Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 11.06.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in CPC No. 113 of 2005(O.A. No. 203 of 1997) whereby the Tribunal passed an order directing the appellants herein to be present in court on the next date of hearing for receiving the charges of contempt and adjourned the matter to 30.07.2010.3. Brief facts:a. The respondents herein were initially employed on the post of L.D.C.in DGS & D, Calcutta on various dates. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein were further promoted as UDC in DGS & D. Their services were being utilized in purchase department for procurement against the ad hoc indents of the indenting Ministries/Departments.A decision was taken by the Central Government that the work relating to procurement could be transferred to the concerned department and in this view, the respondents were transferred vide order dated 08.04.1992 to the Office of General Manager, Eastern ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM; J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 08.06.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 40 of 2010 in Chamber Summons No. 1233 of 2008 in Suit No. 2374 of 2007 whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant herein by partly allowing Chamber Summons No. 1233 of 2008 filed by respondent No.1 herein for amendment in the plaint.3. Brief facts:(a) The property (Bungalow) in question was constructed by the late Ganpatrai Agarwal, father of the appellant herein. Vipin Kumar Agarwal, respondent No.4 is the brother of the appellant. The land on which the said bungalow is constructed is a leasehold property and belongs to Hatkesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Society"). The Society granted leasehold rights in respect of the said plot by indenture of lease dated 22.02.1976. The mother of the appellant passed away in 1991 and his f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The present appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2002 and 07.03.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 341 of 1997 and Review Application No. 38861 of 2002 respectively. The facts as uncurtained in the two appeals are that the appellant as plaintiff initiated a civil action forming subject matter of suit No. 501 of 1995 against the respondent and others for permanent injunction. In the suit, the parties entered into a compromise and on the basis of the compromise, a decree was drawn up on 06.09.1996. The terms and conditions of the compromise were made a part of the decree. Be it noted, the compromise between the parties stipulated certain conditions and one such condition was that within a span of six months' time, the defendant would pay a certain sum to the plaintiff. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the said clause of the compromise is reproduced hereunder:- Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam,J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated21.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in A.B.A. No.3230 of 2011 whereby the High Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail filed by the appellant herein.3. Brief facts:a. The appellant herein, who acted as one of the Expert in the Interview Board to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short "the JPSC"),filed a petition before the Special Judge (Vigilance), for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short" the Code") in connection with Special Case No. 23 of 2010 arising out of Vigilance PS No. 23 of 2010 under Sections 420, 423, 424, 467, 468, 469,471, 477A, 120-B, 109 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (in short "the IPC") and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.b. According to the appellant, he was intimated that he had been nominated as Expert No1 in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
R.M . LODHA, J . 1. The present appeal by special leave arises from the order dated February 4, 2005 passed by the Delhi High Court whereby the Single Judge of that court allowed the petition filed by the present respondent No.1 under Sections 5,11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short “the 1940 Act”) and appointed a former Judge of that Court Justice Usha Mehra (retired) as a sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the appellant and respondent No.1.2. Bereft of unnecessary details, suffice it to notice for the purposes of the present appeal that by a Charter Party dated October 14, 1987, the respondent No. 1 let its vessel 'MV Ocean Knight' to the appellant for carriage of a cargo of Rock Phosphate in bulk. The disputes arose between the parties in respect of demurrage charges. Clause 56 of the Charter Party which contains arbitration clause, reads as follows:“Clause 56: All disputes arising under this Charter shall be settled in India in ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
H.L. Dattu, Anil R. Dave, JJ.1. By this application, the applicants, who are appellants/petitioners in Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos.25637/2010, 26619/2010, 26622/2010 and 26798/2010, have prayed for incorporation of certain requests made in para nos.4 and 6 of the application. In para 4 of the application, the applicants request this Court to pass an order of injunction restraining the Madhya Pradesh State Minor Forest Product (Trading & Development) Co-operative Federation Limited ('the Federation' for short) from recovering the tax payable under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Taxes Act/VAT Act pursuant to Condition No.8 of the Purchaser's Agreement (Condition 7 to Tender Notice).2. In para 6 of the application, the applicants request this Court to permit the applicants to file appeals wherever assessments are completed by the assessing authority either under the provisions of the M.P. Commercial Taxes Act/VAT Act or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 within a month's time from t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
H.L. Dattu, Anil R. Dave, JJ.1. By this application, the applicants, who are appellants/petitioners in Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos.13848-13868/2010 have prayed for incorporation of certain requests made in para nos.4 and 6 of the application. In para 4 of the application, the applicants request this Court to pass an order of injunction restraining the Federation from recovering the tax payable under the VAT Act pursuant to Condition No.8 of the Purchaser's Agreement (Condition 7 to Tender Notice). In para 6 of the application, the applicants request this Court to permit the applicants to file appeals wherever assessments are completed by the assessing authority either under the provisions of the VAT Act or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 within a month's time from today.2. Further, if such appeals are filed within the time granted, a direction be issued to the appellate authorities to dispose of the appeals on merits without reference to the period of limitation as expeditiously as poss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dipak Misra, J1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Bench at Lucknow in Writ - Petition No. 1793 (SB) of 2011 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the Order dated 30.09.2011 of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (for short, 'the Parishad') whereby it had decided that the present appellant, a Superintending Engineer, shall hold the post of Chief Engineer on officiating basis till the regular selection was made.3. The factual expose', as has been unfurled, is that the post of Chief Engineer fell vacant and the Parishad, after deliberation, appointed the appellant to officiate as the Chief Engineer. The respondent, Anil Kumar Jain, invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court challenging the said appointment on many a ground.It was contended before the High Court that he w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J1. Delay condoned.2. 2.. Once it had been commented that anti- social elements i.e. FERA violators, bride burners and whole horde of reactionaries have found their safe haven in the Supreme Court and such a comment became subject matter of contempt of this Court and had to be dealt with by this Court in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 1208.3. This Court in Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (2011) 11 SCC 140 quoted the observations made by the High Court in that case expressing its views that common man must feel assured to get justice and observed as under: "Let not the mighty and the rich think that courts are their paradise and in the legal arena they are the dominant players."4. These judgments make one thing crystal clear that criminals do not hesitate approaching courts even by abusing the process of the court and some times succeed also. The instant case belongs to the same category. Petitioner feels that merely because he is a black- mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012AIRSCW2081
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 16.10.2009 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench whereby the writ petitions filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 were partly allowed, Resolution dated 28.8.1991passed by Municipal Corporation of the City of Nagpur (for short, 'the Corporation') for renewal of lease in favour of the appellant in respect of Plot No.5, Circle No.19/27, Division I, Old Sarai Road, Geeta Ground Layout, Nagpur as also sanction accorded by the State Government under Section 70(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act') were quashed and a direction was issued to Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur to decide Special Civil Suit No. 1135 of 1993 latest byFACTS:3. On an application made by Gopaldas Mohta (father of respondent No. 1 - Ghanshyam Mohta and father-in-law of respondent No. 2 - Smt. Kamla Devi),Municipal Committee of Nagpur (for short, 'the Committee') passed resolution dated 17.3.1944 for gra...
Tag this Judgment!