Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 7 of about 728,744 results (2.498 seconds)

Oct 01 2019 (SC)

Satish Ukey Vs. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1515-1516 OF2019[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 19-20 of 2019]. SATISH UKEY VERSUS APPELLANT(S) DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S) RANJAN GOGOI, CJI JUDGMENT1 2. Leave granted. The appellant Satish Ukey is a practicing Advocate of the Bombay High Court. The first respondent is an elected member of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly and is presently holding the post of Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra. 2 3. The appellant had filed a criminal complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur for registration of a case against the first respondent under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act). The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur by order dated 7th September, 2015 dismissed the complaint. In Revision, the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur remand...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 2019 (SC)

Mohinder Kaur Vs. Sant Paul Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 28692870 OF2010MOHINDER KAUR ...APPELLANT(S) SANT PAUL SINGH ...RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS NAVIN SINHA, J.JUDGMENT The defendant is in appeal, aggrieved by the concurrent findings decreeing the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent.2. An agreement for sale with regard to House no.3343/3, situated in Rupnagar Municipality was executed between the parties on 16.03.1988 for an agreed consideration of Rs.1,50,000/. At the time of execution, a sum of Rs.15,000/ was paid. As the suit property stood mortgaged to the education department, a further agreement dated 20.06.1988 was executed between the parties, that the sale deed would be executed within 1 15 days of the defendant obtaining release of the property from mortgage, giving due intimation to the plaintiff. A further sum of Rs.53,000/ and cash of Rs.2,000/ was paid to the defendant. The appellant after redemption of the mortgage, inti...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 2019 (SC)

Krishna Devi Maheshwari Vs. Surendra Surekha

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No(s). 26/2016 KRISHNA DEVI MAHESHWARI Appellant(s) VERSUS SURENDRA SUREKHA Respondent(s) R. BANUMATHI, J.: JUDGMENT (1) We have heard Mr. V.C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. (2) The appellant-landlord filed the petition under Section 21(i)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Control of Letting of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of the premises let out to the respondent-tenant for personal use of the appellants son who is practicing as an advocate. (3) On 05.09.2012 the Prescribed Authority passed an ex-parte order against the respondent-tenant. There were number of proceedings/applications pending between the appellant- landlord and the respondent-tenant. Grievance of the appellant-landlord is that the respondent-tenant kept on taking adjournments by filing one after another applications and thereby the matter could not be proceeded. (4) The respondents application for se...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2019 (SC)

Anupal Singh . Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secret ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4815 OF2019REPORTABLE ANUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS ...Appellants VERSUS STATE OF U.P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS ...Respondents WITH C.A. No.4817/2019, C.A. No.4816/2019, C.A. No.4819/2019, C.A. No.4818/2019, C.A. No.4821/2019, C.A. No.4820/2019, C.A. No.4830/2019, C.A. No.4829/2019, C.A. No.4833/2019, C.A. No.4825/2019, C.A. No.4827/2019, C.A. No.4834/2019, C.A. No.4828/2019, C.A. No.4824/2019, C.A. No.4835/2019, C.A. Nos.4822-23/2019, C.A. No.4836/2019, C.A. No.4826/2019, C.A. No.4832/2019, C.A. No.4831/2019 JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 10.02.2017 in Writ-C No.34196 of 2015 and batch matters passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in and by which the High Court while upholding the result of written examination for the post of Technical Assistant-Group-C Agriculture Department, quashed selection process subsequent to the written e...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2019 (SC)

K H Nazar Vs. Mathew K Jacob

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 7699-7700 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7792-7793 of 2019) K. H. NAZAR MATHEW K. JACOB & ORS. .... Appellant(s) Versus . Respondent (s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted. The width and amplitude of the expression 1. commercial site in Section 2 (5) and Section 81 (1) (q) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short, the Act), falls for our consideration in these Appeals. Commercial sites are exempted from the purview of the Act. The question whether a rocky land which is used for quarrying purposes can be treated as a commercial site and thereby excluded from the applicability of the Act was answered by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court by holding that mere blasting of rocks and 1 conversion into metals does not render the area a commercial site.1 Twenty years after the said judgment, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court took a different view. Quarrying was held ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2019 (SC)

Sagar Sharma Vs. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7673 OF2019SAGAR SHARMA & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS PHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT R. F. Nariman, J.1) By our judgment dated 11.10.2018 in B.K. Educational Services Private Limited vs. Parag Gupta and Associates (2018 SCC OnLine SC1921in paragraphs 2, 20, 38, 43, 48 &49) we had made it clear that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Codes coming into force on 01.12.2016 is wholly irrelevant to the triggering of any limitation period for the purposes of the Code. However, we find that in the impugned judgment the following statement is made: 13. Admittedly, I&B Code has come into force since 1st December, 2016, therefore, the right to apply accrued to 1st Respondent on 1st December, 2016. Therefore, we hold that the application under Section 7 was not barred by limitation.2) We had also made it clear beyond any doubt that for applications that will be filed under Section 7 of the Code, 2...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2019 (SC)

Kanna Timma Kanaji Madiwal (D) Thr. Lr. Vs. Ramachandra Timmaya Hegde ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1300-1301 OF2008KANNA TIMMA KANAJI MADIWAL (D) THROUGH LRS. APPELLANT(S) VS. RAMACHANDRA TIMMAYA HEGDE (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) Dinesh Maheshwari, J.JUDGMENT1 In the foreground, these appeals are in challenge to the judgment and orders dated 08.08.2001 and 06.12.2004, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in L.R.R.P. No.1 of 1996 and Review Petition No.484 of 2002 respectively, arising out of an application filed by the father of the appellant for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 4 parcels of agricultural land1 situated at Bilagi Village, Siddapur Taluk, Uttara Kannada District, Karnataka [the land in question].. However, in the background is a labyrinth of litigation/s, spreading well over half a century, as briefly summarised infra.2. The relationship and respective position of the parties involved in the matter may be noticed at the outset and as follows:1. Bear...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2019 (SC)

Indusind Media and Communications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs New ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Civil Appeal No.2498 of 2018 Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2498 OF2018INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTD. Appellant COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI Respondent VERSUS JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. This Appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises out of Order No.C/A/57743/2017 dated 09.11.2017 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) dismissing Appeal No.C/51770 of 2016 preferred by the appellant herein.2. The basic facts leading to the issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2014 initiating proceedings against the appellant, as set out in the Order under appeal are as under:- Civil Appeal No.2498 of 2018 Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2 The appellant imported certain goods at air cargo complex, New Delhi ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2019 (SC)

Guru @ Gurubaran Vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1893 OF2010GURU @ GURUBARAN & ORS. APPELLANT(S) Versus STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.1. This appeal is filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9 against the judgment of the High Court whereby Guru @ Gurubaran (A1) and Durai @ Durairajan (A2) have been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ each with default sentence of 3 1 months rigorous imprisonment (RI). As far as Vettri @ Vetrivell (A3) is concerned, he was convicted under Section 324 IPC on two counts and sentenced to one year RI on each count and fine of Rs.1000/ with default sentence of 3 months. Narayanan (A5) and Srinivasan (A9) along with other accused were convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months RI and pay fine of Rs.1000/ each with default sentence of 3 months. All the sentences were to ru...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2019 (SC)

Shivkishan Vs. Sujata Tarachand Makhija and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

CA Nos.7652-7653 of 2019 arising out of SLP(C)Nos.29516-29517 of 2016 Shivkishan vs. Sujata Tarachand Makhija and ors. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION1Reportable CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7652-7653 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.29516-29517 of 2016) SHIVKISHAN Appellant VERSUS SUJATA TARACHAND MAKHIJA AND ORS. Respondents JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. 2. Leave granted. These appeals challenge the decisions of the High Court1, namely, (i) Judgment and Final Order dated 21.09.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.1460 of 2006 and; (ii) Final Order dated 01.08.2016 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.206 of 2016 in Writ Petition No.1460 of 2006(D).3. The facts leading to the filing of Dispute No.136 of 1989 under the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur CA Nos.7652-7653 of 2019 arising out of SLP(C)Nos.29516-29517 of 2016 Shivkishan vs. Sujata Tarach...

Tag this Judgment!


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