Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)BomCR77; JT2009(15)SC354; 2009(14)SCALE613; (2010)2SCC261
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.3. Only short issue involved in these appeals is with regard to interpretation of the directions issued by this Court by its order dated 7th November, 2006 in I.A. Nos. 2-5 & 8 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10281 of 2006. It is submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 1589/2007, 1075/2007 and 1036/2007 on 17th of September, 2009 is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 7th November, 2006. In order to appreciate the submissions made by Mr. Rohatgi, it would be necessary to reproduce the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 7th November, 2006 and the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned order dated 17th of September, 2009. On 7t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(2)ALT17(SC); 2010(1)AWC750(SC); JT2009(15)SC391; 2009(14)SCALE690; (2010)2SCC250
P. Sathasivam, J.1. These civil appeals were directed against the judgment and order dated 14.05.2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. Nos. 4 & 5 of 2001, in and by which the High Court, by separate orders, confirmed the findings recorded by both the Courts below and dismissed the second appeals.2. Heard Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Counsel for the appellant.3. In view of the questions raised and the course which we are going to adopt, there is no need to refer all the factual matrix in both the second appeals. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, though substantial questions of law that arose for consideration before the High Court was to the validity of the Wills dated 07.12.1979 and 11.08.1986, the High Court without adverting to factual details, salient features and validity of those wills dismissed the second appeals without giving adequate reasons.4. It is seen from the materials placed that one Natha Singh owned two houses - one in Punjab a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC618; 2009(14)SCALE724; (2010)1SCC679
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed by the H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') against the judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2006, passed by the Madras High Court in Crl.M.P. No. 3784 of 2006 and Crl.C.P. No. 15217 of 2006, allowing the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to him.3. According to the Bank, the Respondent No. 1 in his capacity' as the Managing Director of the Mannan Construction Corporation Private Limited, a company engaged in the execution of Highway Contracts and contracts of the Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), along with one M/s. Immanuel Projects Private Ltd.., applied for a loan of Rs. 2,03,40,000/- (Rupees Two Crores, three lakhs and forty thousand) only, for purchase of 6 Krishna Electronic Sensor Paver Finishers from one M/s. Krishna Engineering Works in Ahmedabad. The said loan ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(15)SC239; 2009(14)SCALE590; (2010)2SCC247
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench, High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 7301/02 dated 3.2.2006 whereby the writ petition filed by the Union of India, appellant herein impugning the order dated 20.12.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in Original Application No. 669/1997. By that order the respondents have been held entitled to the allowance as envisaged in D.O.P.T. letter dated 31.3.1987. Direction had also been issued to grant the allowance to the respondents @ 30 per cent of the emoluments w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and @ 15 per cent w.e.f. 9.7.1992.3. Before the Tribunal it was the case of the appellants that O.M. dated 31.3.1987 and consequentially O.M. dated 9.7.1992 were not applicable to Respondents as they were members of the permanent faculty of the Institute of Armament Technology. This plea of the Appellants was rejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC336; JT2009(15)SC388; 2009(14)SCALE692; (2010)2SCC222
Altamas Kabir, J.1. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Union of India and its officers in the Ministry of Defence against the judgment and order dated 1st September, 2005, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Writ Petition (S) No. 2569 of 2005, dismissing the same. The respondent, who was working as a Civilian Motor Driver-II in the establishment of the Senior Quality Assurance Officer, Senior Quality Assurance Establishment (Armaments) in the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur, was suspended pending inquiry on 10th August, 2002. Under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 amended by Notification dated 23rd December, 2003, Sub-rules (6) and (7) were inserted. As the same are relevant to the facts of this case, the same are extracted hereinbelow:(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rules shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC931(SC); (2010)ILLJ593SC; 2009(14)SCALE577; (2010)2SCC44; 2009(2)LC1104(SC); 2009AIRSCW7667
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association (for short `Association') filed a writ petition invoking the original jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the appellant bank herein to pay gratuity to the members of its Association under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ( for short `the said Act'). The High Court on due consideration of the matter declared that the retired employees of the appellant bank were entitled to the benefit of gratuity under the said Act and accordingly directed the payment of gratuity within the time specified in the judgment. The said judgment of the Allahabad High Court is impugned in this appeal.2. A short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether the retired employees of appellant bank are entitled to payment of gratuity under the provisions of the said Act?3. The retired employees of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC338; 2010(1)AWC821(SC); JT2009(15)SC260; (2010)157PLR390; 2009(14)SCALE569; 2009AIRSCW7677
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2001 in C.W.P. 5725/2001 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.2. The respondent had approached the High Court with a prayer that the order dated September 30, 1998 by which the Haryana Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the appellants/Corporation), had forfeited, amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, deposited by the respondent by way of earnest money, be quashed. The respondent had also prayed that the appellants /Corporation be directed to refund the amount illegally forfeited along with interest.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, we may notice here only the relevant facts.4. On 8.1.1998, the appellants/Corporation issued an advertisement for sale of various units, including the land of M/s. Unique Oxygen Private Limited(hereinafter referred to as the defaulting unit), Old Hansi Road, Jind. On 28.1.1998 respondent initially made an offer of Rs. 25,00,000/-, which was subseq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC815(SC); 2009(14)SCALE600; (2010)2SCC259
ORDERSurinder Singh Nijjar, J.1. Leave granted. Heard the learned Counsel.2. Since this appeal by special leave is directed against an order granting interim relief the same may be disposed of by briefly stating the relevant facts.3. The appellant claims to have lent certain sums of money to respondent No. 2, namely, Rafique Sarang. Subsequently, the disputes arose between the parties, which were referred to a named Arbitrator on 29.5.2001. The Arbitrator passed an award declaring the respondent No. 2 liable to pay a sum of Rs. 78,96,300/- to the appellant i.e. Babu Bhai Thiba. The appellant sought execution of the Award in the Bombay High Court. It appears that an order was passed by the Bombay High Court in the execution application on 1.8.2003 directing attachment of several properties including the premises No. 108 Palm Spring CGHS Limited, First Floor, Swamy Samarth Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai. At this stage, respondent No. 1, Ashok Ravi Shankar Naval, filed Chamber Summons No. 127...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(15)SC384; 2010(I)OLR(SC)159; 2009(14)SCALE609
ORDERSurinder Singh Nijjar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The application filed by the appellant seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected for the third time by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. On the basis of the complaint made by one Karan/Karani Singh an FIR has been registered against the appellant i.e. FIR No. 107/2007 dated 3.5.2007 Jaipur City, Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC. It is alleged that the complainant agreed to purchase the flats being Flat Nos. 101 and 101A from the appellant and his father the necessary consideration was received by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The same flats were subsequently sold to somebody else. It is, therefore, alleged that the appellant has committed offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC. Amar Nath Saxena (father of the Appellant); the Appellant i.e., Ravindra Saxena; Shrimati Sharada Devi and Pradeep Maheshwari and accused numbers 1 to 4 in the FIR. According to the appellant the investigation i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(15)SC306; 2009(14)SCALE620; (2010)2SCC139
Altamas Kabir, J.1. This SLP is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2005, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 648/2004, allowing the same and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2004, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Khammam in A.S. No. 17/2002. By its judgment, the First Appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1999 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudam, being O.S. No. 54 of 1991, dismissing the suit.2. Initially, the suit was filed for injunction simpliciter before the learned District Munsif, Yallandu. Subsequently, the plaint was amended to include the relief for declaration of title and delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property. During the pendency of the suit the first plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record as the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9. Subsequently, the plaintiff No. 9 also expired.3. The case made out in the pla...
Tag this Judgment!