Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2023NSC825 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5510 OF2023VASANT NATURE CURE HOSPITAL & PRATIBHA MATERNITY HOSPITAL TRUST & ORS. .... APPELLANTS VERSUS UKAJI RAMAJI-SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ANR. .... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. The appellants by way of present appeal have challenged the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application (for recall) No.3 of 2019 in Regular Second Appeal No.84 of 1997.2. The appellants run a natural therapy center in the name and style of Vasant Nature Care Hospital and Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust. The Respondent No.1 Ukaji Ramaji (since deceased, through his legal representatives) was employed as a watchman by the Appellant No.1 trust to take care of the said hospitals. He was given one room to reside 1 for discharging his duties as watchman. On 25.06.1979, the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2023INSC1084IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1692 OF2022BUDDHADEB SAHA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s) ORDER1 This appeal is at the instance of four convicts and is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2019 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2018, by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the convicts (appellants herein) and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Katwa, Burdwan, West Bengal in the Sessions Trial No.13 of 2014 holding the appellants guilty for the offence 2 punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC). The Trial Court sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and rigorous im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2023NSC826 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 2069-2070 OF2022RUPESH MANGER (THAPA) APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM . RESPONDENT JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.1. These appeals would call in question the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2022 and 05.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2020 whereby the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal of the Trial Court dated 30.10.2018 and convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short IPC) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for life. 22. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant-accused committed murder of his grandfather Krishna Bahadur Rai (hereinafter called deceased). An FIR was lodged to the said effect by Reeta Rai (PW-1), daughter of the deceased informing the police that he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC821NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.20 OF2014BHAKTU GORAIN & ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL RESPONDENT JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL, J.1. Heard Shri Ranjan Mukherjee and Mr. Nipun Saxena along with Ms. Astha Sharma, learned counsel for the parties.2. In Sessions Trial No.05/1998 arising from Sessions Case No.37/1997 pursuant to the FIR No.110/1993 lodged under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 of IPC at Jhalda Police Station, Purulia, by one Lakshmi Mahato, the eldest son of the deceased-Smt. Keshari Mahato, all the five accused persons 1 namely; Bhaktu Gorain (A-1), Surendra Gorain (A-2), Bandhu Gorain (A-3), Ranjit Gorai (A-4) and Rajen Gorain (A-5) were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of which they were directed to serve further imprisonment of one month each. The above judgment and order of the conviction and sentencing the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC820 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2085 OF2022AXIS BANK LIMITED APPELLANT(S) VERSUS NAREN SHETH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J.This appeal, under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016,1 has been filed assailing the correctness of judgment and order of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal2 dated 04.01.2022, whereby the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.930 of 2021 filed by the appellant was dismissed 1 In short, IBC 2 NCLAT Civil Appeal No.2085 of 2022 Page 1 of 32 upholding the judgment and order dated 22.09.2021, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, admitting the application under Section 7 of the IBC after condoning the delay.2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are briefly summarized as under:2. 1. The appellant entered into a leave and license agreement with Universal Premises and Textiles Private Limited3 for the premises being Ground to 10th floor in the building nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023NSC824 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8238 OF2022STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER ..... A P PELLANTS VERSUS M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER ..... R E SPONDENTS JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.This appeal, by way of special leave, takes exception to the judgment of the division bench of the High Court of Calcutta, whereby the intra-court appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal and Others in F.M.A. No.1458 of 2017 with CAN No.6596 of 2017 has been dismissed with the direction to the Appellant No.2 Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Commerce and Enterprises, West Bengal or any authorised officer to execute a mining lease in favour of the Respondent No.2 Dinesh Agarwal, sole proprietor of Respondent No.1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. C.A. No.8238 of 2022 Page 1 of 372. The facts are rather chequered, albeit are required to be noticed in detail. On 07.08.1985, West Bengal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023NSC823 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5342 of 2023 A. VALLIAMMAI ..... A PPELLANT VERSUS K.P. MURALI AND OTHERS ..... R E SPONDENTS W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.5343 of 2023 CIVIL APPEAL No.5344 OF2023A N D CIVIL APPEAL No.5345 OF2023JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023.1. I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023, for permission to take on record additional evidence in the nature of documents, are not opposed. Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 1 of 2017 and 27407 of 2023 are allowed. The documents are taken on record. S. Nos. 2 12 in I.A. No.1 of 2017 are marked as Exhibit Nos. S-1 S-111, and S. Nos. 1 Exhibit S-1 a true copy of the judgment dated 23.12.1992 passed by the district munsif court in O.S. No.508 of 1991; Exhibit S-2 a true copy of the lawyer's notice dated 11.07.1994; Exhibit S-3 Civil Appeal No.5342 of 2023 & Ors. Page 1 of 21 2 4 in I.A. No.27407 of 2023 are marked as Exhibit Nos. S-12 S- 142. C.A. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2023INSC816 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5590 OF2021M/s. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Appellant Versus MUKUL KUMAR & ANR. Respondents JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.Factual Background 1. An agreement was entered into on 02.08.2006 between the appellant and M/s KST Infrastructure Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporate Debtor), for development of land licensed with the appellant admeasuring 8 acres into a residential group housing complex at Faridabad, Haryana. However, the appellant, being aggrieved by the Corporate Debtors alleged misconduct in advertising the project under its own name and without mentioning the name of the appellant, sought reference to arbitration on 02.05.2011.2. The arbitral proceedings culminated in an award dated 01.08.2016 in favour of the appellant. In addition to awarding a CA No.5590/2021 Page 1 of 12 monetary claim, the award inter alia directed the Corporate Debtor to apply to the autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023NSC817 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.377 OF2007CBI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS R.R. KISHORE RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRL. APPEAL No.2763/2023 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) NO.4364 OF2011 JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J.Crl. Appeal No.377/2007.1. This Constitution Bench has been constituted to consider whether the declaration made by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another , that 1 Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 194 being 2 unconstitutional, can be applied retrospectively in context with Article 20 of the Constitution. 1 (2014) 8 SCC6822 In short DSPE Act Crl. Appeal No.377 of 2007 Page 1 of 1062. Necessary facts relevant for the purposes of this case are stated hereunder:2. 1 The appellant-Central Bureau of Investigation 3 after registering the First Information Report at 02:00 pm on 16.12.2004 for offences under the Prevention of Corr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE2023NSC819 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2242 OF2023RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2243 OF2023JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. These appeals1 arise from a final order2 of the Delhi High Court rejecting a petition for quashing criminal proceedings, filed by the DBS Bank India Limited (second respondent in the first appeal /appellant in second the appeal) (hereafter DBS). In the two appeals, Religare Finvest Limited (hereafter complainant or RFL) and DBS have challenged the impugned order. To be more specific, they are also impleaded as second respondents in each others appeal.2. RFL filed a commercial suit3 seeking to recover 791 Crores from (the erstwhile) Laxmi Vilas Bank (hereafter LVB). The claim was based on the 1 Crl. A. No.2242 / 2023 & Crl.A. No.2243 / 2023. 2 Dated 24.3.2023 in Crl. M. C. No.3173 of 2021. 3 (Comm.) No.940/2018. 2...
Tag this Judgment!