Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5809 OF2011THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MR. ASPI CHINOY AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF2022(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 26906-26911 of 2011) JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Delay condoned and leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 26906-26911 of 2011.2. By way of the present appeals, the State has assailed the judgment and order dated 29th September 2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.713 of 2001, thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents. 13. The respondents-original writ petitioners had filed the writ petition challenging the letter dated 27th June 2000 addressed by the Collector to the Sub-Registrar, Bombay City, Old Custom House. By the said letter, the Collector had directed the Sub-Registrar not to register any transaction in respect of transfer of flats in the buildings situated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/ APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. No.68597 of 2021 AND I.A. No.51632 of 2022 IN & WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1159 OF2019HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS. ...PETITIONER (S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT (S) WITH I.A. No.54521 of 2022 IN & WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.683 OF2021WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.1469 OF2019WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.690 OF2021WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.709 OF2021WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.768 OF2021WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.765 OF2021SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.14343 OF2022ORDER1B.R. GAVAI, J.1. For the reasons stated in I.A. No.68597 of 2021 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1159 of 2019 for Impleadment, the same is allowed.2. This batch of writ petitions has been filed by various Banks including private banks, inter alia, challenging the action of the respondentReserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as RBI) in directing disclosure of confidential and sensitive information pertaining to their affairs, their employees...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7046 OF2022[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.31931 of 2017]. K. Ramya & Ors. Appellant(s) VERSUS National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J.1. Leave Granted.2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.06.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench whereby the appeal preferred by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No.1; hereinafter, Insurance Company) against the award dated 06.10.2012 passed by Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli (hereinafter, Tribunal) was allowed and the compensation granted to Apellants was reduced from Rs. 4,29,37,700/ to Rs. 57,90,000/ along with requisite interest. The factual matrix is succinctly discussed below before delving into the issue of law regarding determination of quantum of compensation which requires adjudication before us. Page | 1 A. FACTS3 S. Kuma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Crl.A.1719/2022 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 1719 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 412 of 2020) Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra and Others Respondents JUDGMENT1 Leave granted.2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 17 October 2019 of a Single Judge of the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.3. On 17 March 2019, a truck was intercepted and was found to be transporting eighteen heads of cattle fifteen bullocks and three buffaloes. The eighth respondent was driving the truck and was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation about the relevant permits. The truck was taken to the police station and the cattle were seized. FIR No.59 of 2019 was registered at Parbhani Rural Police Station on 17 March 2019 for offences punishable under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 19951 and Section 6 of the 1 Amendment Act 1995 (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7062 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.1939 OF2019 KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, MTDC, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.Leave granted.2. The appellants herein are respondents in First Appeal No.1673 of 2017 (First Appeal St. No.37304 of 2016) pending in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. They have preferred this appeal for being aggrieved of the order dated 03.12.2018, as passed in Civil Application No.7037 of 2018 moved in the said appeal, whereby the High Court has allowed the applicant-Maharashtra Tourism Development 1 Corporation (MTDC-respondent No.1)1 to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,37,50,547/-, which was deposited by them on 20.03.2018 towards enhanced amount of compensation.3. Put in a nutshell, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6938 OF2022The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Appellant(s) Versus Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate Respondent(s) (Since after marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.11614 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and has confirmed the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) directing to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground, the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:- 1 2.1 That the father of the respondent was in the clerical cadre serving with the appellants. He died in harness. After his death, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6774 OF2022M/s. EMAAR INDIA LTD. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS TARUN AGGARWAL PROJECTS LLP & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Arbitration Petition No.637 of 2021, by which, the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) has appointed arbitrators to resolve the dispute between the parties, the original respondent M/s EMMAR India Limited has preferred the present appeal. 12. That the original petitioners respondents herein entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 07.05.2009 for development of a residential colony in Sector 62 and 65, Gurugram. That thereafter, a further Addendum Agreement dated 19.04.2011 was executed between the parties. The dispute aro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6908 OF2022Sanghi Industries Limited ...Appellant(s) Versus Ravin Cables Ltd., and Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Regular First Appeal No.3253 of 2021, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by the Commercial Court in an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act, 1996), by which the Commercial Court directed the appellant herein original opponent/respondent No.1 to deposit the amount of 1 performance bank guarantees pertaining to purchase order Nos. 01, 02 and 03 invoked by it, the original opponent/respondent No.1 has preferred the present appeal.2. We have heard Shri Vivek Chib, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.500 OF2022C.S. Ramaswamy Appellant(s) Versus V.K. Senthil & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.504 OF2022C.S. Ramaswamy Appellant(s) Versus Nanjammal & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.505 OF2022C.S. Ramaswamy Appellant(s) Versus Shanmugam & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.506 OF2022C.S. Ramaswamy Appellant(s) Versus Karupannan & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH1CIVIL APPEAL No.502 OF2022C.S. Ramaswamy Appellant(s) Versus K. Palaniappan & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.501 OF2022C.S. Ramaswamy Appellant(s) Versus N. Kalikrishnan & Ors. Respondent(s) AND CIVIL APPEAL No.503 OF2022C.S. Ramaswamy Appellant(s) Versus Nanjammal & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in respective C.R.P. Nos. 1931, 1921, 1973, 1968, 1975, 1976 and 1922 of 2 2019 by which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6958 OF2022Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. Appellant(s) Versus Anusree K.B. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.543 of 2021 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeal preferred by the appellants and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground, the original appellants Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Ors. have preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:- 1 2.1 That father of the respondent was employed as a loading helper with the appellant No.1 and expired while on duty on 19.04.1995. At t...
Tag this Judgment!