Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No 640 of 2022 Supreme Court Bar Association Petitioner Versus Ministry of Urban Development & Ors. Respondents And With Writ Petition (C) No 817 of 2022 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI1 The Supreme Court Bar Association1 has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Union Ministry of Urban Development to (i) grant permission for the conversion into a chamber block for lawyers of an entire tract of land admeasuring 1.33 acres situated near the ITO, which has been allotted to the Supreme Court; (ii) convert the entire area around the Supreme Court as a Supreme Court Complex so that all the buildings across the Supreme Court on Bhagwan Das Road including the Foreign Correspondents Club of South Asia, Indian Law Institute and Indian Society of International Law can be utilized for conversion into chambers or for being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.2136 of 2010 Jagtar Singh Appellant Versus State of Punjab Respondent JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.1. The appellant has challenged his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act). He was convicted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 5.8.2005. His conviction was upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide judgment dated March 2, 2010.2. The facts, as are evident from the paper book, are that a demand of 500/- was made as illegal gratification and the appellant accepted a sum of 300/- for supplying copy of death certificate of Maghar Singh (deceased). 13. In the complaint, it was alleged that for getting the death certificate of Maghar Singh S/o. Hari Singh, who expired on 6.3.2003, Ranjit Singh, his son, requested his cousin Jit Singh to collect the same. On 17.10.2003, Jit Singh/complainant met the appellant in connection with supply of death certi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3441-3442 OF2015UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. BHARAT ENTERPRISE Respondent(s) JUDGMENT K. M. JOSEPH, J.1) A contract was entered into between the parties for the repair of bathrooms and other allied works on 02.07.2001. It would appear that time was extended up to 19.01.2002. The respondent-Contractor submitted final bill on 13.02.2002. It contained a No Claims Certificate. The said amount claimed by the respondent apparently was not paid immediately. The respondent it would appear made several reminders regarding the non-payment of the final bill for a 1 CA Nos. 3441-3442/ 2015 period of one year. Following many reminders by the respondent regarding the non payment of the final bill, according to the respondent, it sent a list of additional claims on 25.02.2003 and in the said letter, claimed that the letter and the Final bill should be considered as under protest. The respondent s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO1927...OF2023(arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2139 of 2021) THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS KAMLESH RANI BHATLA RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.Leave granted.2. The appellants question the legality of a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which in substance sustains an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the respondent to withdraw her resignation and permit her to re- join duty. At the material point of time, the respondent was working as an Assistant Teacher in a school under the Directorate of Education, Delhi Government, who are the appellants before us. She had tendered her resignation on 22nd March 2012 as she desired to participate in the elections for the post of a Counsellor of 1 Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Her request for resignation was accepted by the authorities on 29th March itself, with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NOS. 88960 OF2020& 47525 OF2021IN CIVIL APPEAL No.10856 OF2016Bhupinder Singh Appellant(s) Versus Unitech Limited Respondent(s)/ Applicant (s) ORDER M.R. SHAH, J.1. Present I.A. No.88960 of 2020 has been preferred by the present management of Unitech Limited seeking following prayers/directions: - (i) Direct M/s. Devas Global LLP to deposit the entire sale consideration of Rs. 206.50 crores for 26.475 acres of land sought to be purchased by it in a time bound manner; (ii) Direct M/s. Devas Global LLP to either purchase the entire land, as committed, at the same rate or in the alternative provide suitable access to the balance land by taking only proportionate frontage of the land so that any other subsequent purchaser is also 1 able to get adequate access to the land without any interference and Unitech is able to maximise its revenues from realization of assets; (iii) Direct that M/s. Devas Global LLP shall not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9195-9196 OF2010M/S BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals, directed against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal1 (hereafter CESTAT or tribunal) is whether the price at which the appellant M/s Bilag Industries Ltd., Vapi (hereafter BIL) sold its products to the buyer, should be treated as a transaction with a related person under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereafter the Act).2. BIL was incorporated as Mitsu Industries Ltd. (hereafter MIL) in 1992; it was formed by members of the Bilkhias family who were its major shareholders/promoters. MIL used to manufacture pesticides, insecticides and their intermediaries classifiable under Chapter 38, Central Tariff Act, 1985 (hereafter 1 Dated 23.04.2010...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4369 OF2009M/S. PLATINUM THEATRE AND OTHERS .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMPETENT AUTHORITY SMUGGLERS & FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS (FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY) ACT, 1976 AND ANOTHER .RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th April, 2007 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore upholding the order passed by the competent authority under Section 7 read with 19(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators(Forfeiture of 1 Property) Act, 1976(hereinafter being referred to as the Act, 1976) dated 31st December, 1997.2. Appellant no.1 is said to be a registered partnership firm comprising of appellant nos. 2 to 5 and one N.A. Yusuf(not a party herein) as its partners with the profit sharing ratio of the partners as follows: N.A. Yusuf 50% P.M. Saheeda(appellant No.2) 25% Mohd. Ali(appellant No.3) 8.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.____________ OF2023(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.22803 of 2019) Delhi Development Authority Appellant(s) Versus Batti & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.____________ OF2023(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) D.No.30579 of 2021) Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Appellant(s) Versus Batti & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J.1. Leave granted.2. This order will dispose of two appeals arising out of order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) No.12135/2015. One appeal is preferred by Delhi Development Authority whereas the another has been filed by Government of NCT of Delhi. 23. The service on respondent is complete. However, no one appeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing.4. The facts of the cases are available on record. Vide notification dated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5328-5329 OF2016SHRAMJEEVI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DINESH JOSHI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1877 OF2023(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 12945 OF2019 CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 409-410 OF2021CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 407-408 OF2021CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2370-2371 OF2021CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10239 OF2018JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. Special leave granted in SLP (C) No.12945/2018. In all these appeals, all respondents were served and had entered appearance. The original applicant before the National Green Tribunal (hereafter NGT) too had been served; an 2 affidavit was filed on his behalf. He was however, not represented on the date of hearing. With consent of counsel for the parties, all appeals were heard finally.2. These appeals, under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereafter NGT Act) and appeals by special leave1, question various orders2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9569-70 OF2019COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, KANPUR APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. A.R. POLYMERS PVT. LTD. ETC. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KRISHNA MURARI, J.The present appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.01.2019 passed by CESTAT, Allahabad in Order Nos.A/70266- 20267/2019 -EX (DB) in Appeal Nos.E/70445/2017 and E/70618/2017, whereby the Respondents plea was allowed. FACTS2 Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of these Appeals are as follows: I. The Respondent No.1, M/s AR Polymers Pvt. Ltd. is a manufacturer engaged in the manufacture of footwear and the sale of the same to defense/paramilitary forces in bulk for their use. 1 II. An intelligence was received by the DGCEI that the respondent was availing benefits under notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17/03/12 and Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is limited to footwear sold in retail. T...
Tag this Judgment!