Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.__________________OF2022(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4609-4610 OF2021 M.P. POWER MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, JABALPUR APPELLANT(S) Versus M/S. SKY POWER SOUTHEAST SOLAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS RESPONDENTS(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant impugns the Judgment of the High Court dated 27.02.2020 in Writ Petition No.420 of 2019. It further challenges the Order dated 28.12.2020 in Review Petition No.682 of 2020. By the said Judgment in the Writ Petition, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent and quashed the Order dated 07.07.2018, which was passed by the appellant, terminating the Power Purchase Agreement 1 (hereinafter referred to as the PPA, for short), which was entered into by the appellant and the first respondent. The review filed by the appellant was dismissed. Hence the appeals. THE FACTS3 The appellant, which is a wholly owned com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CA7982/2012 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos 79-82 of 2012 Wg Cdr A U Tayyaba (Retd) and Others Appellants Versus Union of India and Others Respondents W I T H Civil Appeal Nos 192-196 of 2012 Civil Appeal Nos 83-84 of 2012 Civil Appeal No 5164 of 2012 CA7982/2012 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI1 The batch of appeals which forms the subject matter of the present dispute emanates from a judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 11 August 2011. The High Court in its lead judgment dated 12 March 2010 in Babita Puniyas case1 issued specific directions for considering women Short Service Commissioned Officers2 in the Air Force and in the Army for the grant of Permanent Commission3. Following the decision of the Delhi High Court in Babita Puniya, a batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came to be instituted before the Delhi High Court seeking the benefit of the Babita Puniya judgment. The Delhi ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8470 OF2022(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No(s).30038 of 2019) VARIMADUGU OBI REDDY .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS B. SREENIVASULU & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of the auction purchaser (appellant herein) assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 20th November, 2019 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad setting aside the e auction sale held by the respondent Bank (secured creditor) under 1 the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter being referred to as the SARFAESI Act, 2002).3. The relevant facts in brief to appreciate the controversy are that respondent nos.13 have availed three loan facilities vide Mortgage Loan of Rs.10 lakhs, Cash Credit Loan of Rs.8 lakhs and Car Loan of Rs.8 lakhs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8531-8532 OF2022(ARISING FROM SLP (CIVIL) NO.21943-21944 OF2018 BHAGYODAY COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RAVINDRA BALKRISHNA PATEL DECEASED. THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.Leave granted.2. The woes of a decree holder begin after obtaining a decree. It is in execution that a decree holder is confronted with an unimaginably large number of obstacles. With the facts as unfolded in the course of the judgment, we are reinforced in our belief that there is substance in this complaint.3. The appellant-Bank granted a financial facility to a firm (M/s. Vimal Traders, Partnership Firm). There were three partners, namely, Ravindra Balkrushna Patel and Nikhil Balkrushna Patel who are brothers and the third person was Shri Gautam Vishnuprasad Tripathi. Since the amount was not repaid, a Lavad Suit 2 No.2265/1984 came to be filed by the appellant-bank before the Board of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1928 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) No.11220 OF2019 THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR (NOW U.T. OF JAMMU & KASHMIR) & Ors. APPELLANTS VERSUS SHUBAM SANGRA RESPONDENT JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: Rape is one of the most terrible crimes on earth and it happens every few minutes. The problem with groups who deal with rape is that they try to educate women about how to defend themselves. What really needs to be done is teaching men not to rape. Go to the source and start there. - Kurt Cobain 1. This appeal is at the instance of the State of Jammu & Kashmir (now U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir) and is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu dated 11.10.2019 by which the High Court rejected the Criminal Revision Application No.27 of 2018 filed by the appellant State herein, thereby affirming the order passed by the 1 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua dated 27.03.201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIIL APPEAL NO(s). OF2022(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No(s).28366-28367 of 2019) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. & ANR. .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RUBFILA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The instant appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2018 followed with order dated 29th July, 2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.3. The seminal facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeals are that respondent No.1 is an industrial unit which started its commercial production on 26th March, 1995 and the unit was energised on 16th September, 1995. 14. The Government of Kerala under its GO dated 6th February, 1992 granted certain incentives in respect of electricity for new industrial units starting commercial production between 1st January, 1992 and 31st December, 1996 for a period of 5 years in rega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.69646965 OF2015Singapore Airlines Ltd. ..... Appellant VERSUS C.I.T., Delhi ..... Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.69666967 OF2015KLM Royal Dutch Airlines ..... Appellant VERSUS C.I.T. New Delhi ..... Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.6968 OF2015British Airways PLC ..... Appellant Page 1 of 50 VERSUS Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Delhi ..... Respondent JUDGEMENT Surya Kant, J:1. The question that arises for our consideration pertains to the interpretation of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) as introduced by the Finance Act, 2001, with effect from 01.04.2000. The provision requires deduction of tax at source (TDS) at 10% plus surcharge from payments falling under the definition of Commission or Brokerage under the Section. A. THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY2 Within the aviation industry during the relevant period, the base fare1 for air tickets was set by the International Air Transport Associati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1902 OF2022(@ DIARY NO.33420 OF2022 WITH INTELOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.157792/2022 (APPLICATION FOR CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2120 OF2018IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.20417 OF2017MR. VINAY PRAKASH SINGH PETITIONER(S) VERSUS SAMEER GEHLAUT & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) IN THE MATTER OF:- SHIVINDER MOHAN SINGH APPLICANT JUDGMENT K. M. JOSEPH, J.1. This Miscellaneous application No.1902 of 2022 is filed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.2120/2018 in SLP (Civil) No.20417/2017. The applicant in this application is contemnor No.10 (Dr. Shivinder Mohan Singh). The contempt petition culminated in an order dated 15th November, 2019. We need only refer to the record of proceedings dated 15th November, 2019 which indicates how the matter was dealt with by the Court. "ii) Malvinder Mohan Singh, Director of Oscar Investments Limited and Diretor of RHC Holding Private Limited...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8324-8327 OF2022[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 30734- 30737 of 2014]. AMIT SINGH APPELLANT (S) VERSUS RAVINDRA NATH PANDEY & ORS. ETC. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 4th September 2014, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Special Appeal No.625 of 2008 and other connected Appeals, thereby, while upholding the order 1 passed by the learned Single Judge, modifying it to the extent that the seniority list shall be prepared by applying the rota system to direct recruits and promotees appointed in one recruitment year. FACTUAL BACKGROUND3 The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as under:3. 1 The writ petitioners, who were promoted to the post of Assistant Consolidation Officers (hereinafter referred to as the ACOs) agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 18641865 OF2010GIREESAN NAIR & ORS. ETC. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala upholding the conviction of Accused Nos. 17, 9 12, 14, 16 and 18 under Sections 143, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601, and Sections 3(2)(e) of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 19842, read with Section 149 of the IPC. A sentence of four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000, as imposed by the Trial Court3, was also upheld by the High Court. 1 hereinafter referred to as the IPC. 2 hereinafter referred to as the PDPP Act. 3 Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track1), Thiruvananthapuram in Case Nos. 302 of 2001, 1786 of 2001 and 1313 of 2002 dated 15.02.2006. 12. Facts: The facts of the present case can be traced back to the year 2000 wh...
Tag this Judgment!