Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 7 of about 756,181 results (2.123 seconds)

Sep 04 2020 (SC)

Raghav Gupta Vs. State ( Nct of Delhi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.562 OF2020(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.2942 of 2020) RAGHAV GUPTA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.Leave granted.2. The appellant questions his prosecution under Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called as the Rules) framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act).3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Though several grounds have been urged to challenge the prosecution, we are satisfied that the appeal can be disposed of on a single undisputed ground. The facts shall therefore be 1 stated with brevity only to the extent necessary for purposes of the present order.4. The Food Inspector purchased sealed samples of Snapple Juice Drink on 03.05.2011 for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst dated 30.05.2011, held that the sample confir...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 2020 (SC)

The Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs. Swwapnil Bhingardevay

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2955 OF2020THE KARAD URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SWWAPNIL BHINGARDEVAY & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2902 OF2020JUDGMENT V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.1. Challenging an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as NCLAT) (i) setting aside the approval granted by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as NCLT) to a Resolution Plan and (ii) remanding the matter back to the NCLT with a direction to have the Resolution Plan resubmitted before the Committee of Creditors, the financial creditor and the Resolution Professional have come up with these appeals. 2 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing on both sides.3. The Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., which is the financial creditor, filed an application on 04.09.2017 under Section 7 of the IBC before the NCLT against M/s. Khandoba Prasanna Sakhar Karkhana Limit...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 2020 (SC)

R. Poornima Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.1172 OF2019R. POORNIMA AND ORS. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. A. Bobde, CJI.1. Persons who were appointed as District Judges (Entry Level) by way of direct recruitment vide a Government Order G.O. Ms. No.170, Home Department dated 18.02.2011 in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service have come up with this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs: (a) Issue a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Directions, to call for records relating to the last list of names recommended by the Honble Chief Justice of High Court of Madras to the Honble Chief Justice of India for 1 appointment as Judges of Madras High Court and quash the same in so far as it relates to the names of Respondents No.5 to 23 herein and consequently direct the Honble Collegiums of the Madras High Court to consider the names of t...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 2020 (SC)

In Re : Vijay Kurle and Ors Vs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION Non-Reportable M.A. No.1434 of 2020 In In Misc. Application Diary No.15272 of 2020 Suo Moto Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.2 of 2019 Rashid Khan Pathan AND IN THE MATTER OF: IN RE: Vijay Kurle & Ors. . Applicant .... Respondent(s) ORDER By a judgment dated 27.04.2020, the Appellant 1. herein Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan and two others, Sh. Vijay Kurle and Sh. Nilesh Ojha were held guilty of contempt for making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against the Judges of this Court. On 01.05.2020, the matter was listed for hearing the contemnors on the sentence. On that day this Court was informed that applications for recall of the judgment dated 27.04.2020 were filed. Anyhow, the matter could not be heard on 01.05.2020 due to technical 1 | P a g e reasons as connection could not be established with one of the contemnors or his counsel. After hearing the contemnors regarding the sentence on 04.05.2020, this Court found that there was no rem...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2020 (SC)

M/S Bandekar Brothers pvt.ltd. Vs. Prasad Vassudev Keni

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 546-550 OF2017M/S BANDEKAR BROTHERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Appellants Versus PRASAD VASSUDEV KENI, ETC. ETC. Respondents JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. The proceedings in this case arise out of two criminal complaints dated 11.08.2009 filed by the Appellants against the Respondents herein before the Court of the Sessions Judge, North Goa, under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in respect of offences alleged under Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).2. Accused No.1 in the aforesaid complaints is a proprietary concern of the late V.G. Quenim, based in Goa, which is engaged in the business of producing, processing and sale of iron ore. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are his son and wife respectively, who are the co-proprietors of M/s V.G. Quenim, the aforesaid V.G. Quenim having expired on 20.07.2007. M/s V.G. 1 Quenim had shared a business relati...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2020 (SC)

Shridhar c.shetty (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Vs. addl.collector and Competen ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2019 OF2010SHRIDHAR C. SHETTY (DECEASED) THR. LRS. VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J.The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the High Court affirming the demand dated 15.10.2005 by respondent No.1 for Rs. 51,97,196/ plus interest, penalty and recovery expenses as arrears of land revenue. The demand was raised consequent to the failure of the appellant to handover seven tenements to government nominees as required under the conditions of exemption granted under Sections 20 and 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) (since repealed in 1999). The Additional Commissioner, 1 Konkan Division, Mumbai as the appellate authority affirmed the same by his order dated 12.07.2006.2. Shri Amar Dave, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that exemption was granted...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2020 (SC)

Union of India Vs. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 REPORTABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M.A. (D) No.9887 OF2020IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.63286399 OF2015UNION OF INDIA ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA ETC.ETC. ..RESPONDENT(S) SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION [C]. No.1 OF2020WITH DIARY NO(S). 2450/2020 DIARY NO(S). 2458/2020 DIARY NO(S). 2461/2020 DIARY NO(S). 2476/2020 DIARY NO(S). 2578/2020 W.P.(C) No.238/2020 MA725796/2020 IN C.A. No.63286399/2015 M.A. NO.1464 OF2020JUDGMENT21. This Court passed judgment and order in C.A. Nos.63286399 of 2015 Union of India v. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India and other civil appeals decided by a common judgment and order dated 24.10.2019. The Court decided regarding the definition of the 'AGR' and dues to be paid thereunder.2. The concept of AGR arose in the light of the provisions contained in the policy framed by the Government of India and the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act. Under section 4(1) of the Te...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2020 (SC)

Sarika Vs. Administrator, Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain (Mp)

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 REPORTABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M.A. No.1235 OF2019IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.4676 OF2018SARIKA ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ADMINISTRATOR, MAHAKALESHWAR MANDIR COMMITTEE, UJJAIN (M.P.) & ORS. ..RESPONDENT(S) ARUN MISHRA, J.JUDGMENT1 This Court is monitoring the compliance of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.4676/2018 on 02.05.2018. We have appointed an Expert Committee consisting of experts of Archaeological Survey of India and Geological Survey of India concerning the prevention of erosion of Shivalinga in Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple at Ujjain. The Expert Team visited Ujjain on 19.01.2019. Its Report indicates that there was erosion of Shivalinga after the last inspection, and it is a continuing process. The last inspection was made earlier in 2018. The time gap was short when the inspection was made. As such, 2 the extent of further erosion was not measured. However, the facts remain that there was some erosion of the Shivalingam. We hav...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2020 (SC)

m/s.l.r.brothers,indo Flora Ltd. Through Its Director Vs. Comissioner ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7157 OF2008M/s. L. R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent JUDGMENT A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the Final Order No.C/203/08 dated 17.7.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal1 in Customs Appeal No.9 of 2008, whereby the customs duty levied upon the appellant on the sale of cut flowers within the Domestic Tariff Area2 had been confirmed by the Tribunal.2. The factual matrix leading to the present appeal is that the appellant M/s. L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. is a 100% Export 1 For short, CESTAT 2 For short, DTA 2 Oriented Unit3 and engaged in production of cut flowers and flower buds of all kinds, suitable for bouquets and for ornamental purposes. The 100% EOU is required to export all articles produced by it. As a consequence whereof, it is exempted from payment of customs duty on the imported inp...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2020 (SC)

The Designated Authority Vs. M/S the Andhra Petrochemicals Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3046-3048_OF2020(Arising out of SLP (C) NO(S). 22582-22584 OF2019 THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S THE ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED ...RESPONDENT(S) S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.JUDGMENT1 Leave granted. With consent, the appeals were heard finally. The present appeals by special leave impugns three orders of the Telangana High Court, dated 28.08.2018, 22.07.2019 and 05.08.2019 respectively. These were in the context of the respondent/writ petitioners (hereafter Andhra Petro) challenge to orders of the Designated Authority (hereafter DA), which related to the question of imposition of anti-dumping duty.2. The facts are that Andhra Petro applied to the Central Government, seeking imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of normal Butanol or N-butyl alcohol originating in and exported into India from Saudi Arabia. Butanol is a basic organic chemical and a primary alcohol; it is ...

Tag this Judgment!


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