Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1653 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.31265 of 2010) Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and another .. Appellants Versus Anand Darshan C.H.S. Ltd. and others ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1654 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32678 of 2010) JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals challenge the common Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos.8194 of 2009 and 2980 of 2010.3. The subject of division of an existing Co-operative society in the State of Maharashtra is dealt with by Section 18 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which Section is to the following effect:- 18. POWER TO DIRECT AMALGAMATION, DIVISION AND REORGANISATION IN PUBLIC INTEREST, ETC: (1) Where the Registrar is satisfied that it is essential in the public interest, or in the interest of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1672 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.38616 of 2012) |DHEERAJ DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED |Appellant(s) | Versus |DR. OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND OTHERS |Respondent(s) | W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.1673 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.39155 of 2012) KAILASH AGARWAL AND OTHERS Appellant(s) Versus OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND OTHERS Respondent(s) CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1674-1675 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.34813-34814 of 2014) ANURADHA AGRAWAL Appellant(s) Versus OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Delay condoned.3. Leave granted.4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court in First Appeal, against the judgment dated 8th April, 2005 in Civil Suit No.93A/1996 (renumbered Civil Suit No.20A/2001; 6A/2003) on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, reversed the decree for specific performance.5. The Trial Court had framed the followin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1684 OF2016[@ SPEICAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 22141 OF2013 RAM RATI Appellant (s) VERSUS MANGE RAM (D) THR LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. There are two suits filed by the respective parties and pending before the Tis Hazari Courts at Delhi. Civil Suit No.43 of 2009 was filed by the respondents herein for declaration and injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. In respect of very same property, the appellant herein also filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and that suit has been numbered as Civil Suit No.44 of 2009. The suits were consolidated on 26.09.2005. Much before that, evidence in Civil Suit No.44 of 2009 had commenced and the appellant herein had been examined as PW1 and the respondents herein had cross-examined PW1 as well. That evidence was closed on 16.04.2005. After the consolidation of the two suits, the respondents herein filed an applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1643 OF2012(Arising out of SLP (C) No.4522 of 2016 SATYENDRA SINGH APPELLANT VERSUS SAROJ RANI AND ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Heard learned counsel for Respondent No.1 The others are proforma respondents and it is not necessary to issue notice to them.2. Leave granted.3. The only grievance now before us is that even during the pendency of review application filed by the appellant before the High Court, the High Court is proceeding with contempt proceedings.4. Having Heard the learned counsel for the respondents also, we feel that in the interest of justice, the High Court should dispose of the review application No.82/2009 filed in Writ Petition No.2889 (M/B) of 1992 within a period of one month from today. We also request the High Court to defer contempt proceedings against the appellant till the review application is disposed of.-.2- 5. We make it clear that neither the pendency of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.14016 OF2015SAYYED RATANBHAI SAYEED (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. .APPELLANTS VERSUS SHIRDI NAGAR PANCHAYAT & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3154 OF2011SAYYED RATANBHAI SAYEED (D) TH. LRS. & ANOTHER APPELLANTS VERSUS THE TAHASILDAR, RAHATA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3155-3157 OF2011GANGADHAR KASHINATH TURKANE & ORS. ETC. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC. ..RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3158 OF2011KRUSHNARAO (D) THR. L.R. .APPELLANT VERSUS THE TAHASILDAR, RAHATA AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.14017 OF2015PRADEEP AND ANOTHER .APPELLANTS VERSUS SHIRDI NAGAR PANCHAYAT & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT AMITAVA ROY,J.The appellants, ostensibly small scale shopkeepers located in the vicinity of the internationally revered seat of Shirdi Sai Baba at Shirdi Taluq, Rohata, District Ahmadnagar, Maharashtra, face ouster from their sites, being entrapped i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
|Non-Reportable | IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (C) No.888 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL No.1810 OF2009COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION & ORS. APPELLANTS Vs. M/S ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH REVIEW PETITION (C) No.890 OF2015IN I.A. No.7 OF2014IN CIVIL APPEAL No.1810 OF2009AND REVIEW PETITION (C) D. NO.1093 OF2015IN I.A. No.7 OF2014IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1810 OF2009JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.Review Petition (C) No.888 of 2015: Delay condoned in filing the Review Petition.2. This Review Petition is filed seeking review of the impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2013 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.1810 of 2009, whereby the said appeal was dismissed with a direction to the Review Petitioners- Appellants to make and publish an award in respect of the remaining suit land within four months from the date of the impugned judgment and pay compensation to Respondent No.1. herein. I.A. No.7 of 2014 was filed by the Review Petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1629 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.22902 of 2011) Shaji K. Joseph ... Appellant Versus V. Viswanath & Ors. ... Respondents JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The issue involved in this appeal is with regard to election of a member to the Dental Council of India under Section 3 (a) of the Dentists Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. and Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'].. Respondent no.1 herein wanted to contest the election, but as his name was not in the electoral roll in Part A of the register of dentists for the State, his nomination form had not been accepted by the Returning Officer, Respondent no.3 herein. In these circumstances, Respondent no.1 preferred Writ Petition (C) No.4075 of 2011 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam challenging the validity of rejection of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1545 OF2016(Arising out of SLP ( C) No.35512 of 2011) SUBHASH & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS GURU TEG BAHADUR HOSPITAL GOVT.OF NCT DELHI & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1546 OF2016(Arising out of SLP ( C) No.830 of 2012) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants had been, according to them working as Class-IV employees under the respondent-Hospital during two spells. However, there is no record to show that they have been employed by the Hospital and have been paid directly by the Hospital.3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though it was a direct employment by the Hospital, in order to deny regularization, their wages were being paid through the Contractor. However, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellants have never been employed by the Hospital and being the employees of a Contractor, they were paid by the Contractor.4. Having heard the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.4-7 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.9220 OF2014KATHURIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. These applications have been filed in decided appeal arising out of order of the High Court of Delhi dated 27th March, 2014 in W.P. (C) No.2009 of 2014.2. The issue in the appeal involved validity of acquisition of land and consequent handing over of possession. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) was issued on 23rd January, 1965 after which the appellant claims to have purchased the land. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 26th December, 1968. Award for compensation was made by the Collector on 30th March, 1981. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition being Writ Petition (Civil) No.586 of 1981 before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed on 14th December, 1995 w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5759 OF2012M/S JAGRAON EXPORTS APPELLANT VERSUS C.I.T-I LUDHIANA RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5760 OF2012WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5761 OF2012WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5762 OF2012WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5763 OF2012WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5764 OF2012WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5765 OF2012WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5766-5771 OF2012WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5772 OF2012WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2531 OF2013WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.10916 OF2013JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. The issue in these appeals pertains to the question whether the proceeds generated from the sale of scrap would be included in the total turnover.2. In the recent decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries & Ors. reported in [2014]. 364 ITR144(SC) it has been held that sale proceeds generated from the sale of scrap would not be included in the total turnover for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961...
Tag this Judgment!