[Civil Appeal No.7159 of 2014]. The respondents are all ex-employees of the appellant/Delhi Transport Corporation (for short 'DTC'), who availed of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'VRS'). The respondents have, however, been held disentitled to pension on account of exclusion of period when they remained absent without authorisation for which period they were held not entitled to salary. In D.T.C. v. Lillu Ram,1 such exclusion was upheld with the consequence that the ex-employees would not get pensionary benefits, having not completed 10 years of qualifying service. In the present appeal, two Hon'ble Judges of this Court, after examining Lillu Ram's2 case opined that a reconsideration by a larger Bench, of that view, was required. As a sequitur, the present appeal has been placed before us.
↧
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Balwan Singh [26/02/19]
↧
The Competent Authority Calcutta, under The Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 Vs. David Mantosh [26/02/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos.10629-10631 of 2014]. C.A. Nos.1062910631 of 2014 are filed by the Competent Authority against the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2013 in F.A. No. 202/2008, Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2014 in the Review Petition being RVW No. 36/2014 with CAN No.1450/2014 in F.A. No.202/2008 passed by the High Court at Calcutta. C.A. Nos.98299830 of 2016 are filed by M/s Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2013 in F.A. No.202/2008 with CAN No.1054/2014 and C.A. No. 9900/2016 against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2014 in RVW No.117/2014 in F.A. No.202/2008 passed by the High Court at Calcutta.In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts 3 in detail, which led to filing of these appeals. The facts set out hereinbelow are taken from the list of dates filed by the parties.
↧
↧
Union of India Vs. Coastal Container Transporters Association [26/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 2276 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (C)No.25699 of 2018]. This civil appeal is filed by Union of India and others, respondents in Special Civil Application No.6679 of 2016 filed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2017. By the aforesaid order, the High Court has quashed the show cause notices dated 08.10.2015 and 30.09.2015 issued by the appellants, in exercise of power under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act'). The first respondent is Coastal Container Transporters Association and the second and third respondents are, Yamuna Shipping Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Pushpak Logistics Pvt. Ltd. who are engaged in the transport business.
↧
DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. through its Authorised Signatory Mr. Shiv Kumar Vs. Sushila Devi [26/02/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos.2285-2330 of 2019 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.928-930, 932 To 938, 940 To 967 and 969 to 976 of 2019]. Leave granted in all matters, except Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.931 of 2019, 939 of 2019 and 968 of 2019. Re: Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.928-976 of 2019 1 (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Through its Authorised Signatory Mr. Shiv Kumar v. Sushila Devi and Another [Except Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.931 of 2019, 939 of 2019 and 968 of 2019] These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the National Commission') in First Appeal Nos.382/2016, 447/2016, 453/2017, 648/2016, 649/2016, 650/2016, 651/2016, 767/2016, 879/2016, 881/2016, 1145/2016, 1146/2016, 1147/2016, 1158/2016, 1315/2016, 1347/2016, 1348/2016, 1349/2016, 1351/2016, 1352/2016, 1576/2016, 1577/2016, 1578/2016, 1579/2016, 1580/2016, 1581/2016, 1582/2016, 1583/2016, 1584/2016, 1586/2016, 1587/2016, 1589/2016, 1590/2016, 1591/2016, 1592/2016, 1593/2016, 1594/2016, 1595/2016, 1598/2016, 1599/2016, 1600/2016, 1601/2016, 1622/2016, 1623/2016, 1625/2016 and 1643/2017.
↧
Joseph Easwaran Wapshare Vs. Shirley Katheleen Wheeler [26/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 2284 of 2019 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22394/2016]. The present appeal arises out of a proceeding to revoke a Succession Certificate that was granted in favour of the appellant on 16.03.2005. The appellant No.1 is the son of one Gorden Wapshare. Gorden Wapshare had a brother called Edward Wapshare, who married one Beatrice. Apparently, this marriage was fruitless as there was no issues therefrom. He also had two sisters, one of whom Miss Dorthy Wapshare was unmarried, who is since dead; and the other Miss Violet Wapshare, who was married and has a daughter called Ellen Mary Jackson. Gorden Wapshare was himself married and had two sons - one of whom is the appellant No.1, and the other son called Robert Babu Wapshare, who is dead. The appellant No.1, in turn, is married and has two sons. The respondent before us Ms. Shirley Katheleen Wheeler is said to be the daughter of Beatrice, who, as stated herein above, was the wife of Edward Wapshare.
↧
↧
Aarish Asgar Qureshi Vs. Fareed Ahmed Qureshi [26/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2019 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 2632/2018]. The present case arises out of a judgment dated 07.03.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in which the High Court felt that a prima facie case has been made out for perjury under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., and that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute the appellant before us. The present case arises out of matrimonial proceedings in which certain averments have been made in anticipatory bail applications both before the Sessions Court as well as the High Court. Insofar as the anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court is concerned, the applicants in the aforesaid application stated: That the Applicant No.1 was deeply troubled by these developments and thus approached his mother in law, Naseem Qureshi to ask for her intervention in this matter and in the hope that a mother would be able to talk sense to her own daughter and improve their relations.
↧
The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMDA) through its Estate Officer Vs. Arminderjit Kaur [26/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 2383 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19238 of 2018]. These appeals are filed against the interim orders passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on dated 01.02.2018 in C.M. No.7303CI of 2017 in R.F.A. No.3096 of 2017, C.M. No.8310CI of 2017 in R.F.A. No.3536 of 2017 and dated 03.04.2018 in C.M. No.709CI of 2018 in R.F.A. No.1172 of 2017. These appeals involve a short point as would be clear from a few facts mentioned hereinbelow. The proceedings arise out of land acquisition proceedings. The Land Acquisition Officer offered the compensation to the landowners (respondents herein) for their acquired land in question at the rate of Rs.1.36 crore per acre.
↧
Shankar Vs. State of Maharashtra [26/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No(S). 390 of 2019 arising out of (CRL.) No(s).9920/2018]. Being aggrieved by the conviction under Sections 436 and 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. the appellants no.1 to 3 have preferred this appeal. Appellant no.1-Shankar @ Shankar Harale and respondent no.2-Namdeo @ Namdeo Satwaji Harale (complainant) are the real brothers. Their agricultural lands are adjacent to each other and there was dispute between them on account of boundary of the field. On 21st May, 2009, respondent no.2-Namdeo (complainant) along with his two sons went to the Tehsil Office. At about 5.00 p.m. the appellants went to the hut of the second respondent (complainant) and there was wordy quarrel between the appellants and Dhondubai (PW-3) and Kanupatra @ Kanopatra (PW-4) who are wife and daughter-in-law of the complainant. During the wordy quarrel, appellant no.2-Vivek pelted stones and the same hit on Dhondubai (PW-3).
↧
Vaishnorani Mahila Bachat Gat Vs. State of Maharashtra [26/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No(S)._2336 of 2019 arising from SLP (C) Nos.10103 of 2016]. The appellants/petitioner(s) have questioned the judgment and order dated 11.7.2016 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad and order dated 15.03.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur. The petitioners in the writ petition filed before the High Court i.e. W.P. No.3359/2016 questioned the tender notice dated 08.03.2016 issued by the State of Maharashtra inviting tender for multilevel contract and for supply of ready to cook food to Anganwadi Centres as supplementary nutritional food for children, pregnant women and lactating mothers, adolescents girls under Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS Scheme). The conditions were questioned by the appellants/petitioner(s) being arbitrary, unreasonable against the spirit of the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.196/2001.
↧
↧
Kishan Singh alias Actor Vs. State of Uttaranchal (Now Uttarakhand) [26/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No(S). 389 of 2019 arising out of (CRL.) No(s) 7596/2015]. This appeal calls in question the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2005 dated 14th December, 2012 in and by which the High Court has modified the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. while maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellant. On 17th November, 2013 the appellant-Kishan Singh and the deceased-Govind Singh went to the house of the appellant and both of them were drunk. In the wordy quarrel between the appellant and his wife, the appellant tried to attack his wife with an axe. When the deceased-Govind Singh intervened the axe fell on the parietal region of the deceased-Govind Singh and he sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. The law was set in motion by one Inder Singh Negi, brother of the deceased2 Govind Singh.
↧
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Ganga Saran (D) through LRS. [26/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 2562 of 2019 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14973 of 2010]. All these appeals arise out of the Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 29.9.1979. They are all heard together and being disposed of by this order. For the purpose of disposal we have referred to the facts which arise in the Civil Appeal arising out Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14973 of 2010. The land of the respondents - claimants admeasuring 2-13-0 of Khasra No.174 and 0-17-0 of Khasra No.175 situated in Tanda, Bulandshshar, was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 for the purpose of implementation of the housing scheme under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.
↧
State of Gujarat Vs. Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya [27/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal Nos. 1359-1361 of 2007]. The instant appeals filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short "TADA"), are against the final judgment and order dated 12th January, 2007 passed by the Designated Judge, Jamnagar in Special TADA Case Nos.3/1994, 3/1997 and 1/2005, whereby the respondents have been acquitted after finding them not guilty of the stated offences. Separate chargesheets were filed against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A, 122 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA, Sections 25(1)(A)(D), 25(1AA), 25(1B)(A B F G), 27(1), 29(A) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short "1959 Act"), Section 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short "1885 Act") and Section 6(1A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (for short "1933 Act").
↧
Gaddam Ramulu Vs. Joint Collector, Adilabad District [27/02/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos.8366-8367 of 2010]. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 21.02.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.1442 of 2004 and judgment and order dated 29.01.2008 in Review CMP No.4647 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the civil revision petition and the review petition filed by the appellants herein. A few relevant facts need mention infra for disposal of these appeals. The dispute relates to a land measuring Ac.13.02 guntas in Survey No.92, Ac.1.02 guntas in Survey No. 93 and 28 guntas in Survey No. 95 situated in Garmilla Village, Mancherial Adilabad (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land").
↧
↧
Commissioner of Income Tax - I Vs. M/s. Rashtradoot (HUF) [27/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 2362 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.20075 of 2017]. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 43 of 2002 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the order dated 24.05.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in I.T.S.S.A. No.29/JP/2000. A few facts need mention infra for the disposal of the appeal. This appeal filed by the Revenue arises out of the income tax proceedings initiated against the respondent (assessee) on the basis of a search operation which was carried out by the Income Tax Department in assessee's premises on 04.09.1997.
↧
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Tata Communications Ltd. [27/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No.1766 of 2019]. The present appeal arises out of a dispute under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. The relief sought through a petition before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ["TDSAT"] by the respondent, Tata Communication Ltd. against the appellant, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., is for a recovery of a sum of INR 1,10,57,268/- plus interest thereon. The question that arose between the parties is whether the appellant was justified in adjusting this amount from the dues payable to the respondent by deduction from the bills raised by the respondent. Since the Purchase Order dated 01.10.2008 forms the basis for the claim, it is important to set out clauses 4 and 8 of the said Purchase Order as under:
↧
Department of Customs Vs. Sharad Gandhi [27/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No(S).174 of 2019 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.9159 of 2015]. The appeal maintained by Special Leave is directed against the judgment of Learned Single Judge of High Court of Delhi upholding the dismissal of the complaint filed by the appellant herein against the respondent and discharging him of offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the application for discharge filed by the respondent accepting the contention of the respondent that there is a complete bar with regard to the prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962, and under the Customs Act, and the Collector of Customs has power only to confiscate the goods and impose penalty for having committed breach of Section 3 of the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Antiquities Act"). The Magistrate purported to follow the judgment of Learned Single judge of the High Court of Delhi in Dr. V.J.A. Flynn vs. S.S. Chauhan & Another. The High Court by the impugned order has come to endorse the said view.
↧
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Virender Lal Bahri [27/02/19]
[Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.37375 of 2016]. This batch of cases relates to whether the proviso contained in Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ["2013 Act"] is a proviso to Section 24(1)(b) or whether it is a proviso to Section 24(2). The reason for this confusion is because of the placement of the proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. This is a case where the old British ditty comes to mind: "I'm the Parliament's draftsman, I compose the country's laws, And of half the litigation I'm undoubtedly the cause!"The High Court of Delhi, in a judgment dated 21.05.2015, namely, Tarun Pal Singh v. Lieutenant Governor, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) 8596/2014 ["Tarun Pal Singh"], had held that the said proviso would govern Section 24(1)(b), and not Section 24(2).
↧
↧
Jagdish Chander Vs. Satish Chander [27/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 2361 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.36299 of 2016]. The appellant in this appeal was the first defendant in the suit in, Civil Suit No.RBT 1251/95/92 filed before the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.10.2016 in Regular Second Appeal No. 383 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, at Shimla. The first respondent-plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for declaration to the effect that he is joint owner to the extent of 435/924 shares i.e 0-04-57 hectares in the suit scheduled land. It was his case in the suit that Smt. Vidya Devi, the mother of the plaintiff and the first defendant was the original owner of the suit land. She executed a registered Will in favour of him and the appellant herein on 09.04.1991. As per the Will, 0-03-84 hectares of land was bequeathed to the plaintiff and 0-02-85 hectares of land was bequeathed to the appellant herein. Smt. Vidya Devi had also executed a Will in respect of other land in favour of the proforma respondent nos.2 & 3 herein.
↧
Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [27/02/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2019 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 4626 of 2017]. These appeals arise out of the order dated 25.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1354 of 2017 in and by which the High Court has affirmed the order of the trial court summoning the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Marriage of deceased Shilpa, daughter of Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1) was solemnized with Dimpal @ Akash Deep on 26.01.2006. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. According to the complainant - Sudhir Kumar Gupta (PW-1), his daughter Shilpa was complaining about the demand of dowry by her husband Dimpal @ Akash Deep and the appellants-her in-laws.
↧
Shri Ram Mandir Indore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [27/02/19]
[Civil Appeal No.5043 of 2009]. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 06.08.2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in and by which the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal No.266 of 2002 thereby affirming the findings of the First Appellate Court that Shri Ram Mandir, Indoukh is a public temple and that the suit property is vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. Briefly stated case of the appellant is as follows:- Shri Ram Mandir is a private temple of which Mahant and Manager is Ram Das and that he has been continuing to perform pooja-archana and management of the temple since the time of his guru.
↧