Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. No.56308 OF2023IN WRIT PETITION (C) No.191 of 2022 Pinak Pani Mohanty Petitioner (s) Versus Union of India and Ors. Respondent(s) And In the matter of Union of India through Ministry of Cooperation Applicant ORDER M.R. SHAH, J.1. Present application being I.A. No.56308 of 2023 has been preferred by the Union of India, Ministry of Corporation for appropriate directions to transfer an amount of Rs. 5,000 Crores out of unutilized amount of Rs. 23,937 Crores (lying in Sahara-SEBI Refund Account) to be disbursed against the legitimate dues of depositors of Sahara Group of Cooperatives Societies. 12. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General has submitted that a total amount of Rs. 24,979.67 Crores is lying unutilized with the SEBI in Sahara-SEBI Refund Account, which has been deposited pursuant to the earlier direction issued by this Court. He has submitted that out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,569.27 Crores ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No 155 of 2023 M P High Court Bar Association ... Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors ... Respondent JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI1Thirty-nine Debt Recovery Tribunals1 and five Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals2 have been constituted under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 19933. 2 The Department of Financial Services in the Union Ministry of Finance 1 DRTs 2 DRATs 3 1993 Act 2 issued a notification on 23 January 2020 by which the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) Electronic Filing Rules 20204 were notified. Originally, the e-filing of pleadings and applications was made optional. On 22 July 2021, a notification was issued by which the e-filing of cases involving a value of Rs 100 crores and above was made mandatory. At a conference of the Chairpersons of DRATs and the Presiding Officers of DRTs on 9 June 2022, it was recommended ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5622 OF2009CCE, AURANGABAD APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8026 OF2022JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. These appeals, by the revenue, challenge two orders by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT hereafter).2. In the first appeal1, the assessee is M/s Videocon International (hereafter Videocon). CESTAT, by its impugned order2 in the first appeal, allowed Videocons appeal and held that the LCD panels imported by it are classifiable in Chapter Heading (CH) 9013.8010 [of the First Schedule to the Customs 1 CA56222009 2 Dated 06.01.2009 in Order No.A/46/09/CSTB/C-II2Tariff Act, 1975 (hereafter CTA)]., as Liquid Crystal Devices- as opposed to the revenues stand, that they are classifiable as 85.29 "parts of goods falling under heading 85.28" [television sets falling in heading 85.28].. Videocon manufactu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 973-974 OF2011ANWAR @ BHUGRA Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA Respondent JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.1. The appellant convicted by the trial court and his conviction and sentence having been confirmed by the High Court under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, has filed the present appeals before this Court.2. The facts as available on record are that FIR No.104 dated 05.04.1994 was registered at P.S. Gharaunda, (Haryana) under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC). On 04.04.1994, Jahid (PW-4), the complainant had come to village Barsat for purchasing grocery items from his village 1 Rana Majra. While he was returning to his village after purchasing the goods, he was apprehended by three persons near the cremation ground at about 8.00 P.M. They asked him to hand over whatsoever he had othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.1362 of 2011 [NON-REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1362 of 2011 Geeta & Ors. Appellants Versus Financial Commissioner Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.-.-- Respondents JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.1. Having failed at all stages of the proceedings, the Appellants are before this Court impugning the order passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court whereby writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 15.12.1994 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order dated 23.3.1993 passed by the Joint Registrar (II), Cooperative Societies, Delhi whereby the membership of late husband of the appellant no.1 was expelled. It was on account of non-payment of dues for construction of flats and Page 1 of 8 Civil Appeal No.1362 of 2011 allotment thereof by the Nav Jagriti Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited.2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is a procedure pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2913-2915 OF2018PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO & ORS. .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CHARULATA SAHU & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.1. Since the issues involved in both the captioned appeals are interrelated; the parties are also same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Orissa, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Both the captioned appeals are at the instance of the legal representatives and heirs of the original defendant No.1 (Late Shri Prafulla Sahoo S/o Kumar Sahoo) and are directed against the judgment, order and decree passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dated 5.05.2011 in AHO No.133 of 2000 by which the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants herein thereby affirming the judgment and decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.10215 of 2011 Shivshankara & Anr. Appellants Versus H.P. Vedavyasa Char Respondent JUDGMENT C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.1. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No.6456 of 1993 on the file of the Court of XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, filed this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Honble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA No.1966 of 2007. They are the sons of the third defendant in the said suit, who died during its pendency. They filed the stated first appeal on being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2007 in O.S. No.6456 of 1993. During the pendency of the captioned appeal, the Page 1 of 48 second appellant died and consequently his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants 2.1 to 2.4. Ergo, in this appeal, hereafter the original first appellant and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1948 OF2013Prem Kishore & Ors. ...Appellant(s) Versus Brahm Prakash & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.: This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of the original plaintiff (landlord) of an eviction petition filed under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the Act 1958) and is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 04.05.2010 in the Civil Revision Petition No.1332 of 2002 by which the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the defendant (tenant) thereby rejecting the plaint under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the ground that the eviction petition was barred by the principles of res judicata. Factual Matrix 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summaried as under.3. It is the case of the appellants that the respondents herein were inducted as tenants o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1910 OF2010BALU SUDAM KHALDE AND ANOTHER APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ......RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:1. This appeal by special leave is at the instance of two convict persons and is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.637 of 2003 by which the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal referred to above, and thereby affirmed the order of conviction and the consequence sentence dated 12.03.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dated 12.03.2003 in Sessions Case No.323 of 2001, by convicting both the appellants herein for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each with the stipulation that in 2 default of payment of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2023[Arising out of SLP(CRL.)No.2351 OF2023 UNION OF INDIA APPELLANT VERSUS AJAY KUMAR SINGH @ PAPPU RESPONDENT JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, learned Advocate-on- Record, appearing for the respondent.3. The appellant-Union of India has preferred this appeal against the final judgment and order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the High Court of judicature at 2 Allahabad, allowing Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.21330 of 2022 and directing for the release of the respondent-accused Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu on bail.4. The respondent-accused is alleged to be involved in Case No.687/2021 arising out of Case No.1/2021 under Sections 8/20/27-A/29/32 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the NDPS Act), Police Station...
Tag this Judgment!