Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.86258626 OF2019JAIPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. APPELLANTS VS. ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LIMITED & ANR. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3021 OF2020(DIARY NO.27976 OF2019 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 30223023 OF2020(DIARY NO.39030 OF2019 JUDGMENT The appellant herein Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is the 1. electricity Distribution Licensee in the State of Rajasthan. It entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (for short, PPA) on 28.1.2010 with Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (for short, APRL), a generating company in pursuance to a tariffbased competitive bid process in terms of Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, the Electricity Act). The terms of PPA contained a tariff, and that could be 2 varied only as per the specific provisions contained in the PPA, not otherwise.2. APRL made a claim for an increased tariff under the change in law provisions in the PPA (Article 10). On 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION REPORTABLE SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.1 OF2020IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR. JUDGMENT1 Heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Shri Dushyant Dave, Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel, and the contemnorShri Prashant Bhushan.2. After having adjudged Shri Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, guilty of contempt vide judgment dated 14.08.2020, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan and Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the contemnorShri Prashant Bhushan raised the following arguments: (i) That the copy of the petition on the basis of which the suo motu cognizance was taken by this Court with respect to first tweet, filed by Shri Mahek Maheshwari, was not furnished, in spite of the application having been filed by the contemnor. Thus, it could not be ascertained whether the complaint was mala fide or even personally or politically motivated. 1 (ii) The factors relevant for sentencing are t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.196 OF2018Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors. ..Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Others ..Respondent(s) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.252 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.295 OF2018WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.293 OF2018CIVIL APPEAL No.3025 OF2020(@ SLP (CIVIL) No.26665 of 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 302629 OF2020(@ SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 2548725490 of 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 303031 OF2020(@ SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 2644826449 of 2019) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 303235 OF2020(@ SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 2650726510 of 2019) CIVIL APPEAL No.3036 OF2020(@ SLP (CIVIL) No.26648 of 2019) CIVIL APPEAL No.3037 OF2020(@ SLP (CIVIL) No.10289/2020 @ Diary No.42890 of 2019) PER M.R. SHAH, J.JUDGMENT Leave & permission granted in the respective special leave petitions. 2 2. After considering the judgment rendered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan1, another three Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.2175-2178 OF2018IN INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION Nos.1-4 OF2016IN AND WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.421-424 OF2016IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.6828-6831 OF2016DR. VIJAY MALLYA PETITIONER Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS ORDER Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. These petitions seek review of the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2017 passed by this Court in I.A. Nos.9-12 & 13-16 of 2016 in SLP (C) Nos.6828-6831 of 2016 with I.A. Nos.1-4 of 2016 in and with Contempt Petition (C) Nos.421-424 of 2016 in SLP (C) Nos.6828-6831 of 2016.2. The facts leading to the passing of said judgment are set out in detail therein and for the present purposes we may set out following 2 features. (A) In OA No.766 of 2013 filed by the special leave petitioners (banks, for short) before DRT, Bengaluru seeking recovery of Rs.6203,35,03,879.32 (Rupees Six Thousand Two Hundred and Three Crores Thirty Five Lakhs T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRIMINAL) DIARY NO.39528/2018 Mukesh Singh Versus State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) Petitioner Respondent WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRIMINAL) No.5648/2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRIMINAL) No.5894/2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRIMINAL) No.8499/2019 JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.Having doubted the correctness of the decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab reported in (2018) 17 SCC627taking the view that in case the investigation is conducted by the police officer who himself is the complainant, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal, initially by order dated 17.01.2019 the matter was referred to a larger Bench consisting of three Judges. A three Judge Bench vide order dated 12.09.2019 2 has referred to a larger Bench of five Judges to consider the matter. That is why, the present matter is placed before the Bench consisting of five Judges.2. At the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF2019CIVIL APPEAL No.7474 M/S RADHA EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED. ...Appellant(s) VERSUS K.P. JAYARAM & ANR. ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.This appeal, under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is against a judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2019 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal, allowing Company Appeal (AT) (INS) No.224 of 2019 against an order dated 19th December, 2018 passed by a Division Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai, rejecting the application filed by the Respondents under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, inter alia, on the ground that the alleged claim of the Respondents was barred by limitation, on the date on which the said application had been filed. 2 2. It is the case of the Appellant Company, that the Respondents were closely ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2633 of 2020 Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad ...Appellant Versus M/s Adani Gas Ltd. ...Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J1This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the Customs, Excise, & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,1 West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad in Service dated 5 April 2019. The Tribunal has, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, reversed the 30 March 2011 decision of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad2 and set aside the demand for payment of service tax on the charges collected by the respondent for supply of pipes and measuring 1 Tribunal 2 Adjudicating Authority 1 equipment to its customers under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. This appeal rests on the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2 The respondent is in the business of distributing natural gas - Compressed Natu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Crl.A.Nos. @ SLP(Crl.) D.No.13225 of 2020 1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.550-554 OF2020(Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.)Nos.4016-4020 of 2020 D.No.13225/2020 Dalbir Singh ...Appellant Versus State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.etc. ...Respondents ORDER1 2. Delay condoned. Leave granted.3. These criminal appeals are filed by the complainant, aggrieved by the common order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.A.No.537 of 2019, Crl.A.No.624 of 2019, Crl.A.No.622 of 2019, Crl.A.No.488 of 2019 and Crl.A.No.499 of 2019, in rejecting the claim made by the appellant herein for release of compensation which is awarded under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., in order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Crl.A.Nos. @ SLP(Crl.) D.No.13225 of 2020 2 FTC Court,Shahdara in Sessions Case No.29 of 2011 and Unique Case ID No.235 of 2016.4. The contesting respondents, herein were accused in FIR No.100...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8932-8933 OF2015STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .Appellant versus CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT & ORS. ..Respondent (s) JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.These appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, are against an order dated 21st April, 2015 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal, allowing Original Application No.1/2013 (CZ) filed by the Respondents and directing that motor vehicles not complying with the requirement of displaying a valid Pollution Under Control (PUC) Certificate would suffer the consequence of suspension and/or revocation of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, and would also not be provided with fuel 2 by any dealer or petrol pump, as well as an order dated 3rd August, 2015 rejecting the application filed by the appellant for review of the said order dated 21st April, 2015, being the Miscellaneous Application No.394 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
[email protected].(Crl.)No.3928 of 2020 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.555 OF2020[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3928 of 2020]. Parvinder Kansal ..Appellant Versus The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. ..Respondents ORDER Leave granted. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant in Criminal 1.2. Appeal No.1284 of 2019, aggrieved by the order dated 27th November 2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. By the aforesaid order, High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of sentence imposed in Sessions Case No.742 of 2007 by the Special Judge (NDPS), North District, Rohini District Courts, Delhi vide order dated 17.08.2019.3. The appellant herein was the complainant in FIR No.742 of 2007 registered on 15.10.2007 for the offence under Section 364A read with Section 34, IPC and the second respondent 1 [email protected].(Crl.)No.3928 of...
Tag this Judgment!