Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9898 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.29199 OF2016]. [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) CC No.18417 OF2016]. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS VIVEK & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.9899 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.29201 OF2016]. [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) CC No.18471 OF2016]. JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The issue, in principle, is covered against the appellant by judgments in Civil Appeal No.8477 of 2016 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.8467 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No.5811 of 2015 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.21545 of 2015.4. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9881 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C)No.8181 of 2013) STATE BANK OF PATIALA ... APPELLANT VS. GENERAL SECRETARY, STAFF UNION & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Heard the learned counsel.2. Leave granted.3. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11th October, 2012, delivered in LPA No.448/2010 (O&M) by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, this appeal has been filed by the employer-Bank.4. The facts giving rise to the litigation, in a nutshell, are as under : The appellant had appointed Shri Bhagwant Singh, respondent no.3, as a peon in 1973 and he was promoted to the post of record-keeper/godown- keeper in 1984. In the course of performance of his duties, he was asked to look after a godown maintained by the appellant-Bank, wherein stock of the borrowers had been stored. The said stock had been pledged to the appellant-Bank as a security and there was a specific instruction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9886 OF2016[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.20985 of 2014]. State of U.P. and Ors. Appellants Versus Z.U. Ansari Respondent JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, CJI. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby Writ Petition No.19485 of 2012 filed by the respondent has been allowed and disciplinary proceedings based on charge-sheet dated 26th June, 2011 issued to the respondent quashed with the direction that the writ petitioner-respondent herein shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.3. The respondent-writ petitioner before the High Court joined the Saharanpur Division of Rural Engineering Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh as a Junior Engineer on 26th February, 1973. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 25th April, 1981 and transferred to Pratapgarh Division, and thereaf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.181 OF1998VILAS V. SANGHAI APPELLANT VERSUS SUMERMAL MISHRIMAL BAFNA & ANR. RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.210 OF1998STATE OF MAHARASHTRA APPELLANT VERSUS SUMERMAL MISHRIMAL BAFNA & ANR. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22nd December, 1997 delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.22 of 1994, Criminal Appeal No.181 of 1998 has been filed by Vilas V. Sanghai against the order of punishment imposed upon him under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Criminal Appeal No.210 of 1998 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra for setting aside the said judgment.2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under :- As two appeals have been filed against the same judgment, for narration of the facts, we have referred to the facts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9877 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.11675 OF2016 SHANKAR HIRANNA RAJANNA Appellant(s) VERSUS MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.9878 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.11678 OF2016 WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.9879 OF2016[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.25312 OF2016 JUDGMENT NARIMAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have come to us after a chequered history, which has begun at least four decades ago. Initially, a certain building, which would be referred to as 102 D of property, admeasuring 2807 sq. meters belonging to MHADA was said to be dilapidated and in dangerous condition beyond economic repair. A notice to this effect had been issued by MHADA dated 23.03.1982. Subsequently, buildings 102 A, B and C were also declared as being beyond economic repair under Section 88 of the MHADA Act in the year 1989. Acquisition of the said f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9921-9923 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s).10163-10165 of 2015) GOVT. OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS DAYANAND SINGH ETC. ETC. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.9924 OF2016(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.11365 of 2015) SLP (Civil) No(s).11363-11364 of 2015 SLP (Civil) No(s).14625-14626 of 2015 SLP (Civil) No(s).22190 of 2015 ORDER SLP(C) Nos. 10163-10165/2015 AND SLP(C) No.11365/2015 1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are preferred aggrieved by a common judgment dated 10.11.2014 passed in a batch of writ petitions by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10163- 10165/2015 are filed by the State of Bihar. Other Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.11365/2015 etc. are filed by various parties to the above- mentioned batch of petitions, i.e. petitioners and other respondents therein.3. The controversy in these appeals is with respec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NOS.58-114 OF2016IN AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9252-9308 OF2016Medical Council of India .....Appellant Versus Harshitha & Ors. ..Respondents 1 ORDER1 We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. Upon perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that admission given to the students concerned to MBBS course was conditional. The fact with regard to conditional admission, which was dependent upon the final outcome of the writ petition, was duly informed to the students, as one can see from the admission letter issued to the students.3. In the aforestated circumstances, the students concerned do not have any right to continue their studies in the same college or to get admission in any other college. Moreover, many of them have not passed the requisite examination of NEET, which is very much necessary to get admission to MBBS course. Needless to say that it would be open to those students, who are quali...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9835 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.26558 OF2016 |STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |DR. D.Y. PATIL VIDYAPEETH & ORS. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.9836 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.26572 OF2016 CIVIL APPEAL No.9837 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.26567 OF2016 A N D CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9838-9839 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 27918-27919 OF2016 JUDGMENT BY THE COURT: Leave granted All these appeals arise out of the common order dated August 30, 2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein. In the said writ petitions, Rule has been issued and during the course of arguments we are informed that these are now listed for final hearing on September 29, 2016. Subject matter of challenge in these appeals is the interim order which is passed by the High Court granting stay of Letter dated Aug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9823 OF2016(Arising out of S. L. P. (C) No.21187 of 2015) NITU APPELLANT VERSUS SHEELA RANI & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Leave granted.2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waived service of notice and at the request of the learned counsel, the appeal was heard on the same day.3. Being aggrieved by an Order dated 21st April, 2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No.6012 of 2014, the widow of a government employee has approached this Court with a grievance that she is not being paid full pension in accordance with the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) of the Government of Punjab.4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under : Shri Yashpal, the husband of the appellant, was serving as a Computer DOD in the office of the District Malaria Officer un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9750-9819 OF2016(Arising from SLP(C) Nos. 10864-10933 of 2014) State of H.P. & Ors. Appellants versus Rajesh Chander Sood etc. etc. Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. The State of Himachal Pradesh came to be created, with effect from 25.1.1971. Consequent upon the creation of the State of Himachal Pradesh, employees engaged by the corporate sector, on their retirement, were being paid provident fund, under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Provident Fund Act). The Central Government framed the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1995, whereby, it replaced the earlier statutory schemes, framed under the Provident Fund Act. This scheme was adopted for the corporate sector employees, engaged in the State of Himachal Pradesh.2. In order to extend better retiral benefits to these employees, the Himachal Prade...
Tag this Judgment!