Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.446 OF2016(Arising out of SLP [Crl.) No.5622/2014) State of M.P. & Anr. Appellants Vs. Rajveer Singh & Ors. Respondents ORDER ARUN MISHRA, J.Leave granted. The appeal has been preferred by the State of M.P. against the order dated 27.2.2013, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.Cr.C. No.8802 of 2011 quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondent Rajveer Singh registered on the basis of complaint lodged by the respondent no.2, Hakim Singh Rawat vide Crime No.332 of 2011 for committing offence under Section 307/34 IPC at Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri. Hakim Singh Rawat, respondent no.2, the complainant lodged a complaint at Police Station, Karera on 3.4.2006 with respect to offence committed on 2.4.2006 in which it was alleged that while he was coming back from Ganna Kesar near Vabdeshu along with his companions, the respondent Rajveer Singh, Assistant Sub Inspect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.190 OF2003Devinder Singh & Ors. Appellants Vs. State of Punjab through CBI Respondent [With Criminal Appeal No.352/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) Nos.3324/2016 @ Crl.MP No.10040/2004, WP (Crl.) No.139/2012, Criminal Appeal No.353/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No.3352/2006, Criminal Appeal No.354/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No.4729/2012, Criminal Appeal No.355/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No.4739/2012, Criminal Appeal No.356/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No.4743/2012, Criminal Appeal No.357/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No.4759/2012, Criminal Appeal No.358/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5369/2012, Criminal Appeal No.360/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5419/2012, Criminal Appeal No.361/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5435/2012, Criminal Appeal No.362/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5522/2012, Criminal Appeal No.363/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5547/2012, Criminal Appeal No.364/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5578/2012, Criminal Appeal No.365/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No.5590/2012, Criminal Appeal No.366/2016 @ SLP (Crl.) No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4359-4360 OF2016[arising out of SLP(C) Nos.3134-3135 of 2015]. M/S. SHINHAN APEX CORPORATION APPELLANT VERSUS M/S. EURO APEX B.V. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.Leave granted. These appeals are directed against the order dated 29.9.2014 in Execution Application No.643 of 2013 in Award dated 23.12.2011 with Chamber Summons No.832 of 2014. To briefly note the facts, there was a Licence Agreement between the appellant and the respondent dated 22.2.1993 which provided for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration in accordance with the Rules of the Dutch Arbitration Institute. The said agreement was sought to be terminated by a notice by the respondent on 12.3.2007. The termination was to take effect from 23.02.2008. The dispute went before the Arbitral Tribunal. On 11.6.2008, the appellant filed an application for registration of Patent Nos.10-0865115 and 100909490 in the Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4361-4366 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.5354-5359 of 2014) VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ...APPELLANT VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant University, namely, Visvesvraya Technological University (VTU) has been constituted under the Visveswaraiah Technological University Act, 1994 (for short VTU Act). It discharges functions earlier performed by the Department of Technical Education, Government of Karnataka. The University exercises control over all Government and Private Engineering Colleges within Karnataka.3. For the Assessment Years 2004-2005 to 2009-2010 notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) were issued to the appellant University Assessee. Eventually returns were filed for the Assessment Years in question declaring 'Nil' income and claiming exemption under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4379 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.13861/2015) AXIS BANK ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS SBS ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. An appeal under Section 18 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act) before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as DRAT) can be entertained only if the borrower deposits fifty per cent of the amount in terms of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as DRT) under Section 17 of the Act or fifty per cent of the amount due from the borrower as claimed by the secured creditor, whichever is less. The Appellate Tribunal may reduce the amount to twenty five per cent. What is the fate of such deposit on the disposal of the appeal is the question arising for consideration in this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4095 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.10868/2016) (@ SLP(C)..CC66522016) Rajesh Verma Appellant(s) VERSUS Ashwani Kumar Khanna Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) Delay in filing special leave petition is condoned. Leave granted.2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 03.12.2015 and 19.02.2016 in Arbitration Petition No.434 of 2015 and I.A. No.754 of 2016 in Arbitration Petition No.434 of 2015 respectively whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed Arbitration Petition No.434 of 2015 and dismissed I.A. No.754 of 2016 in Arbitration Petition No.434 of 2015 seeking change of the named arbitrator.3) In order to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal, it is necessary to state few relevant facts.4) The appellant is an owner/landlord of the shop measuring 153.58 sq. feet situated at 1729, Gali No.5,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4243-4254 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.9520-9531 of 2014) Ramo Bai & Ors. .Appellants Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.4255 of 2016 (@ SLP (C)No.11098/2016 @ CC No.1521/2016) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4256-4260 of 2016 (@ SLP (C)Nos.11099-11103/2016 @ CC Nos.1501-1505/2016) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS42614263 of 2016 (@ SLP (C)Nos.11104-11106/2016 @ CC Nos.5661-5663/2016) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The issue raised in all these appeals pertains to the claim for enhancement of compensation in respect of the land acquired from the appellants. In the High Court they have been granted compensation at the rate of Rs.235/- per Sq. Yd. However, in the case of adjoining lands, the owners have been granted land value at the rate of Rs.325/- per sq.Yd. as per the decision of this Court in the case of Ashrafi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2013 (5) SCC527 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4239 OF2016[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.24712 OF2014]. M/S SHILPA SHARES AND SECURITIES & ORS Appellant(s) VERSUS THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & ORS Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The case before us has a chequered history involving so many litigations. The appellants availed a loan from the first respondent - Bank. The loan was not serviced and hence, the Bank took steps to recover the dues by proceeding against the secured assets of the appellants. In the meanwhile, the Reserve Bank of India announced two One-Time Settlement Schemes, one in the year 2004 and the other in the year 2006.3. According to the appellants, when the matter was under consideration before the Bank, the auction was conducted on 11.02.2008. However, according to the respondents, the auction was conducted after the rejection of the proposal for One-Time Settlement.4. Be that as it may, the au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.365 OF2013CHAMAN AND ANOTHER APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF UTTRAKHAND RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.597 OF2013JUDGMENT AMITAVA ROY, J.The appeals assail the judgment and order dated 11.6.2012, rendered by the High Court of Uttrakhand, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2004, affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302,364 r/w 34 IPC. For the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- each and for the offence under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/- each. Sentence of imprisonment in default of fine has also been awarded. The trial court had convicted and sentenced the appellants in identical terms.2. We have heard Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel for the appellants Chaman and Sukhbeer in Crimina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 33429-33434 OF2010Messer Holdings Ltd. Petitioner Versus Shyam Madanmohan Ruia & Others Respondents WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 23088-23090 OF2012JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J.1. Messer Griesham GmbH, a German Company (hereinafter referred to as MGG) entered into a Share Purchase and Cooperation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as AGREEMENT-1) with the shareholders of an Indian company called Goyal Gases Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GGL) on 12.5.1995. By virtue of the said agreement, MGG purchased 30% of equity shares of GGL. Subsequently, MGG increased its shareholding in GGL to 49%. Clause 9 of the AGREEMENT-1 reads: 9. NON-COMPETITION CLAUSE GGL and all Goyal Group companies will cooperate in the Indian market with right to first refusal basis/with MGG and will not for the duration of this cooperation support in any way directly or indirectly - the activities of M...
Tag this Judgment!