Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8822-8823 OF2022[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10386-10387 of 2020]. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH APPELLANT VERSUS KARUNESH KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT M.M. SUNDRESH, J.1. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in allowing the writ petition filed by the private Respondents, setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge is assailed before us. Candidates who waited in the wings, observing the legal journey, filed applications for impleadment seeking extended benefit of the impugned Judgment and Order.2. The present appeals are filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh inter alia contending that the candidates who are not part of the list forwarded by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) were also directed to be considered in the vacancies arising 1 pursuant to the selected candidates ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8887 OF2022Lucknow Development Authority ..Appellant Versus Mehdi Hasan (Deceased) Thr. LRs. & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Misc. Bench No.4149 of 2006 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition to the extent of Plot No.219, 1 bigha, 10 biswa and 10 biswansi, Village Malesemau, Tehsil & District Lucknow and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the said land is deemed to have lapsed under Sub-section (2) 1 of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 2013), the Lucknow Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9004 OF2022(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.19053/2022) Manharlal Shivlal Panchal & Others Appellants Versus The Deputy Collector & Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Regular First Appeal No.492/2022, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants herein and has confirmed the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Reference Court, rejecting the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1894) as barred by limitation, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal. 12. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: That a notification under Section 4 of the Act 1894 came to be issued for acquiring the lands in q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9008 OF2022(@ SLP(C) No.18635 OF2022 D.N. Krishnappa ...Appellant(S) Versus The Deputy General Manager ...Respondent(S) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.7176/2021, by which, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent - bank and has set aside the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum - Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the CGIT/Labour Court) in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act) awarding wages for the period 1 from 18.07.2007 to 23.09.2013, the employee workman has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: - 2.1 That the appellant herein was working with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2022(Arising from SLP(Criminal) No.9897/2022) Chandi Puliya Appellant Versus The State of West Bengal Respondent JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Leave granted.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in Revision Application No.1328/2022, by which the High Court has dismissed the said revision application preferred by the appellant accused and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Special Court, West Bengal (MP & MLA case), Bidharnagar dated 4.3.2022 passed in Special Case No.120 of 2018, the appellant-accused has preferred the present appeal.3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:1. That the appellant herein was tried earlier for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 448, 364 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in FIR No.61/2002 dated 26.09.2002 of Keshpur Police S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.21019 of 2022 Anjali Bhardwaj ...Appellant(S) Versus CPIO, Supreme Court of India, (RTI Cell) ...Respondent(S) ORDER M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No.442/2022, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said LPA and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.4129/2022, the original writ petitioner original applicant has preferred the present petition for Special Leave to Appeal. 12. The facts leading to the present petition for Special Leave to Appeal in a nutshell are as under: 2.1 That the petitioner herein preferred an RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India. The petitioner sought the followin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6901 OF2022Kamla Neti (Dead) through LRs Appellants Versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Land Acquisition Appeal No.79 of 2015 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Reference Court, the original applicant has preferred the present appeal. 12. The dispute is with respect to the apportionment of the amount of compensation with respect to the land acquired. The land originally stood recorded in the name of late Satyananda Negi a common ancestor of the appellant and the other coparceners. The said Satyananada died leaving behind his two sons namely Chakradhar and Gajadhar. Chakradhar died leaving behind his four sons namely Chintamani, Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8993 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.22129 OF2022 (@ DIARY NO.22284 OF2022 Delhi Development Authority ..Appellant Versus Raj Singh & Anr. ..Respondents JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.10800 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition and has declared that the land acquisition 1 proceedings with respect to the land in question under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is deemed to have lapsed under Sub section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 2013), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that though in the count...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9005 OF2022(@ SLP (C) No.22561 OF2022 (@ DIARY No.22931 OF2022 Delhi Development Authority Appellant(s) Versus Dayanand & Ors. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.3357 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner subsequent purchaser and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1894) with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal. 12. We have heard Shri Nit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.8992 OF2022(@ SLP (C) NO.22130 OF2022 (@ DIARY NO.30174 OF2022 Land Acquisition Collector (South East) Appellant Versus Dharamvir & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.4576 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land 1 in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013), the Land Acquisition Collector (South East), Delhi Government has preferred the present appeal.2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that tho...
Tag this Judgment!