Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL not OF 201.(D 7961/2013) C.C.E., AHMEDABAD APPELLANT VERSUS M/S.KIRI DYES & CHEMICALS LTD. RESPONDENT ORDER 1. We have heard Shri H.P.Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the appellant.2. After hearing the learned A.S.G., we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of delay.3. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay. ....................J.(H.L. DATTU) ....................J.(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR) NEW DELHI; APRIL 29 2013...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4176 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP© No.29703 of 2011) Satyawati APPELLANT VERSUS Rajinder Singh and Anr. ....RESPONDENTS ORDER AS PER ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Leave granted.2. In relation to the difficulties faced by a decree holder in execution of the decree, in 1872, the Privy Council had observed that .the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree.3. Even today, in 2013, the position has not been improved and still the decree holder faces the same problem which was being faced in the past. We are concerned with the case of the appellant-plaintiff who had succeeded in Civil Appeal No.89 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Faridabad on 19th January, 1996. Decree was drawn in pursuance of the aforestated judgment but till today, the appellant- plaintiff is not in a position to get fruits of his success.4. It is not in dispute that the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4127 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (C) No.30 of 2012) Hari Dass Sharma Appellant Versus Vikas Sood & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4128 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (C) No.776 of 2012) Hari Dass Sharma Appellant Versus Kesri Devi & Ors. Respondents AND CIVIL APPEAL No.4129 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (C) No.888 of 2012) Hari Dass Sharma Appellant Versus Shiv Prashad Respondent JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J.Leave granted.2. These are appeals against the common order dated 02.09.2011 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Revision Nos.179, 180 and 181 of 2008.3. The facts very briefly are that the appellant let out shops in premises No.5 Cart Road, Shimla (for short the building) to the respondents. The appellant filed applications under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the Act) before the Rent Controller, Shimla, for eviction of the respondents from the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
A.K. Patnaik, J. Leave granted. 2. These are appeals against the common order dated 02.09.2011 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Revision Nos.179, 180 and 181 of 2008. 3. The facts very briefly are that the appellant let out shops in premises No.5 Cart Road, Shimla (for short “the building”) to the respondents. The appellant filed applications under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) before the Rent Controller, Shimla, for eviction of the respondents from the building on grounds inter alia that he bona fide required the building for purposes of addition and alteration of the building or rebuilding. The respondents filed their replies before the Rent Controller denying that the appellant required the building for additions and alterations or rebuilding. The Rent Controller framed an issue as to whether the building was required bona fide by the appellant for rebuilding or reconstruction. The appellant examined a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL not D. 437 OF 201.UNION OF INDIA APPELLANT VERSUS THE GOA FOUNDATION AND ORS. RESPONDENTS ORDER 1. The learned Solicitor General of India, on instructions, would submit that there is yet another report of a High Level Working Group constituted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and, further, submits that the said report has taken exception to certain recommendations made in Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (W.G.E.E.P.) Report. If that is so, the appellant should bring the aforesaid fact to the notice of the National Green Tribunal by filing an appropriate application.2. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this civil appeal for the present.3. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is disposed of. We also grant liberty to the appellant to make an appropriate application for bringing the aforesaid fact to the notice of the National Green Tribunal. It is for the Tribunal to consider the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4112-4113 of 2013 (D.No.201 of 2013) N. Narayanan .. Appellant Versus Adjudicating Officer, SEBI .. Respondent JUDGMENT K. S. Radhakrishnan, J 1.Indias capital market in the recent times has witnessed tremendous growth, characterized particularly by increasing participation of public. Investors confidence in the capital market can be sustained largely by ensuring investors protection. Disclosure and transparency are the two pillars on which market integrity rests. Facts of the case disclose how the investors confidence has been eroded and how the market has been abused for personal gains and attainments.2. The Appellate Jurisdiction of this Court guaranteed under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short SEBI Act) has been invoked challenging a joint order dated 5.10.2012 passed in Appeal Nos. 28 and 29 of 2012 passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.641 OF 201.(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.)NO.7923 OF 2012.SAMIR MUSTAFABHAI BAJARIYA APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT RESPONDENT ORDER 1. Leave granted.2. While issuing notice, this Court vide Order dated 18th October, 2012 has passed the following order : ............ Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has already undergone half of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since the punishment imposed is only for eight years for the aforesaid offences, we are of the opinion that during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the sentence imposed on the petitioner requires to be suspended. Accordingly, we provisionally suspend the sentence of the petitioner and direct that he be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 3. We ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The short question involved in these appeals is : Whether the employees of the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation are eligible to claim pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme in view of the non-compliance with the essential conditions stipulated in the Regulations which govern the said Pension Scheme?2. Admittedly, the concerned employees [Madugiri and Yakub Khan, respondents (since deceased) in Civil Appeal No.5274 of 2008 and late Nathu Singh, respondent’s husband in Civil Appeal No. 952 of 2009] of the appellant-Corporation retired from service respectively on 31.1.1991, 31.1.1992 and 31.3.1992 and were paid Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) including the share of employer’s contribution. On 11.1.1993, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 (in short “the Regulations”) came into force. As per clause 3(1) of the said Regulations, option was given to the existing employees as w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4119-4120 OF 201.(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL)NOS.34282-34283 OF 2012.M/S.ABHAYANANDA ASSOCIATES APPELLANT VERSUS THE AUTHORISED OFFICER & ANR. RESPONDENTS ORDER 1. Leave granted.2. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.4856 of 2011 and Writ Appeal No.5359 of 2012, dated 13.09.2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court had dismissed the appeals filed by the auction purchaser questioning the demands raised by the Corporation of City of Mangalore for payment of the property tax.3. Before this Court, the appellant-company has given an undertaking that the company would deposit the property tax of Rs.20 lacs as demanded by the Corporation. In view of that, this Court had issued notice to the respondents. The appellant-Company has not deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lacs in the State Bank of Trav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5274 OF 200.Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & others . Appellants Vs. Madu Giri (Dead) through Lrs. & Anr. . Respondents AND CIVIL APPEAL No.952 OF 200.Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Another . Appellants Vs. Mohini Devi . Respondent JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.:1. The short question involved in these appeals is : Whether the employees of the appellant-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation are eligible to claim pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme in view of the non-compliance with the essential conditions stipulated in the Regulations which govern the said Pension Scheme?.2. Admittedly, the concerned employees [Madugiri and Yakub Khan, respondents (since deceased) in Civil Appeal No.5274 of 2008 and late Nathu Singh, respondents husband in Civil Appeal No.952 of 2009]. of the appellant-Corporation retired from service respectively on 31.1.1991, 31.1.1992 an...
Tag this Judgment!