Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9198 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.24689 of 2011) BHAIRON SAHAI (D) THROUGH LRS. Versus BISHAMBER DAYAL (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. .... Appellant(s) .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted. The petition filed under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by the Appellant-Landlord for eviction of the Respondents was allowed by the Rent Controller. The Tribunal set aside the Judgment of the Rent Controller in the appeal filed by the Respondents. The second appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi, aggrieved by which the Appellant has filed the present appeal.2. Respondent No.1 became the tenant of a shop measuring 138 square feet in Karol Bagh, New Delhi after a family partition in the year 1963 on payment of a rent of Rs.54/- per month. The Appellant purchased the premises from its 1 previous owner in the year 1974. The Appellant issued a not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1184 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9251 OF2016]. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant(s) VERSUS AMIT PAL SINGH Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.1. The State is before us, aggrieved by the order of 2. grant of bail to the respondent. When the matter came up before this Court, the following order was passed on 08.05.2017 :- The petitioner-State is directed to get specific written instruction from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur (or any other Superintendent of Police concerned) regarding the conduct of the respondent and the likely time the trial court may take to conclude the trial. In response to the above order, the State has 3. filed an affidavit dated 13.07.2017. Paragraphs 4 to 9 of the said affidavit read as under :- 24. That in compliance of the aforementioned order it is submitted that regarding the conduct of the accused Respondent/Amit Pal Singh it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9222 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.32834 OF2013]. HIND KAMGAR SANGHATANA Appellant (s) VERSUS DAI ICHI KARKARIA LTD. AND ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.1. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by 2. the impugned judgment, whereby the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, has been upheld. The Tribunal has taken a view that since the appellant was not a recognised union under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, at their instance, the Reference could not be answered. Reliance has been placed on the first proviso to Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as applicable to the State of Maharashtra. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 3. appellant has brought to our notice that there is no recognised union under the first respondent since the registration under the Trade Unions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1418 of 2013 SONU @ AMAR .... Appellant(s) STATE OF HARYANA .Respondent(s) Versus With CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1416 of 2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1653 of 2014 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1652 of 2014 JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.The Appellants in the above appeals along with Dharmender @ Bunty were found guilty of abduction and murder of Ramesh Jain. They were convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment. Their conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court. Accused Dharmender @ Bunty did not file an appeal before this Court. Accused Rampal was convicted under Section 328 read with 201 IPC and was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. His conviction was also confirmed by the High Court which is not assailed before us. 1 Dinesh Jain (PW-1) approached the SHO, Ganaur Police 2. Station (PW31 at 01:30 pm on 26.12.2005 with a complaint that his father was missing on the basis of which FIR was registered by PW3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9141 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.25008 OF2012]. M.ELANGOVAN Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.1. The appellant is aggrieved since he is not 2. granted the promotion in respect of 25% quota, which according to the appellant, is solely based on seniority. Sh. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel 3. appearing for the Union of India, submits that even if it is seniority channel also for the 50% direct recruitment, the incumbent concerned should not have crossed the age as on the cut-off date. We find it difficult to appreciate the submission made by the learned senior counsel. As far as promotion based on seniority is 4. concerned, there cannot be any cut-off date. We may refer to the rule as extracted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents as far as promotions are concerned :- 2 i. 25% of the vacancies of Postman shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9160/2017 [@ SLP (C) NO.11940/2017]. NON-REPORTABLE NAGORAO S/O VITTHALRAO SALUNKE Appellant VERSUS REGIONAL OFFICER, MIDC, LATUR & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9329/2017 [@ SLP(C) No.13138/2017 (IX)]. JUDGMENT R.K. AGRAWAL, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. In view of the order dated 11.09.2015 passed in Civil appeal Nos.7070-7071 of 2015, these appeals are also disposed of by directing that 50% of the enhanced compensation granted to the appellants shall be released without security whereas balance of 50% shall be released to them on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court.4. appeals are allowed. The order(s) of the High Court is/are set aside and the ..................J.R.K. AGRAWAL ................J.ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE JULY17 2017; NEW DELHI....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1176 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.1201/2017]. NON-REPORTABLE RAM NARESH YADAV APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Leave granted. The appellant approached this Court aggrieved by the KURIAN, J.1. 2. denial of the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court on 15.02.2017 passed the following order:- On an oral request made by Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Narvedeshwar Singh, the de-facto complainant, is impleaded as party-respondent. Issue notice to the respondent-State as well as to the newly added respondent, returnable in four weeks. In case, the petitioner is arrested in connection with FIR No.138 of 2015, registered at Police Station Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhand, he shall be released on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the satisfaction of the Investiga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON-REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9137 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.14655 OF2016 HRIDAY SHANKAR TIWARI PETITIONER(S) VERSUS DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Despite service of notice, none has appeared for the respondents. Leave granted.2. 3. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the short judgment of the High Court dated 4.7.2017, which reads as under:-1. Called in revised. None appeared to press this writ petition. In the circumstances, we ourselves have perused the record.2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the termination order dated 2.8.2000 passed by the respondent No.2 1 (Annexure '9' to the writ petition); (b) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his service with ful...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION NON-REPORTABLE [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.18174 OF2017 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9140 OF2017(@ DIARY NO(S). 15212/2017) RAJEEV KUMAR PETITIONER(S) VERSUS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.In the nature of order we propose to pass, it is Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. 3. The appellant approached the High Court, aggrieved by the denial of work by Respondent No.1/Corporation.4. not necessary to issue notice, in our view.5. It appears that the appellant has approached the High Court challenging the denial of work and initially the appellant was granted an interim relief. However, the writ petition was subsequently disposed of by holding that the remedy open to the appellant is to take recourse to the alternative remedy as per Industrial Disputes Act. According to the appellant, unfortunately the judgment was not communicated to him and, therefore, there was considerable delay in approaching...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9142 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.3502 OF2017]. MUNSHIYA (DEAD) THR LRS. Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Leave granted.1. We find that the appellants are aggrieved since 2. their cases have been remanded by the High Court to the Reference Court for fresh consideration, taking note of the awards passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Reference Court. Apparently, this confusion has arisen because the 3. Reference in respect of the same Notification are handled by different district courts.4. We request the High Court, on the Administrative Side, to look into this difficulty and see that the References in respect of the same acquisition are heard by the same Bench.5. Coming to the facts of this case, it cannot be of serious dispute that the adjacent land owners have been granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 65/- per sq. yard. That grant has bec...
Tag this Judgment!