Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NOS.1878-1879 OF2009Suresh Narayan Kadam & Ors. .Petitioners versus Central Bank of India & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The proceedings in these petitions as indeed the proceedings in the Bombay High Court (out of which the present petitions have arisen) indicate a clear need for encouraging an amicable settlement process, preferably through mediation, in which the services of a mediator well-versed in the art, science and technique of mediation may be taken advantage of. The alternative, of course, is protracted litigation which may not be the best alternative for the contesting parties or for a society that requires expeditious justice delivery.2. In his Foreword written on 12th April, 2011 to the first edition of Mediation Practice & Law The path to successful dispute resolution written by Mr. Sriram Panchu, Senior Advocate and Mediator, Mr. Fali S. Nar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.888 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) No.35037 OF2015 |GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. |.....APPELLANT(S) | | | | |VERSUS | | |ANAND ARYA AND ORS. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.889 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) No.35038 OF2015 JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Notice, returnable forthwith. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents), who are the real contesting respondents, have appeared on Caveat and accepted notice. Keeping in view the nature of order which we propose to pass in these appeals, it was not found necessary to serve other respondents. Insofar as counsel for the appellants as well as counsel for the respondents are concerned, they were ready to argue the matter finally. Accordingly, we heard the matter finally at this stage itself. Leave granted in both these matters. The appellants in these two appeals are Government of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Transpor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.128 OF2011Ram Saran Varshney and others Appellants versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another Respondents JUDGMENT JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.1. The challenge raised in the instant appeal is, as against the order dated 7.5.2008, namely, the charge sheet wherein the appellants before this Court have been proceeded against under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as also, under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A further challenge has also been raised, as against the order dated 12.05.2008 (passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow), taking cognizance of the charge sheet, filed against the appellants.2. It is essential to narrate the facts leading up to the controversy. In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that Mukul Gupta - appellant no.3 was married to Sonia Gupta - respondent no.2 on 11.06.1997. Ram Saran Varshney - appellant no.1 and Saroj Varshney - appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.823-854 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C ) Nos. 15919- 15950 of 2011) Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. ..Appellants Versus The State Information Commission & Anr. .Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO.855 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5433 of 2014) Public Service Commission U.P. ..Appellant Versus Raghvendra Singh .. Respondent JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.Leave granted.2. In these two appeals the short question which needs consideration is as to whether the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by impugned judgment has rightly held that the respondents are entitled not only to get information with regard to the scan copies of their answer sheet, tabulation-sheet containing interview marks but also entitled to know the names of the examiners who have evaluated the answer sheet.3. The information sought for by the respondents were denied by the State Public Information Officer and the Appellate Auth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
| REPORTABLE | IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.869 OF2016(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1903 of 2015) JAYA BISWAL & ORS. APPELLANTS Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.Leave granted. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2014 passed in F.A.O. No.472 of 2013 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, wherein the learned single Judge reduced the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants by the learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation from Rs.10,75,253/- to Rs.6,00,000/- and also waived the award of 50% penalty with interest. The brief facts of the case required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated here under: The elder son of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 worked as a truck driver with one Bikram Keshari Patnaik (respondent No.2 herein). On 19.07.2011, he met with an accident while o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.699 OF2005|S.N. BHARDWAJ |..APPELLANT(S) | | VERSUS | | |ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA & ORS. |..RESPONDENT(S) | W I T H TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.7 OF2003JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Sultan Giyasuddin Tughlaq founded the Tughlak Dynesty and ruled during the period 1321-1325 A.D. He constructed the historic Tughlakabad Fort in Tughlakabad spreading over an area of about 3000 bighas and area-wise it is considered one of the largest among all the Forts in Delhi. Tughlakabad Fort is regarded as the third major city after Kila Rai Pithora, which was built by the Rajput Anang Pal Tomer, and the Siri Fort, which was built by Allaudin Khilji. The Fort has its national importance. It has been declared as protected monument. Therefore, it is the legal as well as ethical obligation of the concerned authorities to protect this heritage site and to properly maintain it. Notwithstanding, over a period of time, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.870 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.25972 of 2009) NARAYANRAO JAGOBAJI GOWANDE PUBLIC TRUST APPELLANT Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.871 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.25821 of 2008) CIVIL APPEAL NO.872 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.25841 of 2008) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 876-877 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.25923-24 of 2008) CIVIL APPEAL No.873 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.427 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL No.874 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.1223 of 2009) And CIVIL APPEAL NO.875 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10246 of 2009) JUDGMENT Delay condoned. Leave granted. These appeals are directed against the common impugned judgment and order dated 29.8.2008 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in various Writ Petitions including Writ Petition No.1034 of 1995, wherein the High Court has dismissed all the wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2772 OF2009STATE TRADING CORPN. INDIA LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.787 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.18110 of 2006) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2773 OF2009WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2774 OF2009WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2775 OF2009WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2777 OF2009WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2778 OF2009WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2779 OF2009WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2780 OF2009WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2781 OF2009JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.18110/2006.2. The basis of assessment of property tax under the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (in short the NDMC Act) is the subject matter of these appeals. In Chapter VIII of Taxation, Section 60 of the NDMC Act has dealt with the subject. Under Section 60(1)(a), the Municipal Council is entitled to levy the property tax. Under sub-section (3) the property tax shall be levied, assessed and collected in accordance with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.386 OF2009MUNICIPAL CORP.OF GREATER MUMBAI Appellant(s) VERSUS BEST KAMGAR KARMACHARI & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of judicature of Bombay in Contempt Petition Ldg. No.41 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.901 of 2007, whereby the contempt petition was dismissed.2. The respondents, however, explained their position before the High Court tendering also an unconditional apology. Having regard to the nature of the alleged violation of the order by indulging in illegal strike, the High Court came to the conclusion that it is difficult to render a finding regarding commission of contempt of Court by the respondents.3. Now that the strike relates to the year 2007 and thereafter, the parties have apparantly purchased peace and since the respondents have tendered unconditional apology for their alleged contumacious conduct before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8068 OF2009Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay Appellant(s) VERSUS Palak Dhari Yadav & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.8069 OF2009Committee of Management, D.A.V. Girls Higher Secondary School, May, U.P. Appellant(s) VERSUS Palak Dhari Yadav Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1) These appeals are filed against the common judgment and order dated 05.10.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal Nos. 728 and 729 of 1999 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed both the appeals filed by respondent No.1 herein and set aside the order dated 30.07.1999 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in C.M.W.P. No.19091 of 1990 filed by the appellant herein and C.M.W.P. No.6681 of 1990 filed by respondent No.1 herein.2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in br...
Tag this Judgment!