Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NOT REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1367 OF2017(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.987 of 2015) Athul Rao :Versus: Appellant State of Karnataka & Anr. Respondents A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.JUDGMENT1 The appellant has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. The case against the appellant is that on or around 11th June, 2008, the wife of respondent no.2, one Padmapriya, went missing from her marital home in Udupi, Karnataka. That was reported to the local police by Smt. Saraswathi (Mother of respondent No.2), as a result of which a case was registered as Crime No.109/2008 on 13th June 2008. The police finally traced Padmapriya to a flat in 2 Dwarka, New Delhi on or around 14th June, 2008. Thereafter, respondent no.2, along with some family members went to New Delhi and, with the police in tow, visited the said flat on 15th June, 2008, with the intention of bringing Padmapriya back home. As t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 243/2011 NON-REPORTABLE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VED SINGH KURIAN, J.RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in view of Annexure P8, Modified Demand of Penal Rent, dated 26.05.2005, no further orders are required to be passed.2. 3. disposed of.4. The civil appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand There shall be no orders as to costs. NEW DELHI; AUGUST17 2017. .......................J.[KURIAN JOSEPH]. .......................J.[R. BANUMATHI]....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8081/2013 NON-REPORTABLE THE CHAIRMAN UCO BANK & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SANWAL SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case where the employee is no more and that he had already retired in the year 1990, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is hence dismissed.2. However, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the question of law raised in this case is covered by a decision of this Court in Jai Singh B. Chauhan v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., rendered on 20.07.2005, is recorded.3. disposed of.4. Pending applications, if any, shall stand There shall be no orders as to costs. NEW DELHI; AUGUST17 2017. .......................J.[KURIAN JOSEPH]. .......................J.[R. BANUMATHI]....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7816/2003 NON-REPORTABLE JATINA KHATOON & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SK. NAJEEB (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.Delay in filing the application for substitution Application for substitution of Respondent (I.A. No.10/2017) is condoned.2. No.6(b) is allowed.3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.4. However, it will be open to the appellants to take all available contentions under law before the Execution Court.5. disposed of.6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand There shall be no orders as to costs. NEW DELHI; AUGUST17 2017. .......................J.[KURIAN JOSEPH]. .......................J.[R. BANUMATHI]....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4951/2009 NON-REPORTABLE THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MOHINDERJIT KAUR (D) TH. L.R. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4952/2009 JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.These appeals are filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, wherein the High Court has taken a stand that the employees transferred to non-pensionable establishments will also be entitled to family pension in case they are covered under Rule 5.3 of the Punjab Service Rules. The said Rule reads as follows:- 5.3(1) When a Government employee is transferred from pensionable Government service to a non-pensionable establishment, he cannot be granted any pension or gratuity admissible to him for the qualifying portion of his service until he actually retires from the non-pensionable establishment to which he is transferred. 1 (2) A permanent Government employee who may be permitted to be permanently absorbed in a service or post...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10589-10590 OF2017(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.23204-23205 of 2013) UNION OF INDIA & ORS. SH. SARVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS. Versus .... Appellant(s) .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted. The Respondents filed Writ Petitions challenging the order dated 12.05.2011 issued by the Director General of Assam Rifles which were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court. The Appeals filed against this order were dismissed by a Division Bench. Aggrieved, the Union of India and others have filed these Civil Appeals. 1 2. The Respondents are combatised personnel of the Assam Rifles. Their grievance pertains to withdrawal of Special (Duty) Allowance. To understand the controversy, it is relevant to refer to the events that led to the introduction of Special (Duty) Allowance and its withdrawal.3. By office memorandum dated 14.12.1983, the Government of India introduced pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10574 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.16155 OF2017 MANISH SAHU AND ANR Appellant (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.10575-10576 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.16298-16299 OF2017 WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.10577 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.16314 OF2017 JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants approached this Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court declining to interfere with the cancellation of selection for appointment to the post of Diploma Trainees and Technician second respondent-Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) at Kanpur in terms of Advertisement No.2 of 2011. Trainees under the 2 On 31.07.2017, this Court passed the following 3. order :- Learned senior counsel appearing for the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) submits that there is neither any requirement nor any recruitment for the post for which the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10583-10585 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S). 36057-36059 OF2016 MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS. ETC. ETC. ... Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.ETC. ETC. ... Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10586 OF2017[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S). 36194 OF2016 M. SREEDHAR & ORS. ... Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF TELANGANA REP. THR. PRL. SECRETARY AND ORS. ... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.Applications for impleadment are allowed. 2 2. Leave granted.3. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29.08.2016 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals filed by the present appellants and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions.4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that various electric supply and generation companies in the State of Telangana viz., Telangana State Transmission Company Limited, TSTRANSC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON CIVIL APPEAL NO._10587 OF2017(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.17059 of 2017 SMT. BHARATI REDDY APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.1. 2. Leave granted. The appellant was elected as a member of Zilla Panchayat, Bellary from 13-Badanahatti Constituency, which was reserved for General (Women) category in the election held on 20.2.2016. The State Government issued a notification dated 15.4.2016 reserving the post of Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat, Bellary for Backward ClassB (Woman). The appellant contested for the said office and was declared as elected. Respondents 6 2 to 9 are residents of Bellary district and were voters in the election to the Zilla Panchayat in question. They filed Writ Petition No.106417 of 2016 in the Dharwad Bench of Karnataka High Court challenging the election of the appellant as the Adhyaksha mainly on the ground that she does not belong to bac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.5 OF2017IN RE : MOHIT CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1. A Noble Profession. An Officer of the Court. An Advocate-on-Record having the privilege conferred in that behalf under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. And a painful task of the Court to look into the conduct of such an advocate arrayed as a contemnor in the contempt proceedings.2. On 07.04.2017 right in the morning at 10.30 a.m., we were confronted by Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate-on-Record, making the first mentioning in an extremely agitated and aggressive manner. He sought to contend that a great manipulation had 2 occurred in the Registry of this Court in order to favour the opposite party with the objective of Bench Hunt. He sought to produce before the Court a letter dated 07.04.2017, during mentioning, which was taken on record as Annexure A. In order to appreciate the said letter, we reproduce the same as ...
Tag this Judgment!