The application for recall of an order by which an earlier application for recall of the judgment was dismissed is not maintainable. The only remedy open to the Appellant was to have filed a Review Petition as suggested by this Court
The application for recall of an order by which an earlier application for recall of the judgment was dismissed is not maintainable. The only remedy open to the Appellant was…
Anti Dumping Duty] Judicial Review Should Not Be Exercised Virtually As A Continuous Oversight Of Designated Authority Functions: S C O I
Access to judicial review is a valuable right conferred upon citizens and persons aggrieved; the Constitution arms the High Courts and this court with powers under Articles 226 and…
HELD “… difference between the offences in Section 195(1)(b)(i) & Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC – Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attracts the provisions of Ss 191 to 193 of the IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC applies. The offence punishable under these sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court.
HELD “…it is important to understand the difference between the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attracts the…
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Sections 20, 21 and 38(4) – Grant of exemption – competent authority being a creature of the statute under Section 2(d) of the Act, cannot act beyond its statutory jurisdiction and the exercise of its powers shall remain circumscribed by the provisions of the Act – Hence demand of price and recovery of property price outside the purview of act illegal.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRIDHAR C. SHETTY (DECEASED) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton…
Issuance of Directions for protection of Shivlinga of Mahakaleshwar Temple, Ujjain – Directions
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARIKA — Appellant Vs. ADMINISTRATOR, MAHAKALESHWAR MANDIR COMMITTEE, UJJAIN (M.P.) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna…
Spectrum Trading – Assessment of Liability – The telecom service providers’ stand is that the proceedings of insolvency under the Code have been triggered bona fide – This Court can examine the limited question in these proceedings whether the proceedings are resorted to as a subterfuge to avoid payment of AGR dues
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA ETC.ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, S.…
SCOI Orders Removal Of 48,000 Slum Dwellings Around Delhi Rail Tracks In 3 Months; Stops Courts From Granting Stay
The Supreme Court has ordered the removal of nearly 48,000 slum dwellings around the 140-kilometer length of railway tracks in New Delhi within three months, and has further directed that…
“In our view, having regard to Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, an appeal will not lie to this court against an order which has been passed in the course of execution proceedings. The appeals are hence dismissed as not being maintainable.”
“In our view, having regard to Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, an appeal will not lie to this court against an order which has been passed in…
Customs Act, 1962 – Section 28 – Levy of customs duty – Sale of cut flowers – The burden of proving to the contrary rested upon the appellant, which the appellant failed to discharge by failing to establish that the imported inputs were not used in the production of the cut flowers sold in DTA – In view thereof, the authorities below have rightly invoked Section 28 of the 1962 Act and allied provisions – CESTAT has rightly upheld the levy of customs duty – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. L. R. BROTHERS INDO FLORA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh…
Attempt on part of the fugitive liquor baron ‘vijay mallya’ to have re-hearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make out any “error apparent on record” to justify interference in review jurisdiction – This Court direct fugitive liquor baron ‘vijay mallya’ to appear before this Court on 05.10.2020 at 02:00 p.m
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. VIJAY MALLYA — Appellant Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ashok Bhushan,…