[Civil Appeal No. 4474 of 2010]. Welfare economics, enlightened self-interest and the pressure of trade unions led larger factories and establishments to introduce schemes that would benefit their employees, including schemes like that of the provident fund.1 However, with an increasing number of small factories and establishments coming into the market, the employees of such fledgling units remained deprived of these benefits. In order to diffuse such benefits in establishments across the market, the legislature promulgated the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The said Act was enacted with the avowed object of providing for the security of workers in organised industries, in the absence of any social security scheme prevalent in our country. To avoid any hardship to new establishments, a provision was made for exempting them from the aegis of the said Act, for a period of five years. This period was reduced to three years in 1988 and the exemption provision was completely removed from 22.9.1997.
↧
M/s. Shree Vishal Printers Ltd., Jaipur Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur [12/09/19]
↧
Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari [12/09/19]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1381 of 2019 @ S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 7437 of 2019]. The instant appeal challenges the grant of bail to Respondent No. 1 by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No. 1971/2019 in C.C. No. 770/2019, vide the order dated 14.08.2019. The case of the prosecution primarily hinges on the commission of fraud punishable under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short "the Companies Act"), though several other offences under the Companies Act and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have also been alleged. Briefly put, it is alleged that from FY 200910 to FY 201617, Brij Bhushan Singal and Neeraj Singal, promoters of Bhushan Steel Ltd. (for short "BSL"), assisted by employees and close associates, used a complex web of 157 companies to siphon off funds from BSL for various purposes, and also fraudulently availed of credit from various lender banks and manipulated the books of accounts and financial statements of BSL, causing wrongful loss to banks and financial institutions amounting to Rs. 20,879 crores and causing wrongful gain to the promoters and their family members, amounting to around Rs. 3500 crores.
↧
↧
State of Rajasthan Vs. Trilok Ram [12/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No.7215 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.30933 of 2017]. The appellant issued an advertisement on 11.8.2013 for recruiting Teachers Grade III (Level I and II) in the various Zila Parishads in the State of Rajasthan. The advertisement stipulated the last date for submission of the application form as 4.9.2013. The applicants were to fulfil the requisite educational qualifications as on the last date of the submission of the application form. The writ petitioner who is the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") was undergoing the B.S.T.C. Course (B.S.T.C. is an essential qualification stipulated). He, however, applied pursuant to the advertisement. The appellant discovered during the process of verification that the respondent was not holding the requisite qualification of B.S.T.C. as on the last date for submission of application form.
↧
General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa Vs. Sri Giridhari Sahu [12/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 8071 of 2010]. This appeal by special leave is directed against judgment of the High Court of Orissa dismissing the Writ Application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the appellant. What was called in question before the High Court was the Award passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. By the impugned order, the High Court had dismissed the Writ Application and confirmed the Award. The award was passed on an application filed under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) by 90 workers of the appellant, the respondents herein who shall be referred as the applicants.
↧
Bhavyanath represented by Power of Attorney Holder Vs. K.V. Balan (D) through LRS. [12/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 3336 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1701 of 2016]. The appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 08.10.2015 in RFA No.869 of 2013. The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance which has been decreed by the trial Court but on appeal by the defendant dismissed by the impugned judgment of the High Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court. There is no dispute that the plaintiff and the defendant have indeed entered into an agreement on 25.04.2007. The agreement (marked as A1), inter alia, provided as follows; The property, which was agreed, to be sold was mentioned as 75 3/4 cents held by the defendant as per assignment deed No.1405 of 1975.
↧
↧
The Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Radha Ballabh Health Care and Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. [13/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 7243 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4990 of 2018]. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna on November 21, 2017, whereby, the Letters Patent Appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Bench on September 19, 2016 was dismissed. The appellant published an advertisement on May 10, 2008 inviting applications for allotment of plot for health center in Lohia Nagar Housing Colony, Patna measuring 43000 sq. feet at the price of Rs.1,71,89,057/-. Rs.1,00,000/- was the earnest money. The respondent applied for such plot along with the amount of earnest money.
↧
S. Bhaskaran Vs. Sebastian (D) by LRS. [13/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 7800 of 2014]. The instant appeal arises out of the order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 10.12.2007 in Civil Revision Petition No. 1007 of 2007, setting aside the order of the City Civil Court, Chennai dated 31.01.2007 in E.A. No. 5750/2003 in Execution Petition No. 1910/1992 in O.S. No. 8664/1988. The brief facts from which this appeal arises are as follows: The suit temple properties were originally administered by three brothers- Sadhasivamurthy, Balasundaram, and Sundararajan ('original owners'). Vide settlement deed dated 19.09.1947, these original owners endowed the property to the temple. The deed also included a provision that the eldest son of the deceased trustee would become his successor. The genealogy of the family of the original owners is as follows:
↧
Union of India Vs. Sandeep Kumar [13/09/19]
[Criminal Appeal Nos. 1388-1389 of 2019]. Criminal appeals arising out of Diary No. 9218 of 2016 are filed by the Union of India whereas; criminal appeals arising out of Diary Nos. 7204 of 2016 and 7205 of 2016 are filed by accused - Neeraj Kumar Dhaka and Sandeep Kumar respectively. The challenge in the appeals filed by the Union of India under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 20071 is to an order passed on December 12, 2013 by the Armed Forces Tribunal2 setting aside the order of conviction & sentence and of dismissal consequent to District Court Martial3 proceedings conducted against the respondents
↧
Jose Paulo Coutinho Vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira [13/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 7378 of 2010]. "Whether succession to the property of a Goan situate outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 as applicable in the State of Goa or the Indian succession Act, 1925" is the question which arises for decision in this appeal. One Joaquim Mariano Pereira (JMP) had three daughters viz., (1) Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira (ML), Respondent No.1 (2) Virginia Pereira and (3) Maria Augusta Antoneita Pereira Fernandes. He also had a wife named Claudina Lacerda Pereira. He lived in Bombay and purchased a property in Bombay in the year 1955. On 06.05.1957 he bequeathed this property at Bombay to his youngest daughter, Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira, Respondent No.1.
↧
↧
Vijay Nathalal Gohil Vs. State of Maharashtra [03/09/19]
[Criminal Appeal Nos.42 of 2010]. This appeal is against the final judgment and order dated 21.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2003, upholding the conviction and sentence of imprisonment of the appellant for life awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). The appellant has however been fully exonerated from the charges under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Stated briefly, the appellant was married to the deceased. They had two children. The Trial Court/High Court found that the appellant and the members of his family illtreated the deceased and there were frequent altercations between the husband and the wife.
↧
Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Competition Commission of India [03/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 641 of 2017]. Having heard lengthy arguments of Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Shri Raju Ramchandran, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, we are of the view that interference in these appeals is not called for. The only reason we do so is because we were shown, as part of information that was provided, the following statement: "23. Uber's discount and incentive offered to consumer pale in comparison with the fidelity inducing discounts offered to drivers to keep them attached on its network to the exclusion of other market players. Uber pays drivers/car owners attached on its network unreasonably high incentives over and above and in addition to the trip fare received from the passengers.
↧
M/s. Mayavti Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman [05/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 7023 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8519 of 2019]. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent at considerable length. On the facts of this case, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned decision of 12.03.2019 and, therefore, do not find it necessary to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Having said this, however, during the course of argument, a recent decision of this Court was pointed out, namely, United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Antique Art Exports Private Limited, (2019) 5 SCC 362. In this judgment, purportedly following Duro Felguera, S.A. vs. Gangavaram Port Limited, (2017) 9 SCC 729, this Court held:
↧
Ex. Sepoy Surendra Singh Yadav Vs. Chief Record Officer [06/09/19]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7125 - 7126 of 2019 arising out of Diary No. 28984 of 2016]. These Appeals arise from orders dated 05.01.2016, 21.03.2016 and 19.05.2016 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, dismissing the Transfer Application filed by the Appellant. The Appellant was enrolled in the Army on 26.04.1991. At the time of his appointment he produced his matriculation certificate issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. On verification it was found that the certificate produced by him was not genuine. A charge-sheet was issued under Section 44 of the Army Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act') and a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the Appellant. During the preliminary inquiry, the Appellant admitted that he did not have any proof to show that he had passed the matriculation examination in 1988.
↧
↧
M/s. Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests [11/09/19]
[I.A. No.64665 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10854 of 2016]. The only issue involved in this application is whether nonconsideration of a judgment delivered by a threeJudge Bench in Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary & Ors. 1, hereinafter referred to as 'NOIDA Park case', has led to wrong conclusions by this Court with regard to the interpretation of built up area in terms of Item No. 8 of the Schedule of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification dated 14.09.2006. The relevant portion of the notification reads as follows:
↧
State of Rajasthan Vs. Lord Northbrook [28/08/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 6677 of 2019 arising out of SLP(C) No. 36771 of 2016]. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 17.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in DB Civil Writ Petition No.2713 of 1987 in and by which the High Court quashed the communications/orders dated 03.07.1987, 22.07.1987 and 03.08.1987 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of Rajasthan, District Collector, Jhunjhunu and Tehsildar, Khetri respectively in the matter of taking over the properties of Sh. Raja Sardar Singh by the State under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956. Sh. Raja Sardar Singh expired on 28.01.1987 intestate and without any legal heirs. Sh. Raja Sardar Singh was a Bar at law from England, a member of the Constituent Assembly, a Rajya Sabha Member and also Ambassador to Laos and a highly educated person.
↧
Rashid Raza Vs. Sadaf Akhtar [04/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 7005 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4061 of 2019]. The present case arises out of a partnership dispute in which an FIR dated 17.11.2017 was lodged by one of the partners alleging siphoning of funds and various other business improprieties that were committed. The FIR is at present under investigation. An Arbitration Petition dated 02.01.2018 was filed by the appellant before the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under the Arbitration clause which is to be found in the partnership deed between the parties which is dated 30.01.2015. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 06.12.2018, has cited our judgment in 'A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam and Others' [(2016) 10 SCC 386] and after extracting paragraph 26 from the said judgment has held:
↧
Jyothir R. Vs. Sunisha N.S. [05/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 7025-7026 of 2019 arising out of SLPs (Civil) Nos. 20085-20086 of 2019]. The present Appeals have been filed by the Appellant to challenge the Judgement and Order dated 07.08.2019 passed by a division bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A. Nos. 1757 & 1758 of 2019. The issue raised in the present Appeals pertain to admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the State of Kerala, for the academic year 201920, for the 9 seats reserved for the Sports Quota. The Appellant - candidate had applied for admission under the Sports Quota, on the basis of having secured the 3rd position in Kerala under 25 Chess Championship conducted by the Sports Association of Thiruvanthpuram in January 2019. The Appellant had represented the Kollam District.
↧
↧
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., represented by Managing Director (Administration and HR) Vs. Sri C. Nagaraju [16/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 7279 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 25909 of 2013]. The judgment of the High Court by which the order of dismissal of Respondent No.1 from the service was set aside is the subject matter of this Appeal. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Meter Reader-cum-Clerk in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) in the year 1974. He was promoted as a Junior Engineer in the year 1997. On 21.06.2003, Additional Registrar of Enquiries-I, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore framed a charge against the Respondent which is as follows: "Charge:
↧
State of Odisha Vs. Anup Kumar Senapati [16/09/19]
[Civil Appeal No. 7295 of 2019 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8343 of 2019]. The question involved in the appeals is whether the employees are entitled to claim grantinaid as admissible under the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grantinaid Order, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the order of 1994'), after its repeal in the year 2004 by virtue of provisions contained in Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grantinaid Order, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the order of 2004'). The order of 2004 has also been repealed by Orissa (Aided Colleges, Aided Junior Colleges, and Higher Secondary Schools) Grantinaid Order, 2008.
↧
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Now GLADA) Vs. Vidya Chetal [16/09/19]
[SLP (C) No. 4272 of 2015]. The reference before us arises out of the order dated 13.07.2018, passed by a twoJudge Bench of this Court, wherein they expressed doubt as to the correctness of the judgment rendered in the case of HUDA vs. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479. This Court therein held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "NCDRC") had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality behind the demand of "composition fee" and "extension fee" made by HUDA, as the same being statutory obligation, does not qualify as "deficiency in service". It is pertinent herein to note the opinion expressed by the twoJudge Bench regarding the decision in the case of Sunita (supra) while passing the referral order: "We are, prima facie, of the view that this sixparagraph order, which does not, prima facie, contain any reason for the conclusion reached, requires a relook in view of the fact that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficent legislation"
↧