Court : Supreme Court of India
[NONREPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2704 OF2022Late Shri Gyan Chand Jain through LR Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income TaxI Respondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.33 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue and has 1 set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (for short the Act), the assessee has preferred the present appeal.2. It is mainly submitted on behalf of the appellant that in view of the CBDT (Central Board of Direct Taxes) Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 the appeal preferred by the Revenue was not maintainable. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that in view of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7054 OF2021BALRAM GARG ..APPELLANT VERSUS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.7590 OF2021MS. SHIVANI GUPTA & ORS. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.1. The present Civil Appeals arise out of a common judgement and order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (for short SAT), wherein the Tribunal dismissed the 2 Appeals No.375 and 376 of 2021 filed by the Appellants herein and upheld the order dated 11.05.2021 passed by the Whole Time Member (for short WTM) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short SEBI) 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeals are that P. Chand Jeweller Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on April 13, 2005 under the Companies Act, 1956 as a Private Limited Company. However, pursuant to a resolution passed by the shareholders on July 5, 2011, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2473 OF2022Vallampati Sathish Babu Appellant(s) Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in Writ Petition No.12144 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the State and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No.4916 of 2013, the original applicant has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:- 2.1 That the appellant herein participated in the selection process carried out by the respondents for recruitment of Teachers under the Notification dated 30.01.2012 called as DSC-2012. Thirty-three (33) 1 posts were notified and the recruitment process was initiated for the notified 33 vacancie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2582 OF2010K.C. LAXMANA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS K.C. CHANDRAPPA GOWDA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree in Regular Second Appeal No.372 of 2003 dated 03.10.2008, whereby the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore has dismissed the appeal. 12. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda filed a suit against his fatherK.S. Chinne Gowda and one K.C. Laxmana for partition and separate possession of his onethird share in the suitschedule property and for a declaration that the gift/settlement deed dated 22.03.1980 (Ex. P1) executed by the first defendantK.S. Chinne Gowda in favour of the second defendantK.C. Laxmana as null and void. According to the plaintiff, the schedule property belongs to the joint family consisting of himself, the first defendant and one K.C. Subraya Gowda. It was further contended that the first defendant had no right ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2905 OF2022State of Uttarakhand & Anr. ..Appellant (S) Versus Mayan Pal Singh Verma ..Respondent (S) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in WPSB No.9/2022, by which the High Court has disposed of the said writ petition without deciding the writ petition on merits and has directed the Department to comply with the order passed 1 by the Tribunal which was under challenge before it, the State has preferred the present appeal.2. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun (for short Tribunal) in Claim Petition No.104/DB/2009, by which the Tribunal directed the Department to ignore the un communicated Uttam entries in the ACRs while considering the case of the original applicant private respondent herein for his promotion to the post of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2665 OF2022(Arising from SLP(C) No.6062/2022 @ D.No.18112/2017) Union of India and Others Appellants Versus M. Duraisamy Respondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.33303/2013, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants herein Union of India and others and has confirmed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Original Application (OA) No.357 of 2012 by which the 1 Tribunal allowed the said OA and modified the punishment from dismissal/removal from service to compulsory retirement, the Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: That the respondent h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2941 OF2022M/s Tirupati Steels ..Appellant (S) Versus M/s Shubh Industrial Component & Anr. ..Respondent (S) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Commercial Appeal Case No.FAOCOM/4/2019 (O&M), by which in the proceedings under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) which was filed under section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the MSMED Act, 2006), 1 the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the first appellate court to proceed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without insistence for making pre deposit of 75% of the awarded amount, the judgment creditor has preferred the present appeal.2. The parties are governed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2995-2996 OF2022(Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 7312-7313 of 2022) @ Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.27099 of 2020 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellants versus M/S. WILLOWOOD CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Respondents AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2997-2998 OF2022(Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 7314-7315 of 2022) @ Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.28455 of 2020 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellants versus M/S. SARAF NATURAL STONE & ANR. Respondents JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.27099 of 2020 is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the High 2 Court1 in Special Civil Application No.18591 of 2018 and against the order dated 13.03.2020 passed in Review Petition arising therefrom being Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2019. (For facility, hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.612 OF2019MOHD. FIROZ .......APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ......RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. The present appeal was initially filed by the appellant-Bibi Sidhika, the mother of the accused Mohd. Firoz, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned common judgement and order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in the Criminal Reference No.09 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No.2920 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No.3132 of 2013. During the pendency of the present appeal, the said appellant having expired, the accused Firoz has been substituted as the appellant in view of the order passed by this Court on 21.10.2021. 1 Case of Prosecution : - 2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded before the trial court was that on 17.04.2013, at about 06:30 PM, one Rakesh Choudhary (original accused No.2) came to the house of the inf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. No.89454 OF2021IN WRIT PETITION (C) No.1022 OF1989ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) AND IN THE MATTER OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN AND ANOTHER APPLICANT(S) WITH I.A. No.89450 OF2021I.A. No.88976 OF2021I.A. No.249 of 2009 I.A. No.44132 OF2022IN I.A. No.89450 OF2021IN WRIT PETITION (C) No.1022 OF1989ORDER B.R. GAVAI, J.1. I.A. No.89454 of 2021 has been filed by two judicial officers in the cadre of Delhi Judicial Service (hereinafter 1 referred to as DJS) namely Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan and Dr. Shirish Aggarwal, for modification of the orders dated 21st March 20021 and 20th April 20102 passed by this Court in the present writ petition. I.A. No.89450 of 2021 has been filed by the same judicial officers seeking permission to participate in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as LDCE) initiated by t...
Tag this Judgment!