Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8258 OF2009UNITED BANK OF INDIA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BISWANATH BHATTACHARJEE ...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E NT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. The appellant (hereafter called the bank) is aggrieved by a judgment of the Calcutta High Court1. By the impugned judgment, the division bench set aside the decision of a learned single judge of the High Court; the single judge had dismissed the challenge by the respondent (writ petitioner- hereafter called the employee) to his dismissal from the banks service.2. The employee was initially appointed as a cashier-cum-clerk by the bank, on 18.01.1971. Later, he was promoted to Junior Management Officer Grade Scale-1. He served as branch manager of the banks Chandabila branch from 14.12.1988 to 30.05.1990. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him when a charge sheet on 23.10.1997 alleging his complicity in five major charges (stated in paragraph 15 below) was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 806 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 13067 of 2019) Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited .... Appellant(s) Versus Basil T K & Ors ....Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal No 808 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 13179 of 2019) Civil Appeal No 807 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 13200 of 2019) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1Leave granted. 2 This batch of three appeals arises from the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala dated 12 April 2019 and 14 March 2019 in writ appeals from a judgment of a Single Judge dated 6 December 2018. 2 3 The Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Limited1 and its Managing Director are the appellants in the first two appeals. In the third appeal, the appellant, Aneesh Babu R2, seeks to challenge one of the directions of the Single Judge by which it was directed that the seniority list is to be recast by placing Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6466 OF2021National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited Appellant(s) Versus Montecarlo Limited & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.5127 of 2021 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein original writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the original writ petitioner) and has quashed the communications dated 27.04.2021 and 28.04.2021 and the notification dated 28.04.2021 by which the original writ petitioner was informed that its technical Bid has been rejected on the ground that the same is non-responsive and consequently has directed the appellant herein to proceed in accordance with law qua the tender process by further examining the Bid of the original writ petitioner, the original 1 respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.463 OF2022Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ...Appellant(s) Versus Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in LPA No.37 of 2008 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and restoring the award passed by the Labour Court directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent with back wages, the employer Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as MSRTC) has preferred the present appeal.2. That the respondent herein was appointed as sweeper firstly, by written order of appointme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
CA8142022 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 814 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 26930 of 2019) M/s Mongia Realty and Buildwell Private Limited Appellant Versus Manik Sethi Respondent JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1Leave granted. 2 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in RFA No 5 of 2019. The trial Court dismissed the suit instituted by the appellant on the ground of limitation, by a judgment dated 16 August 2018. The High Court upheld the dismissal of the suit on that ground. CA8142022 2 3 The appellant instituted a suit against the respondent on 31 March 2017 (Civil Suit No 76 of 2017 (new number 355 of 2017)) under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 19081 for the recovery of an amount of Rs 1,11,63,633 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the realization of the full amount. The respondent filed a written sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 368-369 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 3526-27 OF2019 MADHUKAR S/O GOVINDRAO KAMBLE & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. The landowners are in appeal aggrieved against the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench on 17.07.2017 whereby the compensation for the land acquired was assessed as Rs.56,500/- per hectare. The order of the Reference Court enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.1,95,853/- per hectare was set aside in the order impugned in the present appeal.2. The land admeasuring 2.42 hectares of land was intended to be acquired in pursuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18941 published on 25.02.1999 for the purpose of 1 The Act 1 resettlement of affected person from Lower Wardha submergence project.3. The Special Land A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.785 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.20262 OF2018 SHIV DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNER SUNILBHAI SOMABHAI AJMERI . APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AKSHARAY DEVELOPERS & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.The relevant factual matrix and background.....................................................2 The application seeking rejection of plaint: divergent views of the Trial Court and the High Court.............................................................................................6 Rival Submissions...........................................................................................12 Section 69 of the Act of 1932 and the relevant principles................................15 Application of the relevant principles to the subject suit..................................21 Conclusion.......................................................................................................23 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.786 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.16671 OF2021 M/s AGMATEL INDIA PVT. LTD. .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/s RESOURSYS TELECOM & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No.787 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.16672 of 2021) JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.Contents Preliminary.................................................................................................................1 Relevant Factual Matrix and Background..................................................................3 High Court disapproves the decision of tender inviting authority.............................7 Rival Submissions....................................................................................................16 Interpretation of Tender Document: Relevant Principles.........................................23 Application of relevant principles to the case at hand.............................................28 Conclusion................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1492 OF2021PAPPU TIWARY Appellant Versus STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1202-1203 OF2014LAW TIWARI @ UPENDRA KUMAR TIWARI Appellant Versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondent JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.Background:1. On 07.03.2000 at about 1:00 p.m. Vikas Kumar Singh, aged about 22 years was going from his house towards Bhandar for performing physical exercise. It is the case of the prosecution that based on the fardbeyan of his younger brother, Pankaj Kumar Singh which was 1 recorded at Sadar Hospital, Garhwa at 2:00 p.m., when Vikas Kumar Singh reached in front of the house of Ramadhar Ram, all of a sudden six person who were sitting on the road surrounded him; namely Pappu Tiwari (appellant in Crl. A. No.1492/2021), Sanjay Ram, Uday Pal, Ajay Pal, Pintu Tiwari and Law Tiwari (appellant in Crl. A. No.1202- 1203/2014). Pappu Tiwari fired from his pistol at Vikas Kumar Singh ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION/INHERENT JURISDICTION Miscellaneous Application Nos 1717-1719 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos 11948-11950 of 2016 Union of India ... Appellant(s) Versus E Krishna Rao ... Respondent(s) WITH Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos 920-922 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos 11948-11950 of 2016 ORDER1Delay condoned in filing the Contempt Petitions. 2 The review petition which was filed by the Union of India, Review Petition (Civil) Diary No 24345 of 2021 in Miscellaneous Application No 1143 of 2021 in Contempt Petition (C) Nos 405-407 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos 11948-11950 of 2016 [Amit Khare v Sudhanshu Ranjan]., was dismissed by an order dated 27 January 2022. 2 Mr Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India, submits that, in view of the above position, the persons who were parties to the proceedings before this Court will be given their arrears on the same footing as Mr Sudhanshu Ranjan, to whom arr...
Tag this Judgment!