Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9193 OF2013(@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.23761/2011) B. Amrutha Lakshmi Appellant Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.9194 OF2013(@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.16042/2012) Irrinki Srinagesh Appellant Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT H.L. Gokhale J.Leave Granted.2. We will first deal with the facts and legal submissions of the first SLP (C) 23761 of 2011. This appeal by Special Leave seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.32290/2010, dismissing the same. The said Writ Petition sought to challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Hyderabad, dated 20.12.2010, on the Interim Application moved by the appellant in her Original Application No.1291/2010, wherein, the CAT rejected the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9172/2013 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31483 of 2012) Punjab National Bank & Ors. Appellants Vs. Ram Kishan Respondent JUDGMENT A.K.SIKRI,J.1. Leave granted.2. The facts which need narration for determination of the lis involved in this appeal are recapitulated as under:3. The respondent herein joined the appellant-Bank as Peon on 13.8.1986. In the year 2000, the appellant-Bank introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme known as Punjab National Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 (hereinafter referred to as VRS, 2000). This scheme was widely circulated, period whereof was 1.11.2000 to 30.11.2000 during which period those employees who wanted to seek voluntary retirement under the said scheme were permitted to apply. It was made applicable to those permanent full time employees of the Bank who had completed 15 years qualifying service or 40 years of age which means ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3026 OF2004STATE OF U.P & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD RESPONDENT(S) WITH Civil Appeal No.3025 of 2004 STATE OF U.P & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) WITH Civil Appeal No.5567 of 2004 STATE OF U.P & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DIAMOND CEMENTS RESPONDENT(S) WITH Civil Appeal No.7190 of 2004 STATE OF U.P & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CENTURY TEXTILE & INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH Civil Appeal No.333 of 2006 STATE OF U.P & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MAIHER CEMENT & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH Civil Appeal No.of 2013 (arising out of SLP (C) No.11305 of 2013) STATE OF U.P & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/s U. P. ASBESTOS LTD. RESPONDENT(S) AND Civil Appeal Nos. of 2013 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6815-6816 of 2005) STATE OF U.P & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9172/2013 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31483 of 2012) Punjab National Bank & Ors. Appellants Vs. Ram Kishan Respondent JUDGMENT A.K.SIKRI,J.1. Leave granted.2. The facts which need narration for determination of the lis involved in this appeal are recapitulated as under:3. The respondent herein joined the appellant-Bank as Peon on 13.8.1986. In the year 2000, the appellant-Bank introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme known as Punjab National Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 (hereinafter referred to as VRS, 2000). This scheme was widely circulated, period whereof was 1.11.2000 to 30.11.2000 during which period those employees who wanted to seek voluntary retirement under the said scheme were permitted to apply. It was made applicable to those permanent full time employees of the Bank who had completed 15 years qualifying service or 40 years of age which means ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9488 OF2013(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.13410 of 2012) M/s. Arcot Textile Mills Ltd. ... Appellant Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No.2230 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench has concurred with the judgment and order dated 21.4.2011 passed in W.P. No.7046 of 2008 by the learned single Judge holding that the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity the Act) requiring the appellant to remit a sum of Rs.94,27,334/- towards interest under Section 7Q of the Act for belated remittances, was to be assailed in appeal before the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (for short the tribunal) and, therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.19530/2013 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.8596/2013 Badshah .Petitioner Versus Sou.Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT A.K.SIKRI,J.1. There is a delay of 63 days in filing the present Special Leave Petition and further delay of 11 days in refilling Special Leave Petition. For the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing and refilling of SLP is condoned.2. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.2.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No.144/2012. By means of the impugned order, the High Court has upheld the award of maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and to respondent No.2 (daughter) at the rate of Rs.500/- per month in the application filed by them under Section 125 of the Code of Crimin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1521-1522 OF2011PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY . APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF A.P. & ETC. . RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1102-1103 OF2011WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1100-1101 OF2011WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1093-1094 OF2011JUDGMENT S. A. BOBDE, J.1. This batch of appeals is preferred by the accused against the common judgment and order dated 23rd March 2004 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 954 and 956 of 2008. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1521-1522 of 2011 are filed by the Accused No.1; Criminal Appeal Nos. 1102-1103 of 2011 are filed by the accused Nos. 2-7; Criminal Appeal Nos. 1100-1101 of 2011 by the accused Nos. 8-12; Criminal Appeal Nos. 1093-1094 of 2011 are filed by the Accused No.2, Konduru Nagure Reddy. Since they arise out of the same incident/judgment they have been taken up together for disposal.2. The crime in question is the murder of Mudi Parandhami Reddy in an agricultural field on 25.11.9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1692-1718 OF2013(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 2970-2996 OF2012 A.K. SINGHANIA APPELLANT VERSUS GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1719-1725 OF2013(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 3100-3106 OF2012 A.K. SINGHANIA APPELLANT VERSUS GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENTS CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1726-1732 OF2013(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.984-990 OF2013 GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS VIKRAM PRAKASH & ANR. RESPONDENTS CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1733-1759 OF2013(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 1068-1094 OF2013 GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS VIKRAM PRAKASH & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.In all these special leave petitions common question of law and facts arise and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8800-8801 /2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 16575-16576 of 2012) Vinodkumar M. Malavia etc. Appellants Vs. Maganlal Mangaldas Gameti & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated April 23, 2012 (in First Appeal Nos. 1535 and 1536 of 2009) passed by the High Court of Gujarat, affirming the order dated February 3, 2009 passed by the City Civil Court (in Civil Misc. Application Nos. 470 of 2008 and 630 of 2008). The City Civil Court set aside the order dated May 23, 2008, passed by the Charity Commissioner. The said adjudication was made by the Charity Commissioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Vinod Kumar Mathurseva Malvia & Anr. v. Maganlal Mangaldas Gameti and Ors. [2006 (9) SCC282 (being Civil Appeal No.1260 of 2006, arising out of SLP (Civil) No.24198 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9226 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(C) No.19444/2012) MANGUBEN RAJABHAI BAMBHANIA Appellant(s) :VERSUS: MACHHAGANBHAI RAJABHAI BAMBHANIA & ORS. Respondent(s) ORDER Heard Mr. Ritin Rai, learned counsel in support of this special leave petition and Mr. D.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. Delay condoned. Leave granted.3. This appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 3.2.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court whereby the Special Civil Application No.9031 of 2010 filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. The appellant had sought to challenge the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar, below Exhibit 73 in Regular Civil Case No.701 of 2004. The appellant had sought her share in the family property by filing a suit for partition. Initially the appellant sought her share in the property of her father. Respondents are her brothers...
Tag this Judgment!