Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.849850 OF2011Triyambak S. Hegde .Appellant(s) Versus Sripad .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT A.S. Bopanna,J.1. The appellant is before this Court assailing the common order dated 01.12.2009 in Criminal Revision Petition No.1282/2006 connected with Criminal Revision Petition No.1481/2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka. Through the said order the learned Single Judge has allowed Criminal Revision Petition No.1282/2006 filed by the respondent herein. The Criminal Revision Petition No.1481/2006 filed by the appellant herein has been Page 1 of 23 dismissed. Consequently, the conviction of the respondent, ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Session Judge is set aside.2. The case of the appellant is that the respondent who was known to him for the past few years approached the appellant and informed that due to his financial difficulty he intends to sell the house situ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6337 OF2021(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.24350 of 2017) D.K. AGRAWAL ...Appellant(s) Vs. COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ...Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.6340 OF2021(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.8118 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL No.6339 OF2021(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.5733 of 2018) CIVIL APPEAL No.6338 OF2021(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.5652 of 2018) ORDER S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.1. Leave granted. Civil Appeal No.6337 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.24350 of 2017, and Civil Appeal No.6338 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5652 of 2018) 2. The appellantD.K. Agrawal is a chartered accountant having his Office as M/s, Dinesh K. Agrawal & Co., Chartered 1 Accountants, 46A, Madhav Kunj, Pratap Nagar, Agra. Information was received by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short, the Institute) from the Office of the Inspecting Assistant Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5738-5739 OF2021Ajai Pal Singh & Ors. Appellant(s) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5740 OF2021Smt. Barfi Devi (Dead) through L.R.s. & Ors. Appellant(s) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal Nos. 195 of 1983 and 487 of 1984 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has confirmed the judgment and the order passed by the Reference Court awarding the compensation of the lands acquired @ Rs.4.628 per 1 square yard, original landowners have preferred the present appeals being Civil Appeal Nos. 5738-5739 of 2021. The appellants have also challenged the common order dated 02.11.2016 in Civil Misc. Application No.167571 of 2016 in First Appeal No.487 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.10946 of 2014 The Jamia Masjid Appellant Versus Sri K V Rudrappa (Since Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Index A. The Facts B. Proceedings before the Courts C. Proceedings before the High Court D. Submissions of the Parties E. The Analysis E.1 Res Judicata as a Preliminary issue E.2 The Plea of Res Judicata and the three previous suits E.2.1 Determination of title in a Representative suit E.2.2 Representative Suit and Res judicata E.2.3 Conclusive decision and Res Judicata E.2.3.1 Similarity in issue and Res Judicata E.2.4 Compromise decree and Res Judicata F. The Conclusion 2 PART A1 A Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed a second appeal 1 filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 , affirming the decision of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the suit instituted by the appellant-plaintiff is barred by the pri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO S. 5920 5923/2021 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.86148617 of 2020]. S. KARTHIK & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS N. SUBHASH CHAND JAIN & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. This case is a classic example as to how an ingenious litigant, by taking recourse to a series of proceedings one after the other, has been successful in blocking the enforcement of a security interest, created in favour of a secured creditor, thereby defeating the very purpose for which the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act) was enacted.3. The present appeals challenge the common judgment and order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition Nos. 30710 and 30712 of 2019 filed by respondent No.1N. Subhash Chand Jain herein (hereinaft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) No.17 OF2020DLF Home Developers Limited ..... Petitioner VERSUS Rajapura Homes Private Limited & Anr. ..... Respondent(s) WITH ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) No.16 OF2020DLF Home Developers Limited ..... Petitioner VERSUS Begur OMR Homes Pvt. Limited & Anr. ..... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J.The Petitioner DLF Home Developers Limited (hereinafter, DHDL) has filed Arbitration Petition No.16 of 2020 and Arbitration Petition No.17 of 2020 under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, Act) for appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate the differences between the parties that have arisen out of the two Page | 1 Construction Management Agreements dated 25.01.2017. FACTS2 DHDL is a limited liability involved in the business of providing development, management, and investment services concerning real estate projects. The Petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS.2280-2281 OF2020IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2732 AND2733OF2020AND MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1465 OF2021IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2732 OF2020SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. APPLICANT(S)/ ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) ORDER1 In Miscellaneous Application Nos.2280-2281 of 2020, two reports each of the Administrative and Advisory Committees of Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple dated 10.12.2020 and 31.8.2021 have been filed. A) The Administrative Committee Report dated 10.12.2020 has stated:- I may report that presently, the Temple is facing financial crisis, resulting from the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown. In compliance with the guidelines / health advisories of the Central and the State Governments, the entry of devotees to the Temple was prohibited during the period from 24.03.2020 to 25.08.2020. Anyhow, without any hindrance, the routine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 5897 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No 30511 of 2018) Sri Dorairaj Spintex .... Appellant(s) Versus R Chittibabu & Ors ....Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J1Leave granted. 2 The appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 14 March 2018. The High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the management against a judgment of a Single Judge. The Single Judge had upheld an order dated 31 March 2003 of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, rejecting an application filed by the management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 19471. The management is in appeal. 3 The appellant had an establishment which was functioning in Dindigul District. An application was filed by the appellant on 16 November 2002 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act for the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.1771 of 2021) Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, ....Appellant Lucknow Versus Md. Nawaz Khan ....Respondent JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.1 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 1 October 2020. NCB Case Crime No 14 of 2019 registered at Police Station, NCB, Lucknow for alleged offences under Sections 8, 21, 27A, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 1 Substances Act 1985 . The High Court has allowed an application for bail. 1 NDPS Act 1 2 The complaint was filed on 16 September 2019 through the Intelligence 2 Officer at the Lucknow Zonal Unit of the Narcotics Control Bureau . The allegation is that the NCB, Zonal Unit received information at 1400 hours that three persons namely Md. Arif Khan, Rafiuddin and Md. Nawaz Khan (the respondent), wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos 5644-5645 of 2021 Commissioner of Customs, Pune ... Appellant Versus M/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd. ...Respondent JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1 Admit.2. These appeals by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune arises from a judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESAT or the Tribunal) dated 27 September 2017. The question of law which has been formulated in the appeals is whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the demand of anti dumping duty on the product Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) classified 1 under the heading 4002 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and imported from Korea. 13. A show cause notice dated 23 May 2006 was issued to the respondent covering five Bills of Entry under which the product Lutex -701 was imported namely: (1) Bill of Entry No.500271 dated 18.03.05; (2) BilI of Entry No.500044 dated 03.05.05; (3) Bill of Entry No.5001...
Tag this Judgment!