Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.82 OF2022(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7129 of 2021) VASUDHA SETHI & ORS. .. APPELLANTS v. KIRAN V. BHASKAR & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.Leave granted. FACTUAL ASPECTS1 This appeal arises out of an unfortunate dispute between the appellant no.1 - wife and the respondent no.1 - husband over the custody of their minor male child Aaditya Kiran. This appeal takes an exception to the Judgment and order dated 31st August 2021 passed by the learned Single 2 Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a petition for habeas corpus filed by the respondent no.1 herein for seeking custody of the minor.2. The respondent no.1 and the appellant no.1 were married in New York, United States of America (for short USA) on 13th January 2011. The child was born in USA on 21st January 2016. Thus, the child is a citizen of USA by birth and is holding a USA passport. Unfortunately, the chil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 257-259 OF2022Phoenix ARC Private Limited Appellant(s) Versus Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition Nos. 35564-35566 of 2015 by which the High Court has entertained the aforesaid writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the appellant, an Assets Reconstructing Company and has passed an interim order directing for maintaining status quo with regard to SARFAESI action (possession of the secured assets), the original respondent the Assets Reconstructing Company (ARC) has preferred the present appeals.2. That the respondent No.1 herein Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir is running educational institutions and is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 which had availed cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1407 OF2021IN SPCIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO.6715 of 2020 SURENDER MOHAN Petitioner versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER Respondents ORDER There was delay of 2659 and 3017 days in preferring the special leave petitions. Since there was no satisfactory explanation for delay, the petitions were dismissed on the ground of limitation, which order is now subject matter of the instant review petition. We have gone through the grounds raised in the instant review petition and do not find any error apparent on record to justify interference. This review petition is, therefore, dismissed. J.[Uday Umesh Lalit]. J.[Ajay Rastogi]. New Delhi; January 11, 2022....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1353 OF2021IN SPCIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.849 of 2021 ABHINITAM UPADHYAY Petitioner versus HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL . Respondent ORDER Application seeking oral hearing in the matter is dismissed. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners were dealt with in the order dated 05.07.2021 against which the instant review petition is preferred. The grounds raised in the review petition do not make out any error apparent on record to justify interference. We, therefore, do not find any reason to entertain this review petition which is accordingly dismissed. J.[Uday Umesh Lalit]. J.[Ajay Rastogi]. New Delhi; January 11, 2022....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No.OF2022(D.No.26389 of 2021) IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.11323 of 2021 SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS Petitioners versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Respondents ORDER Application for permission to file review petition is granted. Delay condoned. This review petition arises out of the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11323 of 2021 which in turn was directed against the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. In terms of the decision of this Court in State of U.P and others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others, the State Government was granted liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with law and after issuance of fresh advertisement. Accordingly fresh selection process was initiated. However, grievance was made by the petitioners that the selection undertaken in pursuance of the earlier N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7723 of 2019) Union of India & Anr. .... Appellant(s) Versus Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed & Ors. . Respondent (s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted.1. The Respondent was convicted by the Supreme Court of Mauritius under Section 30(1)(f)(II), 47(2) and 5(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act for possession of 152.8 grams of heroin and was sentenced to imprisonment for 26 years. He was transferred to India as per the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 (hereinafter, the 2003 Act) on 04.03.2016. He preferred a representation under Section 13 (6) of the 2003 Act and requested for scaling down the sentence to 10 years as per Section 21 (b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1994 (hereinafter, NDPS Act). In the same 1 | Pa ge representation, he also requested that the sentence that he has already undergone in Mauritius may be taken into account fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 4000 of 2019 Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Appellant Versus Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. Respondent 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J A Factual Background ................................................................................. 3 B Submissions of Counsel .......................................................................... 6 C Analysis ..................................................................................................... 9 D Conclusion .............................................................................................. 17 2 PART A A Factual Background 1 The appeal arises from a judgment and order of the National Consumer 1 Disputes Redressal Commission dated 3 December 2018. The complaint was filed by the appellant for refund of the excess taxes and charges paid the appellant to the municipal authorities, due to the alleged defic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1101511016 OF2017Velagacharla Jayaram Reddy & Ors. .Appellant(s) Versus M.Venkata Ramana & Ors .Etc. .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT A.S. Bopanna,J.1. The respondents No.4, 6 and 7 in W.P. No.6212/2006 are before this Court in this appeal. They claim to be aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. By the said order, the learned Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the writ petition and quashed the award dated 28.01.2004 passed by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Cuddapah acting as an 1 Arbitrator in deciding the dispute raised under Section 61(1) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (APCS Act for short). The said award had been affirmed by the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad, through its judgment dated 27.02.2006.2. The facts necessary to be noted for disposal of these appeals are as follows: T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.190 OF2012REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.190 OF2012STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .. APPELLANT VERSUS JOGENDRA & ANR. .. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Hima Kohli, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10th September, 2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17th December, 2003 imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the original accused No.1, Jogendra husband of the deceased, Geeta Bai[respondent No.1 herein]. and the original accused No.2, Badri Prasad father-in-law of the deceased[respondent No.2 herein]. has been set aside under Sections 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code,1 while maintaining the order of conviction imposed on the original accused No.1 Jogendra 1 For short IPC Page 1 of 20 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.190 OF2012under Section 498-A IPC and reducing the sentence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2022(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C) No.13941 OF2021 M/S GARMENT CRAFT ..... A P P ELLANT(S) VERSUS PRAKASH CHAND GOEL ..... R E S PONDENT(S) JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.Leave granted.2. Limited issue which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified and correct in law and on facts in exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 24th July 2018 allowing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) filed by Shailendra Garg, sole proprietor of M/s Garment Craft the appellant before us.3. In 2011, Prakash Chand Goel the respondent before us, filed a civil suit on the original side of the Delhi High Court for the recovery Civil Appeal a/o. of SLP (C) No.13941/2021 Page 1 of 14 of Rs.81,24,786.23p against the appellant.4. The appellant contested the suit by filing written stateme...
Tag this Judgment!