Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10200 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.1273 OF2016]. M.P. HOUSING BOARD (NOW KNOWN AS M.P HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD) AND ORS. Appellants(s) VERSUS PURUSHOTTAM LAL AND ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. This litigation has a chequered history. However, in the larger interest of the parties, we are happy to note that the entire disputes have been given a quietus in a court-involved settlement.3. The Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated issuing Section 4(1) Notification at the instance of the Madhya Pradesh State Housing Board in the year 1996. According to the Housing Board, they had deposited the entire compensation with the Land Acquisition Collector. But it is not in dispute that the compensation has not been paid to the land owners. In view of the introduction of The Right to 2 Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1339 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) 3594 OF2017]. RAMA SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court in the matter of maintenance to his wife. Having seen the ailing condition of the appellant, who is present before us today, this Court passed the following order on 03.05.2017 :- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and Respondent No.2 have been living separately ever since 1994 and in case notice is issued, there is a fair chance of settlement of the disputes once and for all. 2 In view of the above submission, issue notice to Respondent No.2 only, returnable on 13.07.2017. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are directed to be present before this court on 13.07.2017. In the meanwhile, there will b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9951 OF2017(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.27646 of 2014) U. Manjunath Rao Appellant(s) Versus U. Chandrashekar & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to the legal acceptability of the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.1626 of 2010 whereby the learned single Judge has declined to interfere in the appeal preferred by the first defendant questioning the defensibility of the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2010 passed by the learned XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore in O.S. No.16950 of 2004. 2 2. The narration of facts as is evincible from the impugned judgment are that the first defendant was aggrieved as he was directed by the trial Court to execute a rectification deed in respect of property description No.2 in B-schedule in the partition dee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1336 OF2017(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10249 OF2014 State through Central Bureau of Investigation .... Appellant(s) Versus Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J.1) Leave granted.2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2013 passed by learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.C. No.4360 of 2012 whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein against the order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the Special Judge (CBI-01), New Delhi in C.C. No.02/2012 wherein charges have been framed against the respondent herein. 13) Brief facts: (a) At the relevant time, Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava-respondent herein was posted as the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-1 Commissionerate. On 02.01.2012, on the basis of source information, a case under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7460 OF2009REPORTABLE NAGAR NIGAM, ALLAHABAD THROUGH ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER VERSUS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) Appellant(s) JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.1) Mr. T.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Nagar Nigam has assailed the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in which the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India was held not to be covered by the expression insurance company under a notification dated 30.01.1999 issued by the appellant.2) The judgment under appeal has held:We also notice that in Item No.25 of the Schedule annexed with the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad Notification dated 13.01.99/Annexure-2 to the writ petition without an exception various establishments, undertakings etc. are all in essence pure and simple business or commercial units. In category Ga, Serial No.1 of the list refers to Finance Company/Chit Fund. It is 2 followed by Item ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10017 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.20511 OF2008]. M/S.ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRAST.LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.1. 2. The issue pertains to the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-State. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, in view of the introduction of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short,201. Act), the question arose as to whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed or not.3. On the admitted position that the compensation has not been paid to the owners, in view of the settled position, this Court has to give a declaration that the proceedings have lapsed. Ordered accordingly.4. Now that the entire acquired land has been used by the State, the only option available to them is to initiate fre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 (Non-Reportable) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10018 OF2017(Arising out of SLP (C) No.36105 of 2014) Smt. Surekha & Ors. .Appellant(s) Versus The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 5th April, 2014 passed in MFA No.30749 of 2012 (WC), seeking enhancement of compensation. The records reveal that Mr. Anand (the deceased) met with an accident while driving Mahindra Temp Trax bearing No.KA023/M-7391 during the course of his duty and 2 sustained severe injuries. He died during the course of treatment leaving behind his wife, child and aged parents. The appellants (wife, child and parents) claimed compensation before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Labour Officer, DN-II, Bijapur.3. The Commissioner while assessing the compensation held that the income of the deceased was at Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1962 OF2011Sanjay Khanderao Wadane .... Appellant(s) Versus State of Maharashtra WITH .... Respondent(s) CRIMINAL APPEAL No.604 OF2012JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J.1) The above appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 246 and 250 of 2009 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated 09.04.2009 passed by the Court of Sessions, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.88 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 1 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC).2) (a) Brief facts: It is the case of the prosecution that on the fateful evening of 31.01.2008, Ravindra Kale (since deceased) was beaten to death by the appellants herein and others,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3696 OF2017RUSTOM KERAWALLA FOUNDATION APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ... RESPONDENTS With CIVIL APPEAL NO.3698 OF2017WITH TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.89/2013 WITH TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.90/2013 JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. Rustom Kerawalla Foundation (appellant in Civil Appeal No.3696 of 2017 and hereinafter referred to as the Foundation), runs a school named Vibgyor High School (appellant in Civil Appeal No.3698 of 2017 and hereinafter referred to as the School) in Mumbai. These appellants are 2 questioning correctness of the common Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition Nos.1925 of 2009 and 1919 of 2009 preferred by them. Along with these appeals, two transfer petitions, namely T.P.(C) Nos.89 and 90 of 2013 preferred by the Appellants are also listed before us. These writ petitions challenged the orders dated 03.07.2009 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9295 OF2017COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI VERSUS HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM M/S. CORPORATION LTD. .....APPELLANT(S) .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.9296 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.9297 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.9298 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.9299 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.9300 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.9301 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.9302 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.9303 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.9304 OF20172 CIVIL APPEAL No.9305 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.9306 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.9307 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.9308 OF2017A N D CIVIL APPEAL No.9309 OF2017JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The question of law that arises of consideration in all these appeals, which are filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, is identical. The respondents-assessees in these appeals are engaged in the process of bottling Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Cylinders meant for domestic use. They are claiming benefit of Sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA of the Inco...
Tag this Judgment!