748 of 2003 M/s. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. had proposed to set up a caustic soda ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2446 OF2007Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala ..Appellant Versus M/s K.T.C. Automobiles ..Respondent JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala has preferred this appeal against judgment and order dated 20.3.2006 passed by the High Court of Kerala in MFA No.1000 of 2002. The High Court exercising an appellate power allowed the appeal filed by M/s K.T.C. Automobiles, the respondent herein and set aside the original order passed by the Intelligence Officer under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (for brevity KGST Act) imposing a penalty of Rs.86 lakhs upon the respondent dealer for the alleged non-maintenance of complete and true accounts during the period 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000. The High Court also set aside the suo-motu order of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 12.8.2002 passed under section 37 of the KGST...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS._614-615 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NOS. 26170-26171 OF2008 M/S MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. & ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS BIFR & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeals raise interesting questions on the interplay between the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The facts in appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26170-26171 of 2008 are as follows.3. The net worth of the Appellant No.1 Company, having eroded completely, the appellant No.1 company filed a reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 before the BIFR, which was registered as BIFR Case No.115 of 1989. On 13.12.1989, after making an inquiry under Section 16(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.618-620 OF2016(Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.9921-9923 of 2014) SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER & ORS. APPELLANTS Vs. S.C.R. CATERERS, DRY FRUITS, FRUIT JUICE STALLS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.Applications for intervention are allowed. Leave granted. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. Nos. 1573-1575 of 2013, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of the learned single Judge, wherein it was held that the respondents are entitled to get their licenses renewed under the Catering Policy, 2010. The relevant facts which are required for us to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder: Respondents before us are the South Central Railway Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.85 OF2016(@ S.L.P.(Criminal) No.6298 of 2015) Dharam Pal ... Appellant Versus State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.2. Cry for fair trial by the accused as well as by the victim sometimes remains in the singular and individualistic realm, may be due to the perception gatherable from the facts that there is an attempt to contest on the plinth of fairness being provoked by some kind of vengeance or singularity of affected purpose; but, irrefutably a pronounced and pregnant one, there are occasions when the individual cry is not guided by any kind of revengeful attitude or anger or venom, but by the distressing disappointment faced by the grieved person in getting his voice heard in proper perspective by the authorities who are in charge of conducting investigation and the frustration of a victim gets more aggravated when he is impecunious, and mentally shattered owing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.585 2016 [Arising out of SLP [C]. No.18910 of 2010]. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. Appellants Vs. M/s. Bhola Ram Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appeal has been preferred aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the writ petition and the appeal, thereby quashing the demand raised by the appellant for the year 1999-2000. M/s. Bhola Ram Steel Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ application that it was an industrial unit to manufacture iron and steel structure and section like bar roll, place angle, channel, square, tor and round, general fabrication and annulling of sheets it applied as HTIS consumer for a connected load of 500 KVA. The competent authority sanctioned a load of 500 KVA vide letter dated 24.2.1998. The respondent-industry commenced production w.e.f. 28.3.1998. The appellant averred that on 23.1.19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.652 OF2012Union of India Appellant Versus Mohanlal & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, J.1. When this appeal came up for hearing before us on 11th April, 2012, it was contended by learned counsel for the appellant-Union of India that Standing Order No.1 of 1989 dated 13th June, 1989 which prescribes the procedure to be followed for seizure, sampling, safe keeping and disposal of the seized Drugs, Narcotics and Psychotropic substances is being followed throughout the country. It was also contended that Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, has in terms of a Circular dated 23rd February, 2011 impressed upon the Chief Secretaries and the concerned police heads of the State Governments to ensure that instructions given and the procedure prescribed in the Standing Order aforementioned was strictly adhered to. These submissions notwithstanding, doubts about the procedur...
Tag this Judgment!