[Civil Appeal No. 7032 of 2019 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33338 of 2017]. We have heard counsel for the appellant - National Insurance Company Limited, but there is no appearance despite service on behalf of Satish Kumar Verma and Indira Verma (respondent Nos. 1 and 2), father and mother of the deceased Amol Verma. We do not see any justification and ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the High Court of Uttarakhand in adding fellowship of Rs.12,000/- per month to the salary of Rs.3,000/- per month for computing the loss of dependency. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had clearly erred in excluding the fellowship component notwithstanding the Annual Income Certificate issued by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Roorkee, affirming that the deceased was being paid consolidated fellowship as Fellow-'A' (Hydro Power).
↧
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Verma [03/09/19]
↧
State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s. Moti Ratan Estate [04/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 6996 of 2019 arising from SLP (C) Nos. 23921/2018]. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments and orders dated 24.03.2017 and 27.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition Nos. 7867/2012, 10894/2016 and 9088/2016, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has quashed the entire acquisition proceedings with respect to the acquired lands solely on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed as the awards under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were not declared within a period of two years from the date of declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, the State of Maharashtra and others have preferred the present appeals.
↧
↧
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Aman Mittal [04/09/19]
[Criminal Appeal Nos. 1328-1329 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 9981-9982 of 2017]. The order dated October 4, 2017 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals. An FIR No. 130 was lodged on April 28, 2017 with Police Station Cantt, Lucknow for the offences punishable under Sections 265, 267, 420, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 19552 in respect of short delivery of petrol and diesel by 200-220 ml. on each sale of 5 liters. On April 27, 2017, the Special Task Force3 of the State Police took up the investigation into the commission of offence viz. short delivery of petroleum products i.e. high-speed diesel and motor spirit at various retail outlets operating within the city of Lucknow.
↧
Jagbir Singh Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) [04/09/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 967 of 2015]. The appellant stands convicted under Sections 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for short) by the Trial court, and the appeal carried by him before the High Court being unsuccessful and is, therefore, before this Court. Briefly, the case of the prosecution against the appellant is as follows: The deceased was married to the appellant in the year 1999. He was unemployed at that time. Later, he secured employment in the C.R.P.F.. He did not take his wife on the basis that he could not take her far away. Wife continued to reside with the mother of the deceased at her house. Appellant used to harass his wife and had illicit relationship with the wife of his brother.
↧
Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore-1 Vs. M/s. Motorola India Ltd. [05/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 10083 of 2011]. A short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is, as to whether an appeal from the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "CESTAT"), involving an issue regarding violation of conditions contained in customs exemption notification, would lie before the High Court under the provisions of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "Customs Act") or to this Court under the provisions of Section 130E of the Customs Act. The facts in the present matter are not in dispute. For the sake of convenience, we would refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 10083/2011, inasmuch as the impugned judgment and order(s) in all other connected appeals are passed following the judgment and order passed by the Karnataka High Court in CS TA No. 2/2007.
↧
↧
Dr. Ashwani Kumar Vs. Union of India [05/09/19]
[Miscellaneous Application No. 2560 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 738 of 2016]. This order would dispose of Miscellaneous Application No. 2560 of 2018 filed by Dr. Ashwani Kumar, applicant in-person, who is a senior advocate and a former Law Minister and Member of Parliament, praying for the following relief: "In the aforesaid premises, it is therefore respectfully prayed that since no action has been taken by the Government pursuant to the statement of the Hon'ble Attorney General, the stand taken by the National Human Rights Commission and the Law Commission of India in its report of October 2017 and because the merit of the prayer is virtually admitted and conceded before this Hon'ble Court, the National Human Rights Commission, the Law Commission of India and by Select Committee of Parliament, as an integral constituent of the right to life with dignity under Article 21, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Central Government to enact a suitable stand-alone, comprehensive legislation against custodial torture as it has directed in the case of mob violence/lynching vide its judgment 17th July 2018."
↧
P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [05/09/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1340 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7523 of 2019]. This appeal relates to the alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to the INX Media for receiving foreign investment to the tune of Rs.305 crores against approved inflow of Rs.4.62 crores. The High Court of Delhi rejected the appellant's plea for anticipatory bail in the case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) being RC No.220/2017-E-0011 under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420 IPC, Section 8 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By the impugned order dated 20.08.2019, the High Court also refused to grant anticipatory bail in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate in ECIR No.07/HIU/2017 punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
↧
Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal, Haryana Vs. M/s. Carpet India, Panipat, Haryana [27/08/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 4590 of 2018]. This batch of appeals arises from a judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in which the Appeals preferred by the Revenue have been dismissed relying upon Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Baby Marine Exports, Kollam (2007) 4 SCC 555 in order to arrive at a conclusion that the supporting manufacturer is at par with the actual direct exporter of goods when it comes to deductions that are available under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') It is unnecessary to go into the facts of each of these cases as it is undisputed that the assessee in each of these cases is a supporting manufacturer. The scheme insofar as Section 80HHC of the Act is concerned is crystal clear. The marginal note to Section 80HHC reads - Deduction in respect of profits retained for export business.
↧
Vashdeo R. Bhojwani Vs. Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank Ltd. [02/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 11020 of 2018]. In the facts of the present case, at the relevant time, a default of Rs. 6.7 Crores was found as against the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 had been declared a NPA by Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Limited on 23.12.1999. Ultimately, a Recovery Certificate dated 24.12.2001 was issued for this amount. A Section 7 petition was filed by the Respondent No.1 on 21.07.2017 before the NCLT claiming that this amount together with interest, which kept ticking from 1998, was payable to the respondent as the loan granted to Respondent No.2 had originally been assigned, and, thanks to a merger with another Cooperative Bank in 2006, the respondent became a Financial Creditor to whom these moneys were owed.
↧
↧
Shishupal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [03/09/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1327/2019 @ SLP [CRL.] No.1271/2017]. An FIR dated 04.09.2005 was registered in P.S. Khera Garh, District Agra, Uttar Pradesh in respect of Crime Case No.331/05 under Sections 147,148,149,307,302,323,504 and 506 of IPC. The police carried out investigation and filed a chargesheet. While the trial was on, during the examination-in-chief of PW-1, an order has been passed exercising power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon the appellant as an accused. This order was sought to be assailed in a revision petition which was dismissed. Thus, the appellant has filed the present appeal. A perusal of the FIR would show that the complainant is PW- 1. The role ascribed to the appellant was that he came with a country made revolver at the site but the deceased Satyapal was fired upon by two other accused which caused the death. This is what has been stated in the examination-in-chief of PW-1.
↧
M/s. Avinash Hitech City 2 Society Vs. Boddu Manikya Malini [06/09/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7047-7049 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 4213-4215 of 2019]. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in C.M.A. Nos. 1257, 1379 and 1380 of 2017 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy rejecting applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellants herein and has refused to refer the dispute between the parties to the Arbitrator, the original applicants have preferred the present appeals.
↧
K. Sreedhar Rao Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi [06/09/19]
[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 300/2016]. This petition was called on for pronouncement of judgment today. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai. The writ petition is dismissed in terms of the signed judgment. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
↧
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kanshi Ram [14/08/19]
[Civil Appeal No.6308 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29319 of 2018]. All these Civil Appeals are filed, aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in R.F.A.No.202 of 2011 and batch, as such they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. There are two sets of appeals in this batch of civil appeals. One set of civil appeals is filed by the State and the other set of civil appeals is filed by the respondents-claimants of the land, for grant of additional interest of 15% per annum on the compensation awarded to them. For the purpose of disposal we treat the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.29319 of 2018 as the lead matter.
↧
↧
M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India [02/09/19]
[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985]. Modern conveniences bring with them their own problems. One of the most important conveniences of the industrIAl age is motor transport. This has brought with it many problems but we may highlight only two: (1) pollution and (2) parking space. It is the problem of parking which we seek to address in this order. A vehicle, whether be it a motor car, bus, threewheeler, scooter or a small scooty, transports one or more individuals from one place to the other. Once passengers /occupants of the vehicles have been taken to their destination, the vehicle in question has to be parked. This requires a lot of space, a lot of planning, a lot of infrastructure and a lot of money. The tendency of individuals is to save as much money as possible and not pay anything for parking.
↧
Union of India Vs. Balwant Singh [03/09/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos.6981-6982 of 2019 special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 10200-10201/2019]. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Union of India, submits that the impugned judgment passed in these two cases suffers from an obvious error in that the judgment of this Court in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) through LRs vs. The Land Acquisition Officer, 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 455 was followed, which judgment applied only to the Land Acquisition Act and which cannot be made applicable to the National Highways Act for the reason that Section 3G (5) contains a scheme entirely different from and at variance from the scheme contained in the Land Acquisition Act. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents were not able to seriously controvert this position.
↧
Surinder Kaur (D) through LR. Jasinderjit Singh (D) through LRS. Vs. Bahadur Singh (D) through LRS. [11/09/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7424-7425 of 2011]. The question of law arising in these appeals is whether a vendee who does not perform one of his promises in a contract can obtain the discretionary relief of specific performance of that very contract. Briefly stated the facts are that Mohinder Kaur, predecessor in interest of the appellants entered into an agreement with Bahadur Singh, predecessor in interest of the respondents on 13.05.1964 whereby she agreed to sell the suit land to Bahadur Singh for a total sale consideration of Rs.5605/. Out of this, Rs.1000/was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement to sell, and it was agreed that the balance amount would be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed.
↧
Raja Ram Vs. Jai Prakash Singh [11/09/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 2896 of 2009]. The appellant is aggrieved by the order allowing the second appeal preferred by the defendants. The High Court set aside the order of the First Appellate Court which had allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order dismissing the appellants suit. The plaintiff and defendant no.2 are brothers. Defendant no.1 was the wife of defendant no.2. Respondents nos.1 to 3 are sons of deceased defendant no.1. Original plaintiff no.2, another brother, has chosen not to pursue the appeal. The plaintiffs alleged that the original defendants obtained the sale deed dated 02.03.1970 from their father Vaijai, since deceased, in favour of defendant no.1, fraudulently, by deceit and undue influence because of old age and infirmity of the deceased and who was living with the defendants. The suit was dismissed.
↧
↧
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Vs. M/s. Kalsi Construction Company [02/09/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7148 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20159 of 2019]. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.4045 of 2003 in and by which the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and affirmed the Award passed by the Arbitrator including with regard to the rate of interest awarded by the arbitrator at the rate of 18% per annum. The respondent-M/s. Kalsi Construction Company was allotted a contract for construction of Advanced Pediatrics Centre of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Research and Education.
↧
Ganpati Babji Alamwar (D) by LRS. Ramlu Vs. Digambarrao Venkatrao Bhadke [12/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No(S). 3960 of 2011]. The appellants, who were the original defendants are aggrieved by the dismissal of their second appeal, affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which reversed the dismissal of the suit for redemption of mortgage filed by the plaintiffs. The parties shall be referred to by their original position in the suit for convenience. The plaintiffs purchased daily necessities from the shop of defendant no.1 on credit. A sum of Rs.10,500/became outstanding after verification of accounts. On 26.04.1970, the plaintiffs executed an instalment bond, Exhibit 53, to pay the dues in three yearly instalments on the occasion of Gudi Padwa in 1971, 1972 and 1973.
↧
Mohan Chandra Tamta (D) through LRS. Vs. Ali Ahmad (D) through LRS. [12/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 4610 of 2014]. This case has a long and chequered history. The litigation initially started almost 59 years back. The suit property was a three storeyed structure in the town of Almora in Uttarakhand. The first records of this house are from the year 1872 when this property is recorded in the ownership of three brothers namely Pir Bux, Kalia and Subrati. Each brother had 1/3rd share in the property. Pir Bux mortgaged his 1/3rd share in favour of one Ahmadulla Khan for Rs.50/in the year 1872. One of the brothers, Subrati died issueless and his share of the property devolved upon his two brothers Pir Bux and Kalia, who got an additional 1/6th share each making them owners of half share each in the property.
↧