Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5854 OF2014(arising out of SLP(C) No.31621 of 2012) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY APPELLANT VERSUS U. DINAKAR AND ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th November, 2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.1030 of 2006. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 and held that he is entitled to the Central pay scale and denial of such scale would be bad in law.3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: Respondent No.1 was selected and appointed as Deputy Registrar of Karnataka Regional Engineering College, Suratkal (now known as National Institute of Technology, Karnataka) in March, 1979. While he was so performing the duty the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5846 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8394 of 2013]. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. .. Appellant(s) -vs- Zahid Hussain .. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT C. NAGAPPAN, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C no.45914 of 2012.3. The respondent herein was employed as driver in the appellants- Corporation since 1980 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the charges that he absented from duty from 1.7.1993 to 22.8.1993; after joining duty, while he was hauling a stranded vehicle through his break down truck on 13.9.1993, he carried passengers on the said truck and under intoxication he refused to attend another stranded vehicle of the Corporation and demanded money from that driver. The Enquiry Officer, in his report, found the first two c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.5847 OF2014[ Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.27614 OF2011 Manju Sarkar & Ors. Appellant(s) versus Mabish Miah and ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT C. NAGAPPAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2009 passed by the Guwahati High Court, Agartala Bench, in MFC (W.C.) 03 of 2009 dismissing the appeal of the appellants herein against the order dated 12.12.2008 of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation West Tripura, Agartala, whereby the appellants were denied compensation for the demise of employee Sajal Sarkar.3. The facts in brief are stated as follows: Respondents 1 and 2 are the joint owners of the truck vehicle bearing Registration No.TR01B-1689 and they had taken policy of insurance for the said truck with respondent No.3. Sajal Sarkar, the husband of the appellant No.1 was driver of the said truck vehicle under the employment of respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).5848-49 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.29550-29551 of 2010]. Dev Prakash Tewari .. Appellant(s) -vs- U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow & Ors... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT C. NAGAPPAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are preferred by the appellant who was working as Assistant Engineer with respondent No.2. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule 85 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975, against him by serving a charge-sheet and after inquiry he was dismissed from service by order dated 27.4.1988. The appellant sought for quashing the said order by filing a writ petition in Writ Petition No.4328(S/B) of 1988 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the High Court held that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the Regulation 85 since no opportunity wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1251 OF2014(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7104 of 2013) SANTOSH BAKSHI APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12th July, 2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-1834 of 2010 (O&M). By the impugned order, the High Court rejected the petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.PC) preferred by the appellant.3. The case of the appellant is that she got married to the brother of respondent no.3-Vivek Kumar Bakshi on 4th August, 2006. After marriage, she shifted to her matrimonial house at Ludhiana and just thereafter her in- laws started demanding dowry. The husband of the appellant always stood with her and protected her from various atrocities committed by in-laws and respondent no.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5860-5861 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 36116-36117 of 2011) State of Rajasthan and anr. Appellants Versus Surendra Mohnot and others Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were appointed on ad hoc basis as Lower Division Clerks either directly or from amongst the class IV employees for a fixed tenure for smooth functioning of administrative work. The nature of appointments are clear from the appointment orders dated 26.6.1986, 5.7.1986 and 25.10.1986. Respondent No.7 was appointed on similar conditions in January, 1998. On 28.4.1993, the respondents appeared in the requisite test and, accordingly, were regularized on the posts of Lower Division Clerk by order dated 28.4.1993. On 25.1.1992, the State of Rajasthan issued a circular which pertained to prescription of Selection Grades for employees in Class IV, Ministerial and subordinate services and those holding isol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.357 OF2005State of Rajasthan .Appellant versus Thakur Singh .Respondent JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The question for consideration is whether the facts and circumstances of the case require the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and if so, whether the respondent/accused is guilty of the murder of his wife Dhapu Kunwar. In our opinion, both questions need to be answered in the affirmative and the High Court rendered a decision, perverse in law, in acquitting Thakur Singh and reversing the decision of the Trial Court. The Facts 2. According to the first information report (FIR) lodged by Himmat Singh (PW-2), the respondent/accused Thakur Singh was married to Dhapu Kunwar and they had a daughter aged about one year. Thakur Singh was working as a labourer or lorry driver in Ahmadabad. Since he was not feeling well, he was brought to the family home in Hingwania in Rajasthan on 25...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1247 OF2014[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5826 of 2011]. Bal Manohar Jalan Appellant(s) versus Sunil Paswan and another Respondent(s) JUDGMENT C. NAGAPPAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 18.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No.830 of 2009 whereby the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision filed by the respondent No.1 herein.3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are stated as follows: The father of the respondent No.1 herein filed a complaint on 24.5.2003 against five accused persons alleging therein that they had committed murder of son of the complainant by name Anil Paswan by administering poison. A case was registered in First Information Report No.96 of 2003 on the file of Chowk Police Station, Patna City, on 28.5.2003 against 5 accused persons for the allege...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5853 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.16638 of 2012) Ram Karan (Dead) Through LRs. & ors. APPELLANTS VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Ors. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.557/2002. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the order dated 23rd May, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.639 of 1996.3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The suit property is an agricultural land admeasuring 10 bighas 13 biswa situated in village Med, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The said land was sold by its recorded Khatedar, Dalu (hereinafter referred to as the vendor) to Ram Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6169-6171 OF2013STATE OF U.P. & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S. JASWANT SUGAR MILLS LTD. & ORS.ETC. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs.6172-6174 OF2013 CIVIL APPEAL No.7122 OF2003CIVIL APPEAL NOs.7123-7124 OF2003CIVIL APPEAL No.7125 OF2003CIVIL APPEAL NOs.7126-7129 OF2003JUDGMENT Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.In these appeals the dispute relates to payment of compensation pursuant to acquisition of land of respondent-M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and auction of part of the land of the Company. There being cross-claims, all of these appeals were heard together for determination by a common judgment.2. The Company preferred two writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut and Board of Revenue dated 18th December, 1995 and 3rd August, 1996 respectively. The aforesaid orders were also challenged by the State Gove...
Tag this Judgment!