Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1909 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3402 of 2016) DEODHAR APPELLANT VERSUS PARAG & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1911 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3567 of 2016) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1912 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3987 of 2016) JUDGMENT KURIAN,J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants are before this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, staying the declaration of election of Director of respondent No.3-Bank in General Category.3. It is seen that the interim orders have been passed just two days prior to voting. We find it difficult to agree with the stand taken by the High Court that the result of election should not be declared. Whether the writ petitions could have been entertained at all is a larger question to be considered by the High Court.4. Be that as it may, the impugned interim orders dated 08.01.2016 in W.P.No.67/2016, W.P. No.69/2016 and W.P. No.66/2016...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.49 OF2006Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. Appellant Vs. E.S.I. Corporation & Ors. Respondents [With C.A. No.1575/2006, C.A. No.3421/2012, and C.A. No.3422/2012].. JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The questions involved for decision in these appeals are whether casual workers are covered under definition of employee as defined in Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ESI Act) and pertaining to period for which Turf Club is liable to pay from 1978-79 or from 1987.2. The main question involved in the present appeals whether the ESI Act is applicable to Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. has been concluded by a 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court vide judgment dated 31.7.2014. It has been held that the Turf Club would fall within the meaning of the word shop as mentioned in the notification issued under the ESI Act. Therefore, the provisions of ESI Act would ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5430/2016 Axon Construction Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner (s) VERSUS Om Astha Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Respondent(s) ORDER1 This SLP is filed by defendant No.1 of Title Suit No.789 of 2013 against the order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the Single Judge of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.10572 of 2015, which in turn, arises out of the interim order dated 04.01.2014 passed in Title Suit No.789 of 2013 pending in the Court of sub-Judge VI, Patna.2) By impugned order, the High Court declined to entertain the petitioners writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the order sought to be impugned in the writ petition by the petitioner was an appealable order under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and hence the writ petition is not entertainable to examine the legality and correctness of the interim order dated 04.01.2014.3) Learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2405 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.6342/2016) (@ SLP(c)..CC35512016) Anubhav Kumar Choudhary & Ors. Appellant(s) VERSUS Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) Delay in filing special leave petition is condoned. Leave granted.2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 08.04.2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No.5402 of 2015 whereby the High Court while disposing of the appellants writ petition granted liberty to file representation to the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) but at the same time passed an order that the appellants will have no liberty to move the High Court again for the same cause of action raised therein.3) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record of the case.4) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are inclined to dispose of this appeal after granting lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1853 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.8448 of 2012) ALAULI ANCHAL BOAT TRAFFIC COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., PHULTORA AND ANR. ....Appellants Versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. .Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal assails an order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna allowing Letters Patent Appeal No.1457 of 2009 setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and declining to interfere with the order of the Collector dated 16.10.2008, auctioning Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat and direction to the appellant-society to deposit the balance bid amount of Rs.10,80,000/- for the year 2008-2009 for settlement of the said ghat.3. A public notice dated 16.10.2008 was issued by the Zonal Officer, Alauli for auction of Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat for the year 2008- 2009 in which Reserve Jama was fixed at Rs.33,350/-. Three bidders had taken par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1863-1865 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.30933-30935 of 2015) |M/S. ARTI SPINNING MILLS ETC. ETC. |Appellant(s) | Versus |STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER |Respondent(s) | JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as learned Advocate General for the State of Haryana.3. The appellants are aggrieved by the rejection of the review application filed before the High Court on the ground of delay of 706 days in filing the review application. There is a delay of 1705 days before this Court.4. Be that as it may, the issues pertain to the claim made by the appellants for enhancement of compensation. The review application was filed -2- before the High Court seeking land value at the rate of Rs.16.08 per acre as they are granted to the adjoining property covered by R.F.A. No.363 of 2005 titled as Ram Chand @ Ram Chander (since d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1854 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.33894 of 2011) STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. ..Appellants Versus M/S. DEEP JYOTI COMPANY & ANR. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1855 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.35897 OF2013 JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals assail the order of Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowing Special Appeal No.369 of 2009 dated 17.01.2011 filed by the respondent thereby quashing the circular dated 06.10.2008 which provided for deduction of royalty payable to the mining department from the bills of the contractors who have been given the work contract by the government department. Relying upon the order in Special Appeal No.369 of 2009, the High Court dismissed the Special Appeal No.753 of 2012 filed by the State.3. Necessary facts which led to filing of the appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.33894 of 2011 are as follows:-Respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10554 OF2010M/s. Electro Optics (P) Ltd. ..Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu ..Respondent W I T H C.A.Nos.10562 of 2010 and 10563 of 2010 JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.Common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 29.09.2009 in Tax Case Nos.1834 of 2006, 2307 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.18770 of 2000 is under challenge in these appeals. The High Court has rejected the case of the appellant assessee in respect of Assessment Years 1993-94 and 1994-95 and as a consequence also rejected the challenge to the penalty and thereby upheld order of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which arose out of orders under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed by the original authority as well as appellate authority, all against the appellant. For both the assessment years the dispute is confined to an issue of law relating to classification of the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2057 OF2010GAJANAN DASHRATH KHARATE ...Appellant Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 02.12.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2004 affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him.2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is as under:- PW-1- Nagorao Kharate, cousin of the deceased-Dashrath was residing adjacent to the house of Dashrath and his son appellant-accused in village Dapura. PW-1- Nagorao Kharate lodged a complaint at Police Station Boregaon Manju on the evening of 08.04.2002 stating that on the preceding night i.e. 07.04.2002 at around 08.30 p.m. he heard an altercation between Gajanan-the appellant- accused and his father-Dashrath and Dashrath was wailing till about 10.00 p.m. According to PW-1-N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1858-1859 OF2016(Arising from S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10449-10450/2009) NAGABHUSHANAMMAL (D) BY LRS. APPELLANT (S) VERSUS C. CHANDIKESWARALINGAM RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Delay condoned. Substitution allowed. Leave granted. Res judicata, partition, ouster and adverse possession are the four principles interestingly arising in the present case. SHORT FACTS Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants. Appellant- Nagabhushanammal, since deceased and substituted by her legal heirs (daughter of deceased Kotilingaraja and Veerammal), filed a suit for partition, O.S. No.2062 of 1988 before the City Civil Court, Madras. The suit property situated at No.4, Govindarajulyu Naidu Street, Agaram, Madras-82 was purchased by the plaintiffs mother Veerammal from her father- in-law and his two sons under a sale deed dated 16.09.1919 (Document No.1919, SRO, Sembium) from out of her own funds. Veerammal had three chi...
Tag this Judgment!