[Civil Appeal Nos.1727-1732 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.24971-24976 of 2018]. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 12.06.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition(c) 1 Nos.2639, 2184, 2642, 2641, 2644 and 2746 of 2016 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein. A few facts need mention hereinbelow to appreciate the short controversy involved in these appeals. Respondent No.1 in all the appeals (total 6) were the writ petitioners and the appellants (1 to 6) herein were the respondents in the six writ petitions out of which these appeals arise. The six respondents individually filed six separate writ petitions against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (appellant No.1 herein) and their officials including the Collector (Respondent Nos.2 to 6) and sought common reliefs in their individual writ petitions against the appellants on identical, factual and legal pleadings/grounds.
↧
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa (D) through his legal heir Mr. Mohd.Muqueen Qureshi [18/02/19]
↧
Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi Vs. B.B. Agarwal [18/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal Nos.2107-2125 of 2011]. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.MC Nos.572230 of 2006 & Crl.MA No.9675 of 2006, Crl.MC No.74 of 2007 & Crl.MA Nos.23536 of 1 2007, Crl.MC No.80 of 2007 & Crl.MA Nos.25960 of 2007 and Crl.MC No.2376 of 2007 & Crl.MA Nos.834142 of 2007 whereby the High Court allowed the criminal petitions filed by the respondents herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") and quashed the criminal proceedings in CBI Case No.RC.4(A)/94CBI/ BSC/DLI pending before the Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi against the respondents herein.
↧
↧
MMTC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Vedanta Ltd. [18/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 1862 of 2014]. This civil appeal arises out of the judgment and final order dated 09.02.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 949 of 2002, affirming the judgment and order dated 05.08.2002 of the Learned Single Judge whereby the Appellant's Objections Petition challenging the Majority Award dated 27.06.2001 had been disallowed. Vide the Majority Award, the Appellant had been directed to pay certain amounts to the Respondent under their agreement dated 14.12.1993. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal are as follows: M/- s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., (renamed M/- s Vedanta Ltd., the Respondent herein) was a manufacturer of continuous Cast Copper Rods. Vide the agreement dated 14.12.1993, MMTC Ltd. (the Appellant herein), a government company, was appointed as a consignment agent from whom the Respondent could avail services such as storage, handling and marketing of the copper rods produced by the Respondent.
↧
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Vs. Sterlite Industries India Ltd. [18/02/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos.4763-4764 of 2013]. The present appeals arise out of orders that have been passed by the National Green Tribunal ["NGT"] dated 31.05.2013, 08.08.2013, and 15.12.2018. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the controversy raised in the present case are as follows. The respondent, Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. / Vedanta Ltd., was operating a copper smelter plant at the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT) Industrial Complex at Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu. On 01.08.1994, the respondent received a No-Objection Certificate ["NOC"] from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board ["TNPCB"] for the production of blister copper and sulphuric acid. The environmental clearance to the project by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change ["MoEF"] followed on 16.01.1995.
↧
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Harjeet Singh [19/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2009]. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment and order dated 03.01.2006 passed by the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 657/1998. The Criminal Appeal was filed by the Respondents against their conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "Section 307"). The High Court reduced the conviction of the Respondents from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "Section 324"). The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under:
↧
↧
Common Cause Vs. Union of India [19/02/19]
[Writ Petition (C) No. 54 of 2019]. The writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct Union of India to appoint a regular Director of CBI forthwith by following the procedure laid down in section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 10.1.2019 issued by Union of India appointing Mr. Nageshwar Rao as the interim Director of CBI. A further prayer has been made to issue appropriate writ or direction to the Union of India to ensure that all records of deliberations and rational criteria of shortlisting and selection of the Director, CBI be properly recorded and made available to citizens in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. A further prayer has been made to direct Union of India to ensure transparency in shortlisting, selection and appointment process of Director, CBI.
↧
Balvir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [19/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No.1115 of 2010]. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 26.08.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in and by which the High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants (Accused No.1 to 4) under Sections 341, 302 and 302 read with 34 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed upon each of the accused. 1 The High Court also affirmed the conviction of the appellant/accused Harnam Singh under Section 25(1A) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment imposed upon him. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that on 11.03.1998 at about 05.30 PM, Mohan Mehtar belonging to Scheduled Caste was going on motor cycle along with Santosh Rai (PW-2) and Kamal @ Kamlesh (PW-13) to Railway Colony. When they reached near Advocate Mishra's lane, accused Harnam Singh, Balvir Singh, Bhav Singh and Bharat Thakur stopped the motor cycle driven by Santosh Rai (PW-2).
↧
Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand [19/02/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos.3416-3445 of 2010]. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 01.03.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition Nos. 3126, 3128, 3129, 3130, 3132, 31333145, 31483151 and 31533161 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein. A few facts need mention infra for the disposal of these appeals which involve a short point. The appellant No.1 is the Union of India (Commander, Western Base Workshop, General Reserve Engineers Force at Pathankot) and respondent No.2 is its official (Chief Engineer(Project), Sampark, P.O. Gangyal, Jammu) whereas the respondents are the workers.
↧
Md. Rojali Ali Vs. State of Assam, Ministry of Home Affairs through the Secretary [19/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No.1839 of 2010]. In this most unfortunate and beastly incident, four persons fast asleep in their home in the early hours of the morning, oblivious to their imminent fate, were mercilessly murdered in a barbaric manner by the armed accused, without any instigation or provocation. Against the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence dated 29.04.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 68/2001 and the judgment dated 5.3.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2006 passed by the Gauhati High Court, this appeal is presented by the convicted accused.
↧
↧
Laltu Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal [19/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2010]. The judgment dated 15.05.2009 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Government Appeal No. 30 of 1987 is called into question in this appeal by the convicted accused. The case of the prosecution in brief is that there was a dispute between Ananta Ghosh (accused, since deceased) and the victim Keshab, his neighbour, concerning the boundary of the landed property in which they had their respective houses; about 9.30 am on 30.04.1982, accused Ananta Ghosh called the deceased Keshab by standing in front of the house of the deceased; the deceased accordingly came out of his house and his son PW1 followed him; at that point of time, Ananta Ghosh picked a quarrel with the deceased and thereafter instigated his sons Laltu Ghosh and Paltu Ghosh as well as his friend Sakti @ Sero Karmakar to assault the deceased;
↧
Municipal Council Thanesar Vs. Virender Kumar [19/02/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 1751-1763 of 2019 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.15937-15949 of 2017]. Pursuant to public notice for auction of shops/showrooms, the auction was conducted by the appellant on 18.10.2016 in which the respondents participated and were declared successful bidders. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties whether the auctioned premises were ready to be delivered on the relevant dates; whether the construction was incomplete; and whether the civic amenities were made available or not? The matters reached the High Court in various Writ Petitions namely CWP Nos.13548 of 2008, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1020, 1062, 14793 and 19228 of 2009 and by a common order dated 14.07.2010 the disputes were referred to a sole Arbitrator. After considering the matters, the Arbitrator passed a common Award on 14.10.2010. Para 21 of the Award was as under:-
↧
Thangasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [20/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 2010]. In this appeal, the appellant-accused has called in question the judgment and order dated 07.01.2009 in Crl. R.C. No. 232 of 2006 whereby, the Madras High Court at its Madurai Bench, while dismissing the criminal revision petition, has upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 279, 337(3 counts) and 304-A (4 counts) of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). Put in brief, the accusation against the appellant had been that on 24.02.2001 at about 07:15 p.m., while driving a government passenger bus bearing registration No. TN-72-N-0891 in a negligent manner, he caused an accident near Korampallam on Tuticorin-Tirunelveli Main Road, which resulted in the death of four persons namely, Jayaraj, Muniasamy, Gopal and Dharma Nadar whereas three persons namely, Murugan, Senthur Pandian and Krishnan were injured. For the incident in question, FIR came to be registered as Crime No. 70 of 2001; and after investigation, the accused was chargesheeted for the offences as aforesaid.
↧
Reliance Communication Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India [20/02/19]
[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 845 of 2018]. Three contempt petitions are before us, having been filed by Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. ["Ericsson"] against Reliance Communications Ltd. ["RCom"], Reliance Telecom Ltd. ["RTL"], and Reliance Infratel Ltd. ["RITL"] [hereinafter, collectively referred to as the "Reliance Companies" or "Companies"]. The brief facts necessary to appreciate these matters are as follows: On 25.01.2013, Ericsson and RCom entered into a Managed Service Agreement whereby Ericsson agreed to provide RCom managed services, i.e., operation, maintenance, and management of RCom's network. Ericsson raised invoices from time to time in consideration of services provided, and on receiving no payment, ultimately issued three notices, each dated 07.05.2017, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ["Insolvency Code"] to the three Reliance Companies, calling upon them to pay an amount of INR 9.78 crore. These notices were replied to on 19.05.2017, whereby the three Reliance Companies stated that the performance of Ericsson had been inconsistent.
↧
↧
Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Trichy/Madurai [20/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No(S). 807 of 2006]. The present batch of appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, at South Zonal Bench, Chennai (hereinafter being referred to as "Tribunal") rejecting the claim of the appellant (buyer) for refund of the claim of the central excise duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944(hereinafter being referred to as "the Act") which was paid under protest by the manufacturer (M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd.). The short point for consideration in the present batch of appeals is whether the period of limitation of six months shall apply where the refund of central excise duty has been claimed by the buyer and paid by the manufacturer (M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd.) under protest. With the consent of the parties, we are dealing with the facts of Civil Appeal No. 7625 of 2005 as all other are analogous on facts and law.
↧
LMJ International Ltd. Vs. Sleepwell Industries Company Ltd. [20/02/19]
[Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 540 of 2018]. These special leave petitions emanate from the judgment and orders dated 22nd August, 2017 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in G.A. No.3306/2016 in E.C. No.487/2013 and dated 9th July, 2018 in G.A. No.3307/2016 in E.C. No.488/2013, respectively. The special leave petitions pertain to two execution petitions filed by the respondent - award holder concerning two separate foreign awards. Since the questions raised in both these petitions are overlapping, the same are being answered together. The parties had entered into separate contracts for sale of Non Basmati Parboiled Rice, Thailand origin, on the terms and conditions specified in the contracts.
↧
Smt. Sunita Devi Vs. Union of India [20/02/19]
[Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 188 of 2015]. Smt. Seema Garg, daughter-in-law of petitioner No.1, and her two children were murdered on 24.07.2001. FIR No.221 of 2001 to this effect was lodged in Police Station Pilakhwa, District Ghaziabad, U.P. under Sections 302/394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC'). After investigation, the police filed a final report on 17.08.2001 against Nitin Garg, husband of Seema Garg, Manveer @ Mintoo and Mukesh for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of trial, accused Nitin Garg was also murdered. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 16.10.2004 acquitted the accused persons, namely, Manveer @ Mintoo and Mukesh. In the course of judgment the Trial Court observed that the investigation has not been carried on properly.
↧
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Shimla Vs. M/s. Aarham Softronics [20/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No(S). 1784 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23172 of 2018]. Origin of these appeals can be traced to the judgment dated 28th November, 2017 rendered by High Court of Himachal Pradesh in a batch of appeals. Vide the said judgment, the High Court decided many issues. However, in these proceedings we are concerned with only one question of law which is formulated in the following terms: "Whether an assessee who sets up a new industry of a kind mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC of the Act and starts availing exemption of 100 per cent tax under sub-section (3) of Section 80-IC (which is admissible for five years) can start claiming the exemption at the same rate of 100% beyond the period of five years on the ground that the assessee has now carried out substantial expansion in its manufacturing unit?"
↧
↧
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Suresh [20/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2019 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 1837 of 2015]. In this appeal, the appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh has called in question the judgment and order dated 27.11.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 1998 whereby, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, even while upholding the conviction of accused (respondent herein) for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), has modified the sentence of 3 years' rigours imprisonment as awarded by the Trial Court to that of the period already undergone i.e., 3 months and 21 days. The only question calling for determination in this appeal is: As to whether, in the given set of facts and circumstances, the High Court was justified in interfering with the punishment awarded by the Trial Court by reducing the same to the period of imprisonment already undergone?
↧
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar Vs. State of Maharashtra [20/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1411 of 2018]. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.05.2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Confirmation Case No.1 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal No.618 of 2005 whereby the High Court has allowed the Confirmation Case filed by the State and dismissed the appellant's Criminal Appeal and confirmed the conviction for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Court, the accused viz Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar has preferred the present appeal. That the appellant herein-original accused was tried by the 2 learned Sessions Court for the offences under Sections 302, 364 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC for having killed a minor child viz 'Rishikesh'.
↧
Nagaraj Vs. Union of India [21/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No.324 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No.5655 of 2018]. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 15.03.2018 passed by 1 the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Criminal Revision Petition No.100297 of 2017 whereby the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the orders passed by the Courts below. The appeal involves a short point as would be clear from a few facts stated hereinbelow. The appellant was a driver working in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. On 03.08.2006 at around 11.15 p.m., the appellant while driving the bus hit it against the railway crossing gate KM No. 35056, which was set up on the railway line between Chalageri and Ranebennur Railway Stations. Due to the said hit, the railway crossing gate was broken.
↧