Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6900 OF2009STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS RAJIV BERRY & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.6901 OF2009SHASHANK SHARMA ..APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.The Civil Appeals arise out of two separate orders passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the matter of acquisition of land for the purpose of expansion of the Uttaranchal Secretariat. While Civil Appeal No.6901 of 2009 arises out of the judgment and order dated 23rd December, 2005 of the High Court dismissing the challenge to the acquisition made by the appellant land-owner on grounds to be noticed herein below, Civil Appeal No.6900 of 2009 arises out of another judgment and order dated 1st March, 2007 by which the impugned acquisition has been interfered with by the High Court.2. A brief conspectus of the relevant facts may now be set out. By notification dated 4th May, 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3455 OF2010Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. APPELLANT VERSUS ESSAR POWER LIMITED ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.Part I : Introductory 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act) against the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2010 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (the Tribunal) in Appeal No.86 of 2009 whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission) which was in favour of the appellant.2. The substantial question of law sought to be raised by the appellant is :Whether the Tribunal has correctly interpreted the terms of Power Purchase Agreement dated 30th May, 1996 (PPA) and is justified in reversing the finding of the Commission based on interpretation of the said PPA and other documents on record.?. Part II : Facts 3. The appellant, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7358 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C) No.17466 of 2016) Vijay Kumar Mishra and Another Appellants Versus High Court of Judicature at Patna and Others Respondents JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J.1. Leave granted.2. To explore the true purport of Art. 233(2) of the Constitution of India is the task of this Court in this appeal. The facts of the case are very elegantly narrated in the first six paragraphs of the judgment under appeal. They are:The challenge in the present writ application is to the communication, dated 16th of February, 2016, whereby representation of the petitioners to appear in interview for the post of District Judge Entry Level (Direct from Bar) Examination, 2015, was rejected and a condition was imposed that petitioners will have to tender their rejection, first, from the Subordinate Judicial Service of the State of Bihar and only, thereafter, they could appear in the interview. An Advertise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.459 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL No.6950 OF2009TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION PETITIONER Vs. S.K. ROY, THE CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. CONTEMNORS WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.634 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6956 OF2009 REVIEW PETITION (C) No.3846 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL No.6950 OF2009 REVIEW PETITION (C) No.2994 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6953 OF2009 REVIEW PETITION (C) No.2991 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6956 OF2009 CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.637 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6953 OF2009 REVIEW PETITION (C) No.2990 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6954 OF2009 REVIEW PETITION (C) No.2993 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6952 OF2009 CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.502 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6952 OF2009 REVIEW PETITION (C) No.2989 OF2015IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6951 OF2009AND CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No.21 OF2016IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6950 OF2009JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.Delay condone...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA criminal APPELLATE JURISDICTION criminal APPEAL No.751 OF2016(arising out of S.l.p. (crl.) No.4338 of 2015) M/s. hcl infosystem ltd. APPELLANT VERSUS central bureau of investigation ...RESPONDENT w i t h criminal APPEAL No.752 OF2016(arising out of S.l.p. (crl.) no.1418 of 2016) Dr. Vijai tripathi APPELLANT VERSUS central bureau of investigation and another ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. Leave granted. These appeals have been preferred against the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 1st May, 2015 and 22nd January, 2016 in APP No.6623 of 2015 and Application u/s 482/378/407 No.3823 of 2014 respectively.2. The question for consideration relates to the jurisdiction of the Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act) to try a person other than a public servant if the public servant dies before the commencement of the trial. Further question is whether the Special Judge can t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7360 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.9418 of 2011) Ambika Savaria & Ors. .Appellants Versus Sanjay Sharma & Ors. . Respondents [[ JUDGMENT [ Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. Leave granted. This appeal challenges correctness of the judgment and order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur allowing Second Appeal No.242 of 1989 and setting aside concurrent decisions of the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court granting decree of eviction in favour of the appellants.2. Civil Suit No.67-A of 1979 was filed by Vasudev Shyamji and Govind Shyamji, the predecessors of the appellants seeking eviction of one Bhanaram Sharma, predecessor of the respondents from suit house which was described in the plaint as the front portion of house No.189/1, Ward No.18, Raigarh. The eviction was sought on grounds including bona fide need. In paragraph 2 of his written statement Bhanaram stated, ..I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7364 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.4399 OF2016]. D.T.C. Appellant(s) VERSUS GIAN CHAND Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi in LPA No.739 of 2008, by which the respondent has been directed to be reinstated with 60% back wages.3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, we are of the view that there is no justification in awarding back wages in the facts of the present case.4. Therefore, the direction of payment of back wages is vacated. All other consequential benefits will follow, which would mean that the respondent would be reinstated as per the award with continuity of service, but without any back wages.5. We make it clear that in case the respondent has been denied an option for pension in view of the fact that at the relevant time of option, he was no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7363 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (C)No.23564 of 2016 @ CC No.14534/2016) AJINATH GULAB SAYKAR APPELLANT VERSUS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AHMEDNAGAR RESPONDENT JUDGMENT KURIAN,J.Delay condoned. Leave granted.3. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this appeal, it is not necessary to go into the factual aspects of the case.4. The appellant approached this Court aggrieved by the common judgment dated 10th April, 2013 and modified order dated 14th June, 2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this case is covered by the judgment dated 11th September, 2015 of this Court passed in C.A. Nos.7137-7160 of 2015 titled Fula Bhoru Ughade, etc. etc. Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ahmednagar wherein one time compensation has been enhanced from Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7165 of 2016 ARVIND KUMAR APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. The present case involves the Court going through a dense jungle which consists of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as the principal Act]. and three Amendment Acts made thereto. With the help of learned counsel for both the sides, we have waded through the various Sections and sub-sections of these Acts, only for the purpose of having to decide one basic question: as to whether ceiling proceedings in respect of the land in question have lapsed owing to Section 31 of the 1976 Amendment Act.2. The brief facts necessary to decide the present case are as follows. A notice under Section 10(2) of the principal Act, was served upon the tenure-holder, one Kamla Devi, to file objections against a proposal to declare 51.29 acres as surplus land. Pursuant to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4703 of 2009 PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ..Appellants Through its Managing Director & Anr. Versus S. K. Sharma & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.This appeal by special leave assails the judgment and order dated 24.04.2006 passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing LPA No.700 of 2002 preferred by the appellants and affirming the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11.01.2002 whereby Writ Petition bearing CWP No.11908 of 1992 preferred by some of the respondents was allowed. Some had preferred to file suits and Civil Appeals which were dismissed. Their Regular Second Appeal No.430 of 1995 was tagged with the above writ petition and was allowed by the same common judgment enabling all the 21 respondents to refund a part of CPF (Govt. Contribution) or agree for adjustment, to obtain pensionary benefits. The respondents filed the writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!