Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 10 of about 756,181 results (5.156 seconds)

Aug 24 2020 (SC)

Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana Vs. Dlf Southern Homes P ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.6239 of 2019 Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan ...Appellants and Aleya Sultana and Ors. Versus DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd ...Respondents (now Known as BEGUR OMR Homes Pvt. Ltd.) and Ors. With Civil Appeal No.6303 of 2019 1 JUDGMENT Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J1The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 dismissed a consumer complaint filed by 339 flat buyers, accepting the defence of DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Annabel Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. that there was no deficiency of service on their part in complying with their contractual obligations and, that despite a delay in handing over the possession of the residential flats, the purchasers were not entitled to compensation in excess of what was stipulated in the Apartment Buyers Agreement2. 2 The complaint before the NCDRC was initially instituted by nine flat buyers. These nine complainants had booked residential flats in a proje...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 2020 (SC)

Vikrant Singh Malik Vs. Supertech Ltd

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.3526 of 2016 Vikrant Singh Malik and Others ...Appellant(s) Versus Supertech Limited and Others ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 19 February 2016. Declining permission to the complainants to file a composite complaint under the provisions of Section 1 NCDRC 1 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 19862, the NCDRC dismissed the consumer complaint3 which was filed before it by twenty-six flat buyers, on the ground that: 13. there is nothing common between the aforesaid complainants, so no permission can be granted to the above complainants in view of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. file one complaint to However, the complainants were granted the liberty to institute individual complaints before the appropriate forum. 2 The complaint before the NCDRC was instituted by twenty-...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 2020 (SC)

V.n. Krishna Murthy Vs. Sri Ravikumar

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2701-2704 OF2020(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 6952-6955 OF2020 SRI V.N.KRISHNA MURTHY & ANR. ETC.ETC. .. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SRI RAVIKUMAR & ORS. ETC.ETC. .. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KRISHNA MURARI, J.The instant appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Principal Bench at Bengaluru in R.F.A. Nos. 1434 of 2017, 1435 of 2017, 1436 of 2017 and 1775 of 2017 declining to grant leave to file an appeal. 1 2. Necessary facts in brief for the adjudication of controversy can be summarized as under :- Disputes relates to land comprised in Survey No.105/3 measuring 37 guntas, Survey No.105/9 measuring 34 guntas and Survey No.105/4B measuring 20 guntas, situate at Village Jakkur, Bengaluru, North Taluk. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein who were recorded owner of the land in dispute executed a registered agreement of sale of the land...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 2020 (SC)

Sardar Bahginder Singh Vs. Sardar Manjieeth Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2964 of 2020 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.7217 of 2020 Sardar Bahginder Singh s/o Gurucharan Singh ...Appellant Versus Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh and Ors. ...Respondents With Civil Appeal No.2966 of 2020 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.7227 of 2020 And With Civil Appeal No.2965 of 2020 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.7219 of 2020 1 JUDGMENT Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J12 Leave granted. Prior to the re-organisation of states, the Hyderabad Legislative Assembly enacted a law called the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act 19561. On receiving the assent of the President on 16 September 1956, the Nanded Act 1956 was published in the Hyderabad Government Gazette on 20 September 1956. Section 2(c) defines the expression Gurudwara thus: Gurudwara means the institution known as the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apch...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2020 (SC)

mohd.anwar Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1551 of 2010 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3388 of 2010]. Mohd. Anwar ..... Appellant(s) VERSUS The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) .....Respondent(s) Surya Kant, J: JUDGMENT The present criminal appeal, which has been heard through video conferencing, is at the instance of Mohd. Anwar who impugnes the judgment dated 22.02.2010 of the High Court of Delhi whereby his appeal against a judgment dated 27/29.04.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, convicting and sentencing him under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, was turned down. FACTS & CASE HISTORY2 The case of the prosecution is that the victim-complainant, Tabban Khan (PW-1), was riding his motorcycle on the main road near Shahdara around 11:30PM on 17.05.2001, when he stopped to ease himself near a Page | 1 fishpond. Suddenly, three boys (including the appellant) c...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2020 (SC)

Ghanshyam Upadhyay Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRL. M.P. No.70798/2020 IN WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.177 OF2020Ghanshyam Upadhyay . Petitioner(s) Versus State of U.P. & Ors. . Respondent(s) ORDER1 The petitioner in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition/application is the petitioner in W.P (Crl.) No.177/2020. The said writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of public interest seeking for issue of Writ of Mandamus and direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition to initiate action with regard to the destruction of residential building and other properties of accused Vikas Dubey and to safeguard the life of the accused. Before the petition was taken up for consideration certain other developments had WP (Crl) No.177/2020 2 occurred, inasmuch as the said Vikas Dubey was killed by the police in an alleged encounter. Along with the said writ petition, certain other writ petitions which were also filed in public ...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2020 (SC)

Rhea Chakraborty Vs. The State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

[REPORTABLE]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.225 of 2020 Rhea Chakraborty Petitioner Versus State of Bihar & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. This Transfer Petition is filed under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 with prayer for transfer of the FIR No.241 of 2020 (dated 25.7.2020) under Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) registered at the Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna and all consequential proceedings, from the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Patna Sadar, Page 1 of 35 to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra Mumbai. The matter relates to the unnatural death of the actor Sushant Singh Rajput on 14.6.2020, at his Bandra residence at Mumbai. The deceased resided within Bandra Police Station jurisdiction and there i...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2020 (SC)

Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Regency Mahavir Properties .

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5147 OF2016DECCAN PAPER MILLS CO. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS REGENCY MAHAVIR PROPERTIES & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. The hearing in this appeal followed in the wake of the hearing in Civil Appeal Nos. 5145 of 2016, 5158 of 2016, and 9820 of 2016. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy in this appeal are as follows: i. By an agreement dated 22.07.2004 between the Appellant, Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as Deccan]. and the Respondent No.2 company, M/s Ashray Premises Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as Ashray]., Deccan, being the owner of approximately 80,200 sq. meters of land bearing Survey Nos. 96B, 96C, and 96D at village Mundhwa, District Pune, decided to develop a portion of the said land, i.e., 32,659 sq. 1 meters. It is not necessary to enter into the nitty-gritty of the said agreement. However, it is enough to note that this agreement cont...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2020 (SC)

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Calicut V ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.72407248 OF2009THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT Appellant Versus M/S. CERA BOARDS AND DOORS, KANNUR KERALA ETC. ETC. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.86158620 OF2009CIVIL APPEAL Nos.22362253 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos.32273230 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos.32313233 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos.65646567 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL Nos.99889991 OF20112 JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian,J.Introduction 1. All the appeals on hand are by the Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax of different Commissionerates, filed under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), questioning the correctness of the orders passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore (CESTAT) in seven different batches of cases, but arising out of similar facts and raising identical questions.2. For the purpose of convenience,...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2020 (SC)

Avitel Post Studioz Limited and Ors. Vs. Hsbc Pi Holding (Mauritius) L ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5145 OF2016AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED RESPONDENT AND CIVIL APPEAL No.5158 OF2016HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED APPELLANT VERSUS AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.9820 OF2016JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. These two appeals being Civil Appeal No.5145 of 2016 by Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. [Avitel India]. and its promoters [the Jain family]., 1 and the cross appeal being Civil Appeal No.5158 of 2016 by HSBC PL Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. [HSBC]., impugn the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [1996 Act]. dated 31.07.2014. To dispose of the said appeals, we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No.5145 of 2016. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy that arises in the present case are as follows: (i) On 21.04.2011, a Sh...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //