Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1071-1073 OF2012OM PARKASH & ORS.ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1074 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.4261-4262 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.7791-7792 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.8948-8949 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL No.3904 OF2014JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned and the application for substitution is allowed in Civil Appeal Nos. 4261-4262 of 2012.2. An extent of 233.09 acres of land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Devi Nagar, Sub-Division Kalka, District Ambala was acquired for the development and utilization of the land as recreational and commercial for Sector 3, Urban Estate, Panchkula.3. Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 31.03.1987. By an Award dated 13.03.1997, the Reference Court fixed the land value at the rate of Rs. 31 per sq. yard, which has been affirmed by the High Court and thus, aggrieved by the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO11177OF2011RATTI RAM APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.11178 OF2011JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: In land acquisition proceedings pertaining to Award No.79 of 1982-1983 in respect of the land belonging to the appellants, this Court finally fixed the land value at the rate of Rs. 76, 550/- per Bigha, in the Judgment dated 03.08.2004 in Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma and Other[1].. Once the land value is fixed by the Court, it refers to the value of the land as per the Award passed by the Collector. That should carry all eligible statutory benefits. It appears that in the case before us, statutory benefits have been denied for a short period on the ground that the proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, remained stayed before the Reference Court. To quote from Paragraph-4 of the impugned judgment:Learned Counsel for the appellant, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1479-1480 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 4523-4524 OF2016 MAHENDRA BHIMRAO KHARAT AND ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Issue notice. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, learned counsel, waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.4.2. Leave granted.3. The appellants have mainly three apprehensions viz. i) with regard to the area that will be allotted to them after the construction; ii) with regard to the Agreement to be executed regarding the allotment before they vacate; and iii) the formation of the Cooperative Society.4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the agreements have already been executed with the parties and what remains is only the formal registration thereof.5. We direct the respondents to get the agreements registered within two weeks from today. In case, the agreements have not been exe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1478 of 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.9705 OF2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS SOCIETY FOR THE PROMN.OF EDN., ALLAHABAD Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. There is no appearance on behalf of the sole respondent despite service of notice and adjournment sought for on a couple of occasions earlier.3. The short issue is with regard to the deemed registration of an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The High Court has taken the view that once an application is made under the said provision and in case the same is not responded to within six months, it would be taken that the application is registered under the provision.4. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, has raised an apprehension that in the case of the respondent, since the date of application was of 24.02.2003, at the worst, the same...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1411-1412 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 38678-38679 OF2012 JAIDEV INDER SINGH Appellant(s) VERSUS AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. Pursuant to the Notification dated 18.12.1972 issued under Section 36 of Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922, which resulted in an Award dated 03.10.1973, around 63 acres of land belonging to the appellant and his other three family members were acquired. Subsequently, by a Notification dated 19.02.1973, another acquisition at a different location was initiated, culiminating in Award dated 04.05.1974, acquiring 87 acres of land belonging to the appellant and his three other members of the family. It appears that there was a challenge before the High Court of judicature of Punjab and Haryana on an acquisition, which led ultimately to the Judgment dated 27.09.2001 in Regular Second Appeal No.2634 of 1993. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1410 OF2016(Arising out of SLP ( C) No.26542 of 2008) PUNJAB & SIND BANK APPELLANT VERSUS DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant-bank is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 07.04.2008 of the High Court in C.W.P. No.7730 of 2007. The appellant had challenged the order dated 09.01.2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Misc. Appeal No.134 of 2006 whereby the respondent No.2 herein had been ordered to be deleted as a defendant/guarantor in the Original Application No.343/2004, pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.3. The High Court at page 7 of the impugned judgment has held as follows : From the above pleadings of the parties, it is crystal clear that the bank has admitted that respondent No.2 had resigned from the Board of Director of respondent No.3-Company and another Director ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1427 OF2016[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.15921 of 2013]. Rajender Singh ..Appellant Versus Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.Heard the parties at some length. Leave granted. By the impugned order dated January 15, 2013 the High Court of Delhi has dismissed L.P.A. No.39 of 2013 preferred by the appellant. As a consequence the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.12.2012 passed in W.P.(C)No.7124/2009 as well as order passed in review from that order, dated 18.12.2012 stand affirmed. The relevant facts leading to the aforesaid orders of the High Court need to be noticed only in brief. Consolidation proceedings under The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act]. commenced in Village Karala, Delhi around 1975 and concluded in 1976. After about 23 years of closure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1409 OF2016(Arising out of SLP ( C) No.33917 of 2011) NANDRAM APPELLANT VERSUS M/S GARWARE POLYSTER LTD. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant was employed by the respondent initially as Boiler Attendant in the year 1983 in the Company in Aurangabad. Thereafter he was promoted as Junior Supervisor in the year 1987 and worked in the Aurangabad plant only. In the year 1995, he was again promoted as Senior Supervisor and continued in Aurangabad. However, by proceedings dated 21.10.2000, the appellant was transferred to Silvasa in Gujarat. By another order dated 20.12.2001 he was transferred from Silvasa to Pondicherry. While so, by proceeding dated 12.04.2005, appellant was terminated from service w.e.f. 15.04.2005 on account of closure of the establishment at Pondicherry. It is not in dispute that the registered office of the Company is in Aurangabad and the decision to close t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1346 OF2016(Arising from S.L.P. (C) No.20678/2010) CHANDRAKANT ADINATH UTTURE APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS RESPONDENT (S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.1348 OF2016(Arising from S.L.P. (C) No.20816/2010) AND CIVIL APPEAL No.1350 OF2016(Arising from S.L.P. (C) No.22455/2010) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. The Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a piece of legislation intended for rehabilitation of persons affected on implementation of certain projects in the State of Maharashtra on the lands acquired from the zones benefitted by the projects. The Act is applicable to all irrigation projects of which the area of the affected zone exceeds 50 Hectares or the area of the benefitted zone exceeds 200 Hectares or where a gaothan is affected. The State Government is also entitled to make the Act applicable to other projects as well to wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1403 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.5241 OF2013 PREM NARAIN Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S SWADESHI COTTON MILLS, JUHI & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant was terminated from the services of the first respondent on 31.10.1991. The Labour Court, Kanpur, set aside the termination of the appellant by its award published on 04.10.1997. In the meanwhile, the appellant had already attained the age of superannuation on 01.07.1997.3. The award on reinstatement was not challenged by the respondent- Management. The only ground taken before the High Court was their liability to pay backwages.4. The High Court, taking note of the fact that by the time, the award was published, the appellant-workman had already attained the age of superannuation, set aside the award and allowed the writ petition.5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, the appellant has...
Tag this Judgment!