Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.34 OF2009DOMNIC ALEX FERNANDES (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. Appellants Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondents JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against Order dated 11th July, 2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.1088 of 1995.2. The question for consideration is whether tenancy of a property, ownership of which is acquired by a person to whom the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) applies, will be treated as illegally 1 acquired property within the meaning of Section 3(1)(c) of SAFEMA and can be subjected to forfeiture under the provisions thereof.3. Facts giving rise to the issue may be briefly stated. Vide order dated 19th January, 1974 one Krishna Budha Gawde was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2015 OF2007Commissioner of Income Tax Cochin .Appellant(s) VERSUS M/s Travancore Cochin Udyoga Mandal Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the final judgment and order dated 20.05.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Kerala at Ernakulam in ITA No.166 of 2000 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein holding that the claim for 1 deduction of lease rent made by the respondent (assessee) in their Income Tax Return is allowable in that assessment year wherein the dispute relating to lease rent has attained finality and not in the assessment year wherein the lease rent was fixed by the Government.2) Few facts need to be mentioned infra to appreciate the short controversy involved in the appeal.3) The respondent is an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The State Government, in the year 1965, acquired the land m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8938 OF2011Bir Wati & Ors. .Appellant(s) VERSUS Union of India & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 09.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.A. Appeal Nos.587-589 of 2005 at Chandigarh in C.R. No.3823 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein affirming the order dated 21.04.2005 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in L.A.C. No.21 of 2000 dismissing the reference petition filed by the appellants-claimants 1 under the Land Acquisition Act as barred by limitation.2) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention in brief to appreciate the short controversy involved in the appeal.3) The appellants are legal representatives of one Jugal Kishore. On 06.04.1964, the appropriate Government (Delhi) issued a notification under Section 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10463 OF2017Ms. Z ... Appellant(s) Versus The State of Bihar and Others Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.An interlocutory application being I.A. No.64980 of 2017 has been filed seeking certain directions. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that name of the appellant in the cause title be substituted with Ms. Z so that her identity is not revealed; the Registry of the Court shall substitute the name of the appellant with Ms. Z in all records, including on the official website of this Court, and the Registry of the High Court of Patna shall substitute the name of the appellant with Ms. Z in all records, including the official 2 website of the High Court. Leave is granted to the appellant to seek substitution of her name with Ms. Z on all search engines such as google.com, legal websites such as indiakanoon.org as well as legal journals. Interlocutory application is accordi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1422-1423 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.6824-6825 of 2012) THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER .... Appellant(s) Versus MOHAMMED AKRAM .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted. These Appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 29.07.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.940 of 2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore and the judgment dated 10.01.2012 in Criminal Revision Petition No.1177 of 2011.2. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 24.08.2012. As service could not be effected in the normal course, by an order dated 08.05.2014, this Court directed the Appellant to take appropriate steps for effecting the service on the 1 Respondent as per the procedure prescribed under Section 65 of Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.). As the Respondent could not be served, the Registry of this Court was directed to reissue summons to the Respondent which were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5441 OF2015REPORTABLE AZIZIA BEE @ SHAIK MUJEEB (D) THR. LRS. Appellant(s) VERSUS GOVT.OF A.P. & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5442-5456 OF2015DR. GRACE SATHYAVATHY SHASHIKANT & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ANDHRA PRABHA PUBLICATION & ORS. ETC. ETC. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.CIVIL APPEAL No.5441 OF2015 In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.1) 5439-5440/2015 dated 09.08.2017, nothing survives in this appeal.2) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5442-5456 OF2015 The civil appeal is dismissed accordingly.3) The controversy in the present appeals centers around a piece of land ad-measuring 6205 sq. mts. in Survey No.2 129/45/D in Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The appellants before this Court claim their title from a compromise decree dated 30.08.1961 followed by a Sale Deed dated 16.07.1962 to their predecessors.4) On 09.08.2017, this Court had rejected all appeals concerning Survey No.403 part in T.S. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1411 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.1101 OF2017 NON-REPORTABLE G. RAVI VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. APPELLANT(S) RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the High Court, wherein the High Court declined to quash the proceedings instituted against the appellant under Section 420 I.P.C., pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Saundatti. We are happy to note that the parties have decided to 3. purchase peace, without prejudice to the legal contentions available to them. Accordingly, this Court on 31.07.2017 passed the following order:- Mr. K. V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that despite the strong legal position in his favour, the petitioner is interested in settling the dispute without prejudice to the contentions, by paying Rs. 3,50,000/- (Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF2017Om Sai Punya Educational and Social Welfare Society & Another .Petitioners Versus All India Council for Technical Education and Another . Respondents JUDGMENT A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing respondent No.1 to immediately issue a Letter of Approval permitting petitioner No.1-society to start its college, namely Anant Institute of Business Studies from the academic year 2017-2018. The petitioner No.1-society applied in February, 2017 to respondent No.1-All India Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE) for its approval to establish Anant Institute of 2 Business Studies (for short AIBS). The Scrutiny Committee of AICTE (for short SC) tendered a report dated 01.03.2017. The petitioners assert that the report did not point out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3845 OF2008The State of Bihar & Ors. .Appellant(s) VERSUS Modern Tent House & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) This appeal is filed by the defendants against the final judgment and order dated 17.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Patna in C.R. No.1249 of 2005 whereby the High Court disposed of the civil revision filed by the appellants herein while giving them liberty to raise such question in appeal in case the decision of the Trial Court goes against them. 12) Facts of the case need not be mentioned in detail except to the extent necessary for the disposal of this appeal.3) The respondents (plaintiffs) have filed a money suit (Suit No.28 of 2002) in the Court of sub-Judge-1 Chhabra against the appellants (defendants) for recovery of Rs.41,59,418/-. The appellants filed their written statement and denied therein the respondents' claim by joining issues on facts. Issues have acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON-REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10518-10519 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 33360-33361/2015]. PANDURANG DNYANDEV HANKARE APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RAJSHREE SHAHU GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant has come up before this Court aggrieved by the interim order dated 21.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition Nos.4961/2014 and 4963/2014. It is not in dispute that those writ petitions are pending before the High Court. The High Court had, as per the interim order, directed the Labour Court to take a decision subject to the decision of the writ petitions before it. 1 We are informed that the Labour Court has taken 3. such a decision. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the said decision is also under challenge before the High Court. Mr. J.P. Cama, learned senior counsel appearing 4. for the appellant submits that at least the r...
Tag this Judgment!