Born On- 19th of November, 1951 (Gangtok, Sikkim, India)
Education-
- Bachelor of Commerce (B. Com)
- Master of Law (LLM)
- Chartered Accountant (CA)
In Office-
- Judge of Gujarat High Court (18th of September, 1995- 06th of January, 2008)
- Chief Justice High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (07th of January, 2008- 10th of February, 2010)
- Chief Justice of Bombay High Court (11th of February, 2010- 29th of April, 2010)
- Judge of Supreme Court of India (30th of April, 2010- 18th of November, 2016)
Profile-
A former member of the Indian Supreme Court. Before being appointed to the Supreme Court of India, he held the positions of Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh. Even better, he received a National Scholarship for a Master of Laws.
He started working as an advocate and representing clients on July 25, 1976. He worked as a solicitor for the Gujarat government, a part-time lecturer at Sir L.A. Shah Law College, and an additional government representative to the Gujarat High Court. He was appointed to the Gujarat High Court on September 18, 1995, as an Additional Judge, and on June 18, 1997, he was confirmed as a Permanent Judge. On January 7, 2008, he was then named Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
While serving as Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature in Hyderabad, he was also the Patron and Chairman of the Advisory Council of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR), Regional Centre, Hyderabad, and Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. He was moved to the Bombay High Court on February 11th, 2010, then on April 30th, 2010, he was raised to the Supreme Court of India as a Judge. He retired from the Supreme Court of India on November 19, 2016.
The 38th Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court was chosen as Justice Dave. The governor of India, K Sankaranarayanan, swore in Justice Dave, age 58, at Raj Bhavan. Justice J. N. Patel has served as acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court since Swatanter Kumar, the previous Chief Justice, was appointed to the Supreme Court in December. Ashok Chavan, the chief minister, Suresh Shetty, the protocol minister, Jay Narayan Patel, the acting chief justice of the Bombay High Court, and other Bombay High Court judges were present at the occasion.
Important Judgement-
- Jeans Knit Private Ltd. V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax[1]
On September 27, 2011, the assessee, a business that manufactures and exports ready-made clothing and job works, filed its income tax return for the 2011–12 assessment year, declaring a total income of Rs. 6,01,06,300 after claiming a deduction of Rs. 42,65,47,075 in accordance with section 10B[2] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By decision dated March 24, 2014, the case was reviewed, and the assessment was finished pursuant to section 143(3)[3] of the Act, establishing the assessee’s income to be Rs. 48,66,53,376/-. This was because the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee’s request for a deduction under Section 10B of the Act because he thought the assessee’s company was created by rebuilding an existing business using outdated equipment.
- Karuppaiah V. R. Palanivel[4]
The tenants are the Revision Petitioners. Under Section 10 (3) (C)[5] of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), i.e., for greater accommodation, the landlord/respondent filed a petition for eviction against the tenants/Revision Petitioners herein in H.R.C.O.P.No.9 of 2005. The renters were required to leave the property and turn over control within a month after the petition was approved. The tenants filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2007 to appeal the ruling, but it was dismissed, giving the residents two months to vacate and turn over the keys. In order to challenge this judgement, the tenants have submitted a Civil Revision Petition.
- Raj Singh and Ors. V. State Of Haryana and Ors.
These special leave appeals were filed in response to the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No.D-440-DB of 2008 & Criminal Revision No.2758 of 2008, which dismissed the appellant’s criminal appeal and partially upheld Bharat Singh’s criminal revision qua Raj Singh, converting the appellant’s conviction from Section 304[6] Part 1 IPC to Section 302[7] IPC.
- The Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in St. of Tamil Nadu V. Union Of India[8]
This writ suit was submitted in reaction to an article that appeared in the Hindi daily “Hindustan” on July 4, 2007. (Lucknow Edition). The essay was written by Ms Anjali Sinha and is titled “Orphanage or Places for Child Abuse” in the English version. This petition was started on September 10, 2007, and it was submitted as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) at that time. The article and a letter were forwarded to this Court by one A.S. Choudhury, and this is where it all began. Ms Aparna Bhat has been designated as an Amicus Curiae to support this Court. First and first, we must commend Ms Aparna Bhat for her tireless work over the past ten years to help in this circumstance.
- Amrik Singh V. Dcb Bank Ltd and Anr[9]
A knowledgeable Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered a decision in the case of Ghanta Infrastructures Ltd. vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd[10]. An Asset Reconstruction Company may be sued under Article 226[11] of the Indian Constitution, it was found after carefully examining all of the SARFAESI Act’s provisions. Writ Appeal No. 412 of 2008 on MANU/AP-0004/2008 15 of 19 on September 24, 2009, was heard by a division bench that included Justices Anil Ramesh Dave and R. Subhash Reddy, who upheld the verdict.
On May 7, 2010, the SLP(C) No. 012697 of 2010 that was filed in opposition to the abovementioned verdict was denied, supporting the Division Bench’s decision.
[1] Indian Kanoon (Case Law)- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6704857/
[2] Indian Kanoon (Section 10 (B) of the Income Tax Act)- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1954990/
[3] Bare Act (Section 143 of the Income Tax Act)- https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1961-43.pdf
[4] Indian Kanoon (Case Law)- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181568881/
[5] Section 10 (3) (C) of the Tamil Nadu Building Act-
[6] Indian Kanoon (Section- 304 of the Indian Penal Code)- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/409589/
[7] Indian Kanoon (Section- 307 of the Indian Penal Code)- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1560742/
[8] Indian Kanoon (Case Law)- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84050562/
[9] Indian Kanoon (Case Law)- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181112963/
[10] Citation- 2008 (2) ALT 611- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/180339060/
[11] Indian Kanoon (Article 226 of the Constitution of India)- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.
Aishwarya Sandeep 
Leave a Reply