Court : Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal Nos.9740-9741 of 2018 Dinesh Textiles v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Calicut Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9740-9741 of 2018 Dinesh Textiles . Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Calicut . Respondent JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. These appeals filed under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Excise Act) question the correctness of the Final Order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Central Excise Appeal No.E/370/2008-DB and Misc. Order No.20697 of 2018 dated 15.06.2018 Civil Appeal Nos.9740-9741 of 2018 Dinesh Textiles v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Calicut 2 passed by the Tribunal rejecting application seeking rectification of mistake.2. The Appellants are trader...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).11311 OF2013ADJUDICATING OFFICER, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BHAVESH PABARI RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No.1824/2014, C.A. No.9798/2014, C.A. No.9797/2014, C.A. No.9799/2014, C.A. No.14728/2015, C.A. No.14730/2015, C.A. NO.14729/2015, C.A. No.33/2017, C.A. No.1009/2017, C.A. No.2641/2017, C.A. No.6160/2018, C.A. No.9563/2018 JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.1. 2. Delay condoned. Two primary questions, in a way interconnected, have been referred by the Referral judgment and order dated 14th March, 2016 passed in Siddharth Chaturvedi 2 Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India 1. The correctness of the view expressed on the said two questions by a numerical smaller bench of this Court in Securities and Exchange Board of India through its Chairman vs. Roofit Industries Limited 2 would coincidentally arise. The questions referred can be enumerated and summarized as follows: (i) Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6221 OF2011THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (II) WEST BENGAL VERSUS ...APPELLANT(S) VIVEKANANDA VIDYAMANDIR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 39653966 OF2013SURYA ROSHNI LTD. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 39693970 OF2013UFLEX LTD. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 39673968 OF2013MONTAGE ENTERPRSES PVT. LTD. VERSUS EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANT(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) 1 TRANSFER CASE (C) NO(s).19 OF2019(arising out of T.P.(C)No.1273 OF2013 THE MANAGEMENT OF SAINTGOBAIN GLASS INDIA LTD. ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The appellants with the exception of Civil Appeal No.6221 of 2011, are establishments covered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1669 OF2009MRS. NEERAJ DUTTA Appellant VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Respondent JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 02.04.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos.15 and 4 of 2007 in and by which the High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon her.2. Complainant-Ravijit Singh Sethi received a phone call from the appellant who was working as LDC in Delhi Vidyut Board on 17.04.2000 at 07.30 am asking the 1 complainant to meet her at her house in connection with installation of electricity meter at his shop. When complainant met the appellant, she demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- for installation of meter which was subsequently reduced to Rs.10,000/- after negotiation. The appellant agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
SLP(C)No.4251-4252 of 2018 Abdul Hakeem M.A. & Ors. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Reportable (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NOs.4251-4252 OF2018 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2388-2389 OF2019ABDUL HAKEEM M.A. & ORS. Appellants VERSUS MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY & ORS. ... Respondents WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NOS. 4255-4256 OF2018(Jacob K. Daniel vs. Mahatma Gandhi University, Priyadarshini Hills & Anr.) JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.Special Leave Petition (Civil)Nos. 4251-4252 of 2018 1.2. Leave granted. The appellants question the judgment and orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (i) dated 20.11.2015 in Writ Appeal No.442 of 2014 arising from Original Petition SLP(C)No.4251-4252 of 2018 Abdul Hakeem M.A. & Ors. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors. 2 No.3818 of 2003 and (ii) dated 20.09.2017 in Review Petition No.151 of 2016 in Writ Appeal No.442 of 2014.3. According to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Crl.A. No.1804 of 2011 etc. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1804 OF2011SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH ...Appellant VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1805 OF2011R. Subhash Reddy, J.JUDGMENT1 These two criminal appeals, arising out of Judgment dated 26.09.1997 passed in Special Case No.18/1982, by Special Judge C.B.I. (North), Patna, as such they are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment.2. In these appeals, the appellants have challenged the common judgment in criminal appeal nos. 281 and 1 Crl.A. No.1804 of 2011 etc. 282 of 1997 dated 17.02.2009, passed by the High Court of Patna.3. The appellants herein are accused nos. 3 and 1 respectively, in Special Case No.18 of 1982, before the Special Judge, C.B.I. (North), Patna. They were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1766 OF2019MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.1. The present appeal arises out of a dispute under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. The relief sought through a petition before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi [TDSAT]. by the respondent, Tata Communication Ltd. against the appellant, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., is for a recovery of a sum of INR110,57,268/- plus interest thereon. The question that arose between the parties is whether the appellant was 1 justified in adjusting this amount from the dues payable to the respondent by deduction from the bills raised by the respondent. Since the Purchase Order dated 01.10.2008 forms the basis for the claim, it is important to set out clauses 4 and 8 of the said Purchase Order as under: 4. SCOPE OF ORDER xxx xxx xxx iv. Terminatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.83668367 OF2010Gaddam Ramulu & Anr. .Appellant(s) VERSUS Joint Collector, Adilabad District & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 21.02.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.1442 of 2004 and judgment and order dated 29.01.2008 in Review CMP No.4647 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the civil revision petition and the review petition filed by the appellants herein. 1 2. A few relevant facts need mention infra for disposal of these appeals.3. The dispute relates to a land measuring Ac.13.02 guntas in Survey No.92, Ac.1.02 guntas in Survey No.93 and 28 guntas in Survey No.95 situated in Garmilla Village, Mancherial Adilabad (hereinafter referred to as the suit land).4. One Mr. Gaddam Durgaiah held the suit land as a protected tenant under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.37375 OF2016DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PETITIONER VERSUS VIRENDER LAL BAHRI & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.37372 OF2016MA No.1423 OF2017IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.12247 OF2016MA No.1787 OF2017IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.10210 OF2016MA No.1786 OF2017IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.10207 OF2016MA No.45 OF2018IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6239 OF20171 JUDGMENT R.F. NARIMAN, J.1. This batch of cases relates to whether the proviso contained in Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [2013 Act]. is a proviso to Section 24(1)(b) or whether it is a proviso to Section 24(2). The reason for this confusion is because of the placement of the proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. This is a case where the old British ditty comes to mind: Im the Parliaments draftsman, I compose the countrys laws, And of ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5043 OF2009SHRI RAM MANDIR INDORE .Appellant VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 06.08.2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in and by which the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal No.266 of 2002 thereby affirming the findings of the First Appellate Court that Shri Ram Mandir, Indoukh is a public temple and that the suit property is vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple.2. Briefly stated case of the appellant is as follows:- Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple of which Mahant and Manager is Ram Das and that he has been continuing to perform 1 pooja-archana and management of the temple since the time of his guru. Earlier to him, his Guru Shri Shiromani Das Ji and still earlier to him, his ancestor guru used to offer pooja-ar...
Tag this Judgment!