Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(14)SC457; 2009(14)SCALE182
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court delivered in Motor Accident Claims Appeal No. 239 of 2004 on 9th July, 2007.4. On 19th May, 1995, Pankaj Gupta, aged 32 years, died in vehicular accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal gave compensation of Rupees forty five lakhs to his wife, minor daughter and his parents. The Oriental Insurance Company [for short, `the Insurance Company'], being aggrieved by the said judgment, filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 5,82,132/-. Aggrieved thereby, the dependents of the deceased have preferred this appeal by way of special leave.5. According to the appellants, the High Court has erred in applying the multiplier of 14, when, according to the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the correct multiplier ought to be 17, because at the time of death, the deceased was 32 years' of age. The learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC204(SC); 2009(14)SCALE207; (2010)1SCC394
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The respondent claims to be the Karta of the `HUF of Tek Chand' consisting of himself and his two brothers (Harichand and Lachhman Das). Respondent's family migrated from Pakistan to India in 1947. Respondent and his two brothers filed claims before the competent authority on 22.9.1950, as refugees/displaced persons seeking allotment of land as compensation in lieu of their lands in Pakistan. Their claim was verified and registered for 7 Standard Acres and 3.1/4 Units vide order dated 5.11.1952 by the Claims Officer, Delhi, under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950. Towards partial satisfaction of the said verified claim, initially 5 Standard Acres and 4.1/3 Units situated in Bawana, Delhi was allotted and delivered to them. The question of allotment of remaining land was pending for several years and in the year 1965 the Office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner informed the Land Allotment Officer that after taking note of the land that was already...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC787; 2009(57)BLJR3174; JT2009(14)SC451; 2009(14)SCALE139; (2010)1SCC756; 2009(10)LC4804(SC):2009AIRSCW7283:2009(6)LHSC3964
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellants in these appeals are the employees of the first respondent-Bank - Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank - now known as Jharkhand Gramin Bank. The appellants were working as clerks-cum-cashiers or equivalent posts in different branches of the first respondent-Bank. The Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988 (for short `the Rules') made by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under the Provincial Rural Banks Act, 1976 governed the appointment and promotion of employees of the Bank. Rule 5 provided that all vacancies shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Rules. Entry (5) of Second Schedule to the Rules related to filling of posts of Field Supervisors (subsequently merged with the post of officers). Clause (a) thereof provided that 50% of the posts shall be filled by promotion from amongst the confirmed senior and junior clerks-cum-cashiers or clerks...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(14)SCALE144; (2010)1SCC603
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Crl. M.P. No. 13384 of 2009 has been filed in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated 7th August, 2009, upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 120B and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. By the same order, the appellant was also granted the benefit of set-off for the period of detention he had already undergone under Section 428 Cr.P.C. This application has been filed on behalf of the appellant, Atul Manubhai Parekh, for a direction that he be entitled to set-off of 30 days in the present case against the detention of 15 days already undergone by him.2. The short point involved in this application is whether a person, who has been convicted in several cases and has suffered detention or imprisonment in connection therewith, would be entitled to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC209(SC); 2009(14)SCALE202
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioner. The suit was decreed. The petitioner filed an appeal and the first appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `CPC'). By order dated 8.10.2009, the High Court admitted the appeal formulating three substantial questions of law. In view of the urgency expressed, the High Court directed that the appeal be set down for final hearing in November, 2009.2. The respondent has sought leave to file an appeal against the `order' of admission of the second appeal. The petitioner contends that the case did not involve any substantial question of law and the second appeal ought not to have been admitted.3. Sub-section (5) of Section 100 CPC provides that a second appeal shall be heard on the substantial questions of law formulated by the Court. It also provid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC19; JT2009(14)SC385; (2010)ILLJ261SC; 2009(14)SCALE117; (2010)1SCC428; 2010(1)SLJ249(SC):2009AIRSCW7382
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by way of a special leave petition at the instance of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd has been filed from a judgment and order dated 19th of November, 2007 in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1085 of 2007 arising out of a writ petition filed by Nathu Ram (the respondent herein) for payment of back wages from 29th of December, 1982 to 14th of December, 1997 after he was reinstated in service by the appellants.3. Before we proceed further, we may say at this stage that while this Special Leave Petition was posted for hearing before a Bench of this Court, the following order was passed:Issue notice limited to the question of payment of amount which is to be paid from 28.12.1982 to 15.12.1997. 4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be narrated as follows:Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation') has come into existence as a result of dissolution of Rajasthan State Electricity Board to f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC207(SC); 2010(I)OLR(SC)146; 2009(14)SCALE204; 2009(6)LHSC4082
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Delay condoned. We find no ground to interfere with final order dismissing the writ petition. But the direction to the writ petitioner to pay exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee, deserves to be addressed.2. The petitioner, an employee of the Government Ordnance Factory, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad (UP), was transferred to Dehradun on 6.10.1998. As he did not vacate the residential quarters at Muradnagar, the Estate Officer by order dated 15.6.2000, directed him to vacate the quarters. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of eviction. On 1.7.2000, the Appellate authority (District Judge, Ghaziabad) admitted the appeal, noting that there were `arguable points in the appeal' and granted interim stay in regard to order of eviction, pending disposal of the appeal. The appeal was pending for several years and was finally heard and dismissed on 21.4.2009. The petitioner challenged the order of the appellate authority by fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC24; JT2009(14)SC458; 2010(I)OLR(SC)66; 2009(14)SCALE123; (2010)1SCC466; 2010(1)LC10(SC):2009AIRSCW7387
D.K. Jain, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal, by Special Leave, is to the judgment and order dated 27th September, 2007, rendered by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has affirmed the order, dated 10th August, 2007, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Election Tribunal') in E.O.P. No. 7 of 2006, ordering re-count of the votes cast in the election for the post of Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat.3. Briefly stated, the material facts, giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:Election to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Ravimetla Village, Nidadavole Mandal, West Godavari District in the State of Andhra Pradesh was held on 2nd August, 2006. The appellant, the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'election petitioner'), and two others contested the election. Upon counting of votes, the appellant secured 552 votes and the election- petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing.3. In our view, an important question of law arose before the High Court which has a recurring effect, namely, whether the goods seized were entitled to be sold in the domestic market?; if so, whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the goods seized stood sold in breach of the terms and conditions mentioned in DEEC?4. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. The High Court has dismissed the Tax Appeal only on the ground of delay without going into the merits of the case, hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration on merits in accordance with law. We once again reiterate that we express no opinion on the merits of the case.5. The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(14)SC467; (2010)157PLR247; 2009(14)SCALE112
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. This petition by the wife is for transfer of the petition filed by her husband (respondent) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the Court of Civil Judge, Bahraich, UP, to the court of competent jurisdiction at Delhi. On 24.1.2005 this Court directed notice and stay of further proceedings in the said case.2. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat conducted by the Supreme Court. The parties and their counsel appeared before the Lok Adalat and with the assistance of two mediators reached a settlement in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 25.4.2009. The said Settlement was recorded by the Members of the Supreme Court Lok Adalat by proceedings dated 25.4.2009. Under the said settlement 2 agreement, both parties agreed : (i) to withdraw proceedings initiated by them against each other; (ii) the petitioner-wife acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand only) in full and final settlement of her claim for maintenance...
Tag this Judgment!