Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8717 OF2022Sansera Engineering Limited Appellant Versus Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru Respondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No.249/2020, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the common judgment and order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, upholding the order passed by the respondent rejecting the 1 claim of the appellant for rebate on the ground that the claim was barred by time/limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the original writ petitioner/appellant herein has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2022(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.8799 OF2020 Mukesh Kumar .Appellant(S) Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. ..Respondent(S) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Leave granted.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8384/2018, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has disposed of the said writ petition by way of public interest litigation, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal. 13. That the appellant herein filed the writ petition by way of public interest litigation before the High Court for the following reliefs: - (i) For issuance of necessary direction upon the respondent authorities to not to allow any person other than a registered Pharmacist to compound, prepare, mix or dispense any medicine on the prescription of any medical practiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.20802083/2022 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.1160111604/2022) (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No.618/2020) B.R.K. AATHITHAN Appellant(s) VERSUS SUN GROUP & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT SURYA KANT, J.Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The appellant assails the Judgment and Order dated 30082019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, whereby the High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `the Cr.P.C.) filed by the respondents and quashed the Criminal Complaint viz. STC No.45 of 2017, filed under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which the appellant had filed against the respondents.4. Briefly stated, the facts are that First Information Report No.345 of 2013 was registered against the appellant under Section 468 IPC before Tirucher Taluk Police, Tutukodi District at the instant of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) NO.169/2022 Suneetha Narreddy & Another Petitioners Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation and Others Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the daughter and the wife of the deceased Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, seeking transfer of trial arising out of RC- 04(S)/2020/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi from CBI Special Court, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh to the CBI Special Court, Hyderabad or CBI Special Court, New Delhi, and also to direct the CBI for duly completing the investigation in the aforesaid FIR in a time bound manner. 12. Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the incident pertains to the mysterious death of late Shri Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, the brother of late Shri Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy (former Chief Minister of the united State of Andhra Prad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IA No 169860 of 2022 in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No 2 of 2019 IN RE FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST (MAHARASHTRA) WITH IA Nos 104736, 104886 of 2022 and 178233 of 2019 in SMW(Civil) No 2 of 2019 IA No 105220 of 2022 in SLP(Civil) No 14933 of 2019 and IA Nos 107131 and 50314 of 2022 in SLP(Civil) No 31178 of 2018 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI1 On 15 April 2019, this Court, while considering Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No 31178 of 2018, declined to grant interim relief in IA No 33819 of 2019. The reliefs which were sought in the application for interim relief were in the following terms: a) stopping all activities being carried out by the Respondent No-4 on the land in question inside Aarey Colony; b) directing the Respondents to carry out the activities for setting up Metro Car depot at the alternative sites referred to in paragraph 3 of the present application; c) staying the operation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF2022(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).39 of 2022) RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF2022(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).4813 of 2022) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF2022(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).7052 of 2022) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The instant appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 3rd February, 2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at 1 Allahabad dismissing the criminal miscellaneous application filed at the instance of the present appellants.3. The dispute relates to House No.189, Mohalla Madia, Kanpur Road, Jhansi, which as per the complainant, was purchased in the name of Shravan Kumar Gupta, who was minor at that time, by means of a registered sale deed dated 4th May, 1977 and through the ostensible owner, the de-facto complainant purchased the property by registered sale dee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
C.A.Nos.6622-6623 of 2022 etc. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.66226623 OF2022State of U.P. & Ors. Appellants Versus Virendra Kumar & Ors. ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.6626 OF2022AND CIVIL APPEAL No.6627 OF2022JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. On 10th February 2020, for the reasons recorded, a Bench of two Honble judges of this Court came to the conclusion that the view taken by this Court in the case of State of Uttar 1 C.A.Nos.6622-6623 of 2022 etc. Pradesh v. Preetam Singh & Ors.1 (Preetam Singhs case) needs reconsideration. Under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (for short the 1965 Act), Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (for short the Board) was established. The basic object of the establishment of the Board was of framing and executing housing and improvement schemes in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The core issue on which the reference is made to a larger Bench is whether the act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.748 of 2016 Maharashtra Rajya Vadar Samaj Sangh .Appellant(S) Versus ` Union of India & Ors. ..Respondent(S) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. By way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ direction and/or order to quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 passed by the Revenue and Forest Department, Government of State of Maharashtra. 12. At the outset it is required to be noted that considering the directions issued by this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.; (2011) 11 SCC396 the State of Maharashtra has issued the impugned Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 under which a decision is taken that the encroachments or unauthorized construction on barren land/grassy land and on the common village land may be removed immediately and proceeding may be started through...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2773 OF2012PARIVAR SEVA SANSTHA ..... A PPELLANT VERSUS AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... R ESPONDENT W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.10694 OF2016JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.Section 1271 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (Bombay Act No.LIX of 1949)2, as applicable to the State of Gujarat, post the Gujarat Act No.2 of 20073, empowers a Municipal Corporation4 to impose property tax either under Section 1295 based on the rateable value of buildings and lands, or under 1 127. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the Corporation shall impose the following taxes, namely : (a)Property taxes either under section 129 or under section 141 AA; [* * * * * ]. 2 For short, GPMC Act. Originally, the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. 3 The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (Gujarat Amendment and Validation) Act, 2007 4 Hereinafter referred as theCorporation. 5 129. For the pur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9120-9121 of 2015 Mrs. Ramani .Appellant(S) Versus The Tamil Nadu Slum-Clearance Board & Ors. ..Respondent(S) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2006 in Writ Appeal (WA) No.1785/1999 and subsequent order dated 22.12.2014 in Review Petition No.145/2006 in WA No.1785/1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, the original allottee of the land in question has preferred the present Special Leave Petitions.2. As the petitioner herein was allotted a plot bearing No.25 in Thirumoolar Colony Scheme area by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. The petitioner paid all the amounts 1 payable in pursuance of the said allotment. She was also issued with a No Objection Certificate for obtaining water connection and drainage connection. However, before putting up any construction, she was required to obtain the ...
Tag this Judgment!