Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.102 OF2011M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER .. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENT(S) ORDER The impugned order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. (MD) No.11620 of 2009 filed by S. Janaki, the first respondent before us, directs the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, K.K. Nagar, Trichy to register a case, that is, First Information Report, on the basis of the complaint dated 18.09.2008 and after investigation file the final report in accordance with law.2. Aggrieved, Mr. M. Subramaniam and Mr. R.V. Prasanna Venkatesan who were not even made parties to the aforesaid Criminal O.P. (MD) No.11620 of 2009 have filed the present petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. By order dated 12.03.2010, the permission to file Special Leave Petition was granted and notice was issued. On considering the facts and Criminal Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8590 of 2010 RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSESSMENT) & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the Division Bench judgment dated 13.11.2007 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by which D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.837 of 1993 filed by the Revenue has been allowed upholding the demand of additional tax under Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal are: The assessee is a Government Company as defined 2 under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee filed return on 30.12.1991 for the assessment year 1991-92 showing a loss amounting to Rs. (-)427,39,32,972/-. Due to a bonafide mistake the assessee claimed 100% depreciation of Rs. 333,77,70,317/- on writt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9918 OF2011NAND RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S) JAGDISH PRASAD (D) THROUGH LRS. .....RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. 2.3. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 12th November, 2010 whereby the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and the suit for possession of land comprising in Khasra No.9/19 measuring 3 Bighas 11 Biswas was dismissed. The appellants-plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8, as legal heirs of one Bhagwana, filed a suit for possession asserting that they were owners in possession of land measuring 3 Bighas 11 Biswas comprising in Khasra No.9/19 and land measuring 1 Bigha 16 Biswas comprising in Khasra No.9/20/2, total measuring 5 Bighas 7 Biswas in the revenue estate of Village Tatarpur, Delhi. The land measuring 1 Bigha 19 Biswas out of Khasra No.9/19 and 1 16 Biswas out of Khasra No.9/20/2, in total...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.5368 OF2020THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, BHERAMARI A.M. HIGH MADRASAH & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.5369 OF2020[THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, METEKONA MOULANA ABU TAHER SENIOR MADRASAH & ANR. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS]. ORDER1 The petitioners challenge the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dated 19.2.2020 thereby dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners, which, 2 in turn, were filed by them being aggrieved by the orders passed by the single judge of the High Court dated 24.12.2019 vide which the writ petitions filed by the petitioners came to be rejected.2. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits, that the single judge of the High Court erred in directing appointment of an Administrator.3. Undisputedly, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 89338934 OF2017Rajasthan High Court ..... Appellants(s) VERSUS Ved Priya & Anr. .....Respondents(s) JUDGMENT These civil appeals have been preferred by the Rajasthan High Court against the order dated 16.12.2014 by which a Division Bench of the said High Court dismissed a petition for review of its earlier order dated 09.11.2014 wherein the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by Ved Priya (Respondent No.1 a former judicial officer) and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits and seniority. FACTS2 Respondent No.1 was recruited into the Rajasthan Judicial Services on 16.07.2002 and appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division)cumJudicial Page | 1 Magistrate. He was placed on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 02.08.2002, which was later extended by a further period of two months on 28.07.2004.3. Certain allegations of misdemeanour and corruption in discharge of judicial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2175 OF2020@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.8123 OF2015BANK OF BARODA PETITIONER(S) Versus KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.Leave granted.2. What is the limitation for filing an application for execution of a foreign decree of a reciprocating country in India?. is the short but interesting question which arises for decision in this case.3. Vysya Bank, which is the predecessor of the respondent Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., issued a letter of credit for US1$1,794,258 on behalf of its customer M/s. Aditya Steel Industries Limited in favour of M/s. Granada Worldwide Investment Company, London. The appellant Bank of Baroda was the confirming bank to the said letter of credit. The Vysya Bank issued instructions to the London branch of the appellant on 12.10.1992 to honour the letter of credit. Acting on this instruction the London branch of the appellant discounted the letter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 2014 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 2150 of 2020) The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer and Anr Kesar Lal Versus Appellants Respondent JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1The neat issue which has to be adjudicated upon in this appeal is whether a construction worker who is registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 19961 and is a beneficiary of the Scheme made under the Rules framed pursuant to the enactment, is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The issue assumes significance because the answer will determine whether a beneficiary of a statutory welfare scheme is entitled to exact accountability by invoking the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 1 Act of 1996 2 2 Parliament enacted the Act of 1996 to regulate the employment and conditions o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 2566 of 2019 Bengaluru Development Authority ...Appellant Versus Mr Sudhakar Hegde & Ors. ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Index A B C D E F Introduction Submissions Issues Date of commencement of the PRR project Applicability of the EIA Notification 2006 Compliance with the procedure under the EIA Notification 2006 1 G Deficiencies in the EIA report G.1 Accreditation of the EIA consultant G.2 Forest land G.3 Trees G.4 Pipeline H Appraisal by the SEAC Courts and the environment Directions I J2PART A A Introduction 1. The present appeal arises from a judgment of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal1 dated 8 February 2019 quashing the Environmental Clearance2 granted to the appellant for the development of an eight lane Peripheral Ring Road3 connecting Tumkur Road to Hosur Road and totaling a length of 65 kilometers. The NGT was of the view that the primary data upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION S.L.P. (C) NOS.9036-9038 OF2016 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VERSUS .PETITIONER MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. .RESPONDENT(S) WITH S.L.P.(C) NOS. 9798-9799 OF2016 S.L.P.(C) NOS. 17088-17089 OF2016 S.L.P.(C) No.37375 OF2016 S.L.P.(C) No.37372 OF2016 S.L.P.(C) NOS. 16573-16605 OF2016 S.L.P. (C) CC No.15967 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL No.19356 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.19362 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.19361 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.19358 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.19357 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.19360 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.19359 OF2017S.L.P.(C) NOS. 34752-34753 OF2016 S.L.P.(C) No.15890 OF2017 2 CIVIL APPEAL No.19363 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.19364 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.19412 OF2017MA1423OF2017IN CIVIL APPEAL No.12247 OF2016S.L.P.(C) No.33022 OF2017S.L.P.(C) No.33127 OF2017S.L.P.(C) No.33114 OF2017MA1787OF2017IN CIVIL APPEAL No.10210 OF2016MA1786OF2017IN CIVIL APPEAL No.10207 OF2016MA45OF2018IN CIVIL APPEAL No.6239 OF2017S.L.P.(C) No.16051 OF2019DIARY No.2384...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2006-2007 OF2020(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8449-50/2017) M/S SUPER MALLS PRIVATE LIMITED APPELLANT VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX8 NEW DELHI RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2008-2009 OF2020(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8453-54/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2010-2011 OF2020(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8451-52/2017) CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2012-2013 OF2020(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8455-56/2017) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, and are with respect to common assessee, but with respect to different assessment 1 years, all these appeals are being decided together by this common Judgment and Order.2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 8449-8450/2017 arising from I.T.A. No.453/2016 & Review Petition No.16/2017 for Assessment Year 2008-09 are stated and considered. The facts in nutshell ...
Tag this Judgment!