Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1566 OF2022CHANDRA SEKHAR JHA Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) ORDER K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. By the impugned order, the High Court has rejected the appeal carried by the appellant against the order passed by the Tribunal under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This is for the reason that the appellant has not complied with the requirement under Section 129E of the Act, as regards, the pre-deposit of the amount in terms of the said provision.2. The appellant while traveling in a train was intercepted. The case against him appears to be that he was carrying Gold smuggled into India from Bangladesh, and was accompanied with another person also. On conclusion of the proceedings, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) 2 West Bengal, Kolkata passed a common order, wherein the appellant came to be visited with penalty in a sum of Rs.75 lakhs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.3008 OF2022Surjeet Singh Sahni Petitioner(s) Versus State of U.P. and Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ C No.40336 of 2017 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the petitioner herein, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present special leave petition.2. The facts leading to the present special leave petition in nutshell are as under:- 2.1 That the petitioner entered into a Sale Deed with the respondent NOIDA vide Sale Deed dated 19.09.2001 whereby the petitioner sold a Plot No.163 of Khata No.254 to the NOIDA under the provisions of 1 Section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and in terms of the Resolution in 102nd meeting of NOIDA. According to the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1538 OF2022Municipal Council Gondia ..Appellant (S) VERSUS Divi Works & Suppliers, HUF & Ors. ..Respondent (S) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in W.P. No.1984 of 2020, by which, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 & 2 herein original writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the original writ petitioners) and has quashed and set aside the action on the part of the appellant in cancelling the work order and by which the High Court has held that 1 original writ petitioner No.1 is entitled to make the supply in pursuance of the work order dated 07.02.2020 to the appellant herein and consequent to which it will be entitled to the payments as per the terms of the work order, original respondent No.2 Munici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10425 OF2010ESTEEM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS CHETAN KAMBLE & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.10764 OF2010CORAL GONSALVES & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS CHETAN KAMBLE & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT N. V. RAMANA, CJI1 The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 07.05.2010 passed by the Bombay High Court in a Public Interest Litigation, being PIL No.47 of 2008.2. The matter pertains to rights and ownership over the subject land admeasuring 5 acres and 20 gunthas in CTS1No.229 (in short subject land). The dispute regarding title was originally between one Gonsalves family (appellants in C.A. No.10764 of 2010) and the State of Maharashtra (respondent no.3). Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. (appellant in C.A. No.10425 of 2010) is the successorininterest to the Gonsalves family.3. Before we analyze the case, the facts necessary for the disposal of the case are as follows: From ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.301 OF2022(Arising out of SLP (Crl. No.) 5122 of 2019) AMRITLAL . APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SHANTILAL SONI & ORS. . RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.Leave granted. The order under challenge in the present appeal is dated 06.03.2019, as passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.26287 of 2018. By the order impugned, the High Court has, in exercise of its powers under Sections 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19731, set aside the order dated 20.02.2018 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain in Criminal Revision No.181 of 2017 as also the order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khachrod, District Ujjain in Criminal Case No.619 of 2012; and has quashed the proceedings in the 1 CrPC for short. 2 said Criminal Case No.619 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Section 406 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1700 OF2022(Arising out of SLP (C) No.19687 of 2019) RAJBIR APPELLANT (S) VERSUS SURAJ BHAN & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K. M. JOSEPH, J.Leave granted.1. While procedure is said to be the handmaiden of justice and substantial justice must prevail and the former may take the backseat, failure to follow the procedure laid down by law can result in grave miscarriage of justice to the judgment debtor and delay in the decree holder realising the fruits of the decree, all of which will be evident from facts of this case as we narrate them.2. The appellant along with his brother agreed to sell certain property which we shall refer to, to the respondents-Suraj Bhan and Balraj on 28.01.2006. Thereupon, the respondents instituted a suit for specific performance. It was inter alia the case of the respondents that the brother of the appellant (Raj Kumar) had already 1 CA No.1700/ 2022 (@ SLP (C) No.19687/ 2019) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1385 OF2022AJAY GUPTA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA RESPONDENT(S) ORDER Dinesh Maheshwari, J.Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellant at sufficient length and having perused the material placed on record, we do not feel persuaded to entertain this appeal under Section 62 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20161 by one of the resolution applicants2 in the corporate insolvency resolution process3 concerning the corporate debtor-B.B. Foods Pvt. Ltd. The appellant seeks to question the judgment and order dated 13.01.2022 as passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi4 in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No.35 of 2022 whereby, the Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere in the order dated 13.12.2021 passed in I.A. No.367 of 2021 in CP No.(IB)349/ALD/2018 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad5 by 1 Hereinafter also referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No.289/2019 NASEEMA KHAN Petitioner VERSUS RAHUL SINGH Respondent ORDER Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he has instructions to withdraw the Transfer Petition. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. .................................J.[ABHAY S. OKA]. NEW DELHI; February 25,2022...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No.437/2020 MANISHA JAIN Petitioner VERSUS RAJEEV JINDAL Respondent ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner. The Office Report records that service of notice on the respondent is complete. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Dehradun, Uttarakhand, a case is made out to transfer the petition for divorce to the Competent Court at Dehradun. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed. Original Matrimonial Suit No.1125/2019 titled as Rajeev Jindal Vs. Smt. Manisha Jain pending in the Family Court of Principal Judge, Meerut, U.P. is hereby transferred to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. .................................J.[ABHAY S. OKA]. NEW DELHI; February 25,2022...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No.545/2020 SURBHI SHARMA Petitioner VERSUS RANJEET SHARMA Respondent ORDER Along with I.A. No.170013 of 2021, a copy of settlement deed dated 24th December, 2021 duly signed by the parties to the petition has been placed on record. Both the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondent state that the parties have resolved all their disputes in terms of the settlement deed. Clause 3 of the settlement deed provides for passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The prayer in the aforesaid I.A. is for converting the petition pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru into a petition for divorce by mutual consent. Hence, I dispose of the petition by passing the following order: i. A copy of the settlement deed dated 24th December, 2021 is taken on the record. Parties are directed to appear either physically or through Video conference before th...
Tag this Judgment!