Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4500 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.2075 OF2018 TERRAFORM MAGNUM LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EVEREST BUILDCON LIMITED) .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. IA No.71779 of 2022 has been filed to bring on record the subsequent developments, which have taken place during the pendency of the appeal.3. It is not necessary for us to go into the factual scenario in detail. Suffice it to say that the land in question originally belonged to one Hira Komb. Subsequently, it changed various hands and finally it 2 came in the hands of the present applicant/appellant.4. After the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) came into effect, an application came to be filed for restoration of the said land in favour of the legal heirs of deceased Hira Komb. There were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.689 OF2021KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS A. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 24th November, 2020 passed by the learned National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1406 of 2019, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 Director and reversing the order dated 20th September, 2019 passed by the learned National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as NCLT), whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 7 of the 1 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC for short) was admitted. The learned NCLAT while allowing the appeal held that the application filed by the appellant was timebarred and that issuance of Recovery Certificate would not trigger the right to sue.2. A brie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.378 OF2015CHANDRAPAL APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH RESPONDENT(S) (EARLIER M.P.) JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.1812 of 1998.2. As per the case of prosecution, the deceased Kumari Brindabai was the daughter of Bhagirathi Kumhar who belonged to the caste Kumhar. The deceased Kanhaiya Siddar was the resident of village Panjhar and belonged to the caste Siddar (Gaur). There was a love affair going on 1 between Kumari Brindabai and Kanhaiya Siddar, which the said Bhagirathi and his brother Chandrapal did not approve. On 02.12.1994, both Kumari Brinda and Kanhaiya went missing. A search was made, however, no missing report was lodged. On 11.12.1994, at about 09:00 am, Lodhu (PW-2) went to Kajubadi (Cashew Nursery) and saw that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos 4262-4263 of 2022 MBL and Company Limited .... Appellant Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India ....Respondent JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J Factual Background 1 The Whole Time Member1 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India2 passed an order on 28 February 2020, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Sections 11, 11(4) and 11B read with Section 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 19923, restraining the appellant from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities in its proprietary account, directly or indirectly, for a period of four years from the date of 1 WTM 2 SEBI 3 SEBI Act 1 the order. 2 On 17 March 2020, the adjudicating officer exercised their powers under Section 15 I and imposed a mandatory penalty of rupees fifteen lakhs; Rupees ten lakhs under Section 15HA for violation of the provisions of Sections 12A(a),(b) and (c) of the SEBI Act read with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CA42992022 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 4299 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 531 of 2022) Serious Fraud Investigation Office Appellants and Others Versus Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Respondents Limited and Others W I T H Civil Appeal No 4300 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 4685 of 2022) CA42992022 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1Leave granted. 2 These appeals arise from the orders dated 13 December 2021 and 5 January 2022 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The High Court is seized of a batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the orders dated 31 October 2018 and 27 October 2020 of the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs, authorizing an investigation under the provisions of Section 212 and Section 219 of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect of several corporate entities in the Sahara group. By its interim orders, the High Court stayed the ope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 878 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 2971 of 2022) Mamta & Anr .... Appellant(s) Versus The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr ....Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1Leave granted. 2 This appeal arises from an order dated 2 March 2022 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No 196 of 2022. 3 The second respondent is facing trial in connection with FIR No 894 of 2014 dated 18 November 2014 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District East Delhi. Following the submission of the charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure 19731, charges have been framed. Eleven prosecution witnesses have been examined. 4 The appellants are the parents of the deceased, who was a 13 year old Class VIII student. The case of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4242 OF2022 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.10776 OF2021 AARAV JAIN ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4243 OF2022 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.11089 OF2021 SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) AND CIVIL APPEAL No.4244 OF2022 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.15809 OF2021 SUMIT KUMAR ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) 1 AND CIVIL APPEAL No.4246 OF2022 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.15819 OF2021 MAYANK KUMAR PANDEY @ MAYANK & ANR ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) AND CIVIL APPEAL No.4245 OF2022 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.16198 OF2021 ASHISH CHANDRA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) AND CIVIL APPEAL No.4247 OF2022 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.809 OF2022 ANITA KUMAR ....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Crl.A.847/2022 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 847 of 2022 P R Adikesavan Appellant Versus The Registrar General, High Court of Respondents Madras and Another JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1The appeal arises from the judgment dated 25 March 2022 of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court convicting appellant under Section 2(c)(iii) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and sentencing him two weeks of simple imprisonment. Crl.A.847/2022 2 2 Insolvency proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909. On 12 March 2021, a Single Judge of the Madras High Court issued a non-bailable warrant seeking the presence of the appellant on 26 March 2021. On 31 March 2021, when a team of the police tried to execute the warrant, the appellant and fifty other advocates gheraoed the police and prevented them from executing the order. The Deputy Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4071 OF2022Gurmel Singh Appellant(s) Versus Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final judgment and order dated 03.08.2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2898/2015, by which, the appellant is denied the relief of settling the claim under the insurance policy, the original complainant appellant herein has preferred the present appeal. 12. That the appellant herein original complainant was the registered owner of the Truck bearing No.CG04JC4984. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent herein insurance company for the period from 22.08.2012 to 21.08.2013. The appellant also paid a sum of Rs. 28,880/ to the respondent towards premium. On 2324.03.2013 in the midnight, the said vehicle was stolen. A FIR was immediately lodged in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4073 OF2022Union of India & Ors. ..Appellants Versus Anil Prasad ..Respondent JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.2135 of 2020 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and has held that the respondent original writ petitioner being retired Army Force Personnel upon reappointment in the government service, would be entitled to his basic pay being fixed at par 1 with his last drawn pay, the Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal.2. The respondent original writ petitioner was a Major in the Indian Army and was discharged from service on 15.07.2007. He was appointed as an Assistant Commandant (Medical Officer) in the Central Reserve Police Force, in the pay scale of Rs.15600 39100 w...
Tag this Judgment!