THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No. 721 OF 2017 CRPSR 7946 / 2010 DATED 17TH FEBRUARY, 2017 Between: Yernena Satyanarayana … Petitioner AND Boppa Anantha Rao and others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Subrahmanyam Counsel for respondent No. 1 : Sri G.Ramagopal Counsel for respondent Nos. 2… Read More The issue regarding occupation of premises by respondent No. 1 in the guise of decree for injunction was not conclusively adjudicated except an observation made by the lower Appellate Court that respondent No. 1 has a moral obligation to vacate the premises. Therefore, in the absence of any enforceable order or decree granted in favour of the petitioner, he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 94 of C.P.C. At best, the petitioner could have invoked the provisions of Section 144 of C.P.C. for restitution if he was dispossessed based on the interim order or decree for injunction by respondent No. 1.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.19662 OF 2017 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C)No. 23410 of 2017] Medical Council of India ….Appellant Versus G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust & Ors. ….Respondents J U D G M E N T DIPAK MISRA, CJI. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal frescoes the… Read More whether the students who were given admission by the institution that had taken recourse to unholy and uncalled for practice should be allowed to suffer. We think not. Students are to be compensated. They had paid the fees. Hopes were kindled in their hearts and aspirations in their mind. Their young minds were polluted by the institution and, therefore, we direct the respondent-institution to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to each of the students who had taken admission apart from refunding their fees. Additionally, as the conduct of the 1st respondent, namely, G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust, is absolutely blameworthy, we impose costs of Rs.25 lacs to be deposited before this Court within eight weeks hence. = We say so as an unscrupulous litigant who conceived the idea of paving the path of his own desire, moving according to his design, proceeding as per his whim and marching ahead with brazenness abandoning any sense of prudence cannot be leniently dealt with. It is the duty of the Court to take stringent action, for he has polluted the purity attached to the justice dispensation system and sullied the majesty of law.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 19650 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24055 of 2017) DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 26(1) NEW DELHI ….Appellant versus S.R.M.B. DAIRY FARMING (P) LTD. ….Respondent And CIVIL APPEAL No. 19651 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24056 of 2017) J U… Read More National Litigation Policy = “Efficient litigant” means ensuring that good cases are won and bad cases are not needlessly persevered with. The litigation should not be resorted to for the sake of litigating. The Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The philosophy, “that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision”, has to be discarded. The easy approach, “Let the court decide,” – “difference between the tax on total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed without impact of interest.” – The line of reasoning adopted is that as the value of money went down and the cases of the Revenue increased, the choking docket required such an endeavour and there is no reason why the same policy should not be applied to old matters to achieve the objective of the policy laid down by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’).
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1088 OF 2017 Common Cause …. Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India and Others …. Respondent(s) O R D E R R.K. Agrawal, J. 1) By means of the present public interest litigation (PIL), the petitioner, Common Cause, a Registered Society, through… Read More Shri Rakesh Asthana – questioned the appointment to the post of Special Director, CBI= in Mahesh Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India and Others (2009) 8 SCC 273 has highlighted the fact that there is vital difference between judicial review and merit review. Once there is consultation, the content of that consultation is beyond the scope of judicial review though lack of effective consultation could fall within the scope of judicial review.= Further, even in the FIR filed by the CBI, the name of Shri Rakesh Asthana has not been mentioned at all. Thus, lodging of FIR will not come in the way of considering Shri Rakesh Asthana for the post of Special Director, after taking into consideration his service record and work and experience. From the Minutes of the Meeting (MoM) of the Selection Committee, we find that the news items reported in the print and electronic media that no decision was taken with respect to the appointment on the post of Special Director, CBI in the 12 meeting of the Selection Committee held on 21.10.2017 are factually incorrect.- the appointment of Shri Rakesh Asthana – Respondent No. 2 herein to the post of Special Director, CBI does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 19857-19858 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Nos.11956-11957 of 2015) District Development Officer & Anr. …Appellant(s) VERSUS Satish Kantilal Amrelia ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) These appeals are filed… Read More Daily wages labour -There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. – Labour Court has also found that the termination is bad due to violation of Section 25-G of the Act.- it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited case (supra). we consider it just and reasonable to award a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) to the respondent in lieu of his right 10 to claim re-instatement and back wages in full and final satisfaction of this dispute. Let the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- be made by the appellant(State) to the respondent within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum payable from the date of this judgment till payment to respondent.
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.19846 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.31638 of 2016) Raj Balam Prasad & Ors. …Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Bihar & Ors. ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) The appeal… Read More service matter – This Circular only says that if any temporary persons are appointed for a particular project and if they are found to be of some utility, their services can be regularized as per Rules. when the period fixed in the appointment orders expired in the year 1991 then there was no scope for the appellants to have claimed continuity in service for want of any extension order in that behalf.- One of the reasons for rejection of the representation was that the services of the appellants had already come to an end in 1991 and, therefore, no orders to regularize their services could now be passed after such a long lapse of time. – As rightly observed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment, the earlier order of the Division Bench in which a vigilance inquiry was ordered to find out as to how an order of regularization could be passed in favour of some Muharrirs was not brought to the notice of the Single Judge which led him to allow the appellants’ writ petition. – In our opinion, the Division Bench was right in setting aside of the order of the Single Judge
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 19847 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 33514/2016) Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. …Appellant(s) VERSUS Punjab National Bank & Ors. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is… Read More SARFAESI Act = No writ is maintainable due to alternative remedy= justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy of filing an application under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act before the concerned Tribunal to challenge the action of the PNB in forfeiting the appellant’s deposit under Rule 9(5). -The appellant is, accordingly, granted liberty to file an application before the concerned Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, which has jurisdiction to entertain such application within 45 days from the date of this order.