evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
(2014] 13 S.C.R. 1265

VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY

UNION OF INDIA&ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 9043of2014)

SEPTEMBER 24, 2014

.[J. CHELAMESWARANDA. K. SIKRI, JJ.]

Judgment/Orders - Correction of factual error in earlier judgment passed by the Supreme Court - Paragraph 44 of the judgement modified accordingly.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9043 of2014.

From the judgment and order dated 03.04.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in W.P. D No. 87 (S/B) of 2014.

Pallav Shishodia, Sr.Adv., and Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was passed : E

ORDER

It is mentioned today by Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel that in the Judgement delivered on 22nd September, 2014 in this appeal, a factual error occured at F paragraph 44. In the said paragraph, the name of Mr. Jasveer Singh is mentioned whereas the correct name is Mr. Suneel Kumar. The paragraph stands modified accordingly.

Nidhi Jain Error in earlier judgment corrected.
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 779

KESHARBAI @ PUSHPABAI EKNATHRAO NALAWADE

(D) BY LRS. & ANR. v.

TARABAI PRABHAKARRAO NALAWADE & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 3867 of 2014)

MARCH 27, 2014

[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K. SIKRI JJ.]

JUDGEMENT:

Modification in judgment -- Held: In the judgment dated 14-03-2014, the sentence, "The judgment of the Trial Court is confirmed on issue No. /II a/so" is deleted.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.

D 3867 of 2014.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2009 of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in FA No. 468 of 2004.

Chandan Ramamurthi for the Appellants.

Preshit Surshe (Mentioned By), Shivaji M. Jadhav, Naresh Kumar for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

It has been brought to our notice that in paragraph 22 of

the Judgment delivered on 14th March, 2014 in Civil Appeal No.3867 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27916 of 2009), the sentence "The judgment of the Trial G Court is confirmed on Issue No.Ill also." needs to be deleted.

We order accordingly.

R.P.

Judgment Modified.

779 H
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 780

KESHARBAI @ PUSHPABAI EKNATHRAO NALAWADE

(D) BY LRS. & ANR. v.

TARABAI PRABHAKARRAO NALAWADE & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 3867 of 2014)

APRIL 4, 2014

[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K.SIKRI, JJ.]

JUDGMENT:

Amendment in judgment - Held: Para 22 of judgment dated 14.3.2014 is amended to the effect that the judgment of trial court is confirmed on Issue No. Ill also and suit of plaintiffs stands dismissed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3867 of 2014.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2009 of the High Court of Bombay at Aurngabad in FA No. 468 of 2004.

Chandan Ramamurthi for the Appellants.

Preshit Surshe (Mentioned By), Shivaji M. Jadhav, Naresh Kumar for the Respondents.

F The following Order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

1. On 27th March, 2014, we had directed to delete the following words in paragraph 22 of the Judgment delivered on G 14th March, 2014 in Civil Appeal No.3867 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27916 of 2009]:

"and set aside the findings recorded by the trial court on Issue No.Ill."

KESHARBAI @ PUSHPABAI EKNATHRAO NALAWADE 781 (D) BY LRS. v. TARABAI PRABHAKARRAO NALAWADE

2. However, inadvertently, the following line in the said A paragraph is deleted:

"The judgment of the Trial Court is confirmed on Issue No.

Ill also."

3. Let the necessary amended be made and the amended 8

paragraph 22 of the said judgment will read as follows:

"22. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal. The judgment of the Trial Court is confirmed on Issue No. Ill also.

Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs (respondents herein) C shall stand dismissed."

R.P.

Judgment modified.
[2014) 4 S.C.R. 262

RAJA RAM & ORS.

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 4620 of 2009 etc.)

MARCH 28, 2014

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: c s.23 - Compensation - Claim for enhancement of compensation - Held: In view of the judgment in C.A. No. 6251 of 2010, the prayer is declined.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.

D 4620 of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2007 of the High Court of Delhi in Land Acquisition Appeal No. 92 of 2007.

WITH

E Civil Appeal Nos. 4622, 4624 and 4623 of 2009.

SLP (Civil) Nos. 18981, 18982, 18983 and 18984 of 2008.

Priya Hingorani, Hingorani & Associates, Shobha, lndar F Singh, Jyoti Rana, Prasanna Mohan, Satpal Singh for the Appellants.

Puneet Taneja, Shweta Shalini, Dr. Kailash Chand, Rachna Srivastava, Utkarsh Sharma, Pratiksha Chaturvedi for G the Respondents.

262 H

RAJA RAM & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 263

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.6251 of 2010, the abovesaid appeals and special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

R.P.

Appeals & SLPs dismissed.
[201~]14S.CR.t359 ::,' .. , ·.,,

. TEJPAL

STATE OF U.P.

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1555 of 2008)

 SEPTEMBER 22, 2014

[M.Y. EQBALAND PINAKI CHANDRAGHOSE, JJ.]

: I-

,} .- ~' , ' .

Penal Code, 1860ss.3021149- Dispute over land- Murder- Conviction and life imprisonment- Held: In view of dismissal of SLP separately filed by one of the -accused C namely 'N', as reported in [2014] 14 SCR 1354, the instant appeal also dismissed.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1555 of 2008.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.05.2005.passed by the High Court of Judicature for Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2181 of 2004.

Sandhya Goswami, Saryaya Krishna, Mahender P.S.

Tamar and Jabar Singh, Advs., for the Appellant.

. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Abhisth Kumar and Som Raj Choudhury, Advs., forthe Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. Y. EQBAL, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for F the appellant and also learned counsel for the respondent State. We have already discussed all the facts and circumstances of the case in Criminal Appeal Nos:1551-1554 of 2008 filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the same have been dismissed by a separate judgment pronounced today.

2. So far as the present appeal by Tej Pal is concerned, separate special leave petition preferred by one of the accused namely Narendra has already been dismissed by this Court.

1359 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2014) 14 S.C.R.

A We also do not find any merit in this appeal filed by accused Tej Pal which is also dismissed.

Devika Gujral Appeal dismissed.
(2014) 14 S.C.R. 1633

MAHESH CHAND SHARMA

STATE OF RAJASTHANAND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 4287 of 2014)

APRIL 01, 2014

[T. S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

Service Law -Appointment/Selection - The issues in question, decided in terms of judgment passed in Manmohan

Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in [2014] 14 C

S.C.R. 1610.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4287 of 2014.

From the judgment and order dated 13.05.2011 of the D High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SBCWP No. 4133 of 2011.

WITH

. Civil Appeal Nos. 4288, 4289-4290 and 4291 of 2014.

M. M. Kashyap, Adv., for the Appellant.

Rishi Malhotra, Adv., for the Respondents.

The Order of the Court was passed by

T. S. THAKUR, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The points that fall for consideration in these appeals are squarely answered by our judgment delivered today in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.27829 of 2012 etc. etc. titled Manmohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

3. For the reasons set out in that judgment, we dispose G of these appeals on terms similar to those_ set out in the judgment leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of.

H 1633
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 1651

UNION OF INDIA

FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AllMS .

(I.A. No. 1)

(Review Petition (C) Nos. 1799-1800 of 2013)

(Civil Appeal No. 4500 of 2002)

JANUARY 16, 2014

. [H. L. DATTU, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, RANJAN GOGOi, M. Y. EQBAL, VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]

Constitution of India :

Arts. 15, 16 and 335 - Reservation - Applicability of- In speciality and s4per-speciality faculty posts in All India Institute of Medical Sciences - Decision of Supreme Court dated 18. 7.2013, as reported in [2014] 14SCR1634, clarified.

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 1 in Review E Petition(C) Nos. 1799-1800 of 2013 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4500 & 5119 of 2002.

WITH

Review Petition (C) No. 1881of2013 in C.A. No. 4(i00 F of 2002 and I. A. No. 1 in Review Petition (C) No ...... D. 28718of2013 inC.A.No.5119of2002

L. N. Rao, K. V. Vishwanathan, ASGs, V. Mohana, R.

K. Verma, Ms. Sushma Suri, D. L. Chidanand, Advs. for the Appellant.

H 1651

S.UPREME COURT REPORTS

[2014) 14 S.C.R.

A The following Order of the Court was passed :

ORDER

1 . Permission to file Review Petition is granted.

2. Application of oral hearing is allowed.

3. Heard Shri L.N. Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General.

4. We clarify that it is for the Central Governmentto take a decision as to whether there should be a reservation for super c specialty posts.

5. With this clarification the Review Petitions are disposed of. .

Kalpana K. Tripathy Review Petitions disposed of.

END OF 2014

***1r***
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 619

R. SUBRAMANIAM

MURUGAPPA GOUNDER AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 1793 of 2014)

JANUARY 31, 2014

[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND

M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.J

CONTEMPT OF COURT:

Unconditional apology tendered, accepted by single Judge of High Court - However, direction issued to take action against contemnors -- Held: Unconditional apology made in the form of an affidavit and the same having been accepted,

. further direction to Department for appropriate action neither D warranted nor permissible -- Accordingly, the impugned direction set aside.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1793 of 2014.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Appeal No. 3 of 2012.

R. Balasubramaniam, Sumit Kumar, Ajay Amitrag, Amit Sharma for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered by

ORDER

1. Though the respondents duly served with notice but are G not represented by counsel.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant.

619 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


3. Leave granted.

4. The only grievance of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that though the learned Single Judge accepted the apology tendered by the appellant and Respondent No.2 herein, forwarded a copy of the order B passed in the contempt petition to ttile Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, for initiating appropriate action.

5. We have gone through the order dated 29.06.2012 c passed by the learned Single Judge ih Contempt Petition No.

30 of 2012. In Para 20 and 21 the learned Single Judge clearly accepted the 'unconditional apology' tndered by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 therein. In spite of acceptance directed the authority to take action against them. When the said order was o challenged in the Contempt Appeal Nd. 3 of 2012, the Division Bench by its impugned order confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal.

6. In the light of the fact that the persons concerned including the appellant herein have made unconditional apology E in the form of an affidavit and having been accepted by the

learned Single Judge, we are of the view that further direction to the Department concerned for appropriate action neither permissible nor is warranted. Accordingly, the said direction as found .in para 20 of the order of thf:!! learned Single Judge F and the confirmation order of Division Hench are set aside.

7. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. No cost..

R.P.

Appeal allowed.
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 781

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

CHATRO DEVI & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1831-1836 of 2009)

MAY 07, 2014

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR AND M.Y.

EQBAL, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.5-A - Objections filed by tenure-holders uls. 5-A - Subsequent proceedings quashed C

- Held: In view of C.A. No. 5478-8312014, State's appeal is dismissed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1831-1836 of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05i.2007 of the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) Nos. 424 of 19817, 2746 of 1985, 2815 of 1985, 607 of 1987, 2469 of 1985 aAd 1950 of 1985.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 903 of 2010, 7439 of 2009, 8483 of 2003, 5484- 88, 5489-94, 5495-98, 5499-501 of 2014.

P. P. Malhotra, ASG, J. S. Attri, Geeta Luthra, Sanjay F Poddar, Vinay Bhasin, Mukul Rohatgi, Gopal Jain, Shyam Divan, A. Sharan, Sandeep Bajaj, Siddharth Panda, D. S.

Mahra, Anshuman Nayak, Shadman Ali, Gaurav Sharma, Chetan Chawla, Govind Kumar, Sonia Malhotra, Priyanka Bharihoke, Yasir Rauf, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Kr. Dhayani, D.

G N. Goburdhan, Narendra Goyal, Naina Dubey, Rohit Bhardwaj, Anil Katiyar, H. S. Raina, Bhargava V. Desai, Shreyas Mehrotra, R. N. Karanjawala, Manik Karanjawala, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Krishna Hariani, Rohit Sharma, Aakanksha Munjhal, 781 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2014) 8 S.C.R

A Karanjawala & Co .. , S. S. Khanduja, Archana Sharma, Meenakshi Kalra, Shobha, Yash Pal Dhingra, Indra Sawhney, Simran Mehta, Arvind Minocha, Veena Minocha, Sumit Bansal, Ateev Mathur, Richa Oberoi, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Pankaj Gupta, Anusuya Salwan, S. Janani, Kunal Kohli, G. Umapathy, B Rakesh K.

Sharma, Venkatasubramanian, S.

Ramasubramanian, R. Mekhala, P. V. Yogeswaran, Manish Kumar, Amit Kumar, Piyush Kaushik, Rakesh K. Sharma, N.

S. Vasisht, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Kr. Dhayani, Sumit Bansal, Gagan Gupta, Ateev P. Mathur, Vishnu B. Saharya (for Saharya c & Co.), Advocates, with them for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ORDER

1. The facts and issue involved/ in the abovesaid appeals

are identical and have to be decided in terms of our judgment passed today in Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014.

2. The appeals are dismissed in terms thereof. No order as to costs.

Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.
[2014) 8 S.C.R. 783 ..

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

GEETA DEVI (Civil Appeal No. 4374 of 2009)

MAY 07, 2014

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR AND

M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.5-'A ...:. Objections filed by original tenure holder - Not considered by the competent -e authority - Actual and physioal possession of land with the respondent who was the subsequent purchaser of the land - Award made in 1987-88 - Land acquisition proceedings quashed - Held: In view of C.A. No. 5478-8312014, State's appeal is dismissed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4374 of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 1115of1987.

P. P. Malhotra, ASG, J. S. Attri, Geeta Luthra, Sanjay Poddar, Vinay Bhasin, Mukul Rohatgi, Gopal Jain, Shyam Divan, A. Sharan, Sandeep Bajaj, Siddharth Panda, D. S.

Mahra, Anshuman Nayak, Shadman Ali, Gaurav Sharma, F Chetan Chawla, Govind Kumar, Sonia Malhotra, Priyanka Bharihoke, Yasir Rauf, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Kr. Dhayani, D.

N. Goburdhan, Narendra Goyal, Naina Dubey, Rohit Bhardwaj, Anil Katiyar, H. S. Raina, Bhargava V. Desai, Shreyas Mehrotra, R. N. Karanjawala, Manik Karanjawala, Ruby Singh Ahuja, G Krishna Hariani, Rohit Sharma, Aakanksha Munjhal, Karanjawala & Co., S. S. Khanduja, Archana Sharma, Meenakshi Kalra, Shobha, Yash Pal Dhingra, Indra Sawhney, Simran Mehta, Arvind Minocha, Veena Minocha, Sumit Bansal, 783 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2014] 8 S.C.R.

A Ateev Mathur, Richa Oberoi, Jagjit Singh Chhabra,. Pankaj Gupta, Anusuya Salwan, S. Janani, Kunal Kohli, G. Umapathy, Rakesh K.

Sharma, Venkatasubramanian, S.

Ramasubramanian, R. Mekhala, P. V. Yogeswaran, Manish Kumar, Amit Kumar, Piyush Kaushik, N. S. Vasisht, Gagan B Gupta, Ateev P. Mathur, Vishnu's. Saharya (for Saharya & Co.),

for the appearing parties.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. In this case the facts are the C same as contained in Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014,

however, it may be mentioned herein that Shrimati Geeta Devi, the respondent, is the subsequent purchaser of the land sought to .be acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1894') and the original D tenure holder had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act 1894, which have not been considered. The proceedings in this respect also had been quashed and admittedly, the actual and physical possession of the land' is with the respondent and as the proceedings had been quashed, the award had been made E in 1987-1988. Thus, in substance the result would be the same as in Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014. No order as to costs.

F Devika Gujral Appeal dismissed.
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 561

ANIL KUMAR A .v.

STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2010)

MAY 28, 2014 B

[DR. B. S. CHAUHAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 12 - Criminal contempt by a lawyer- Conviction under- Held: In view of the judgment passed in the connected appeal, order of conviction upheld, C however, imposition of fine of Rs. 20, 0001on the appellantlawyer, reduced to Rs.2,0001- - Appellant to surrender to seNe out the sentence.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2010.

From the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2010 of the . Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Contempt

Application (Crl) No. 16 of 2009.

Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Shikha Bani, Sameer Singh, Pahlad Singh Sharma for the Appellant.

lrshad Ahmad, AAG, Abhisth Kumar, Archana Singh for

the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. In view of the judgment passed today in connected Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2010, this

appeal is dismissed. However, the fine of Rs.20,000/- imposed G on the appellant by the High Court by way of impugned judgment and order, is reduced to Rs.2,000/- and is directed to deposit the said fine forthwith.

561 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


2. The appellant must surrender to serve out the sentence forthwith, failing which, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, would secure his custody and send him to jail to serve out the sentence. A copy of the order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, for information and B compliance.

Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed.