evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
[2016] 11 S.C.R. 870

C.B.I. BANK SECURITIES & FRAUD CELL

RAMESH GELLI & ORS.

(Crl. MP Nos. 6416-6420 of 2016)

(CriminalAppealNo.1077-1081 of2013)

MAY02,2016

[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(2) rlw. s.13(l){d) - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - s.46A - Separate Judgments of Hon 'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, and Hon 'hie Mr.

Justice Prafulla C. Pant reported in [2016] 1 SCR 762 - Para 25 of the Judgment of Hon 'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant - D Modification made in the said para.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Cr! MP Nos. 6416- 6420 of2016 in Criminal Appeal Nos. I 077-1081 of2013.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2009 of the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in Criminal Revision Application No. 131 of 2007 with Criminal Writ Petition No. 2400 of2008 to 2403 of2008.

Tushar Mehta, ASG, Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ranjana Narayan, T. A. Khan, M.A. Meroria, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for F the Appellant.

Mohan Parasaran, Sr. Adv., G. Umapathy, Rakesh K. Sharma, S. Ramasubramanian, Ranjit B. Raut, Ms. Bina Gupta, Abay A. Jena, Mis Khaitan & Co., Ad vs. for the Respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

Jn paragraph 25 of the Judgment dated 23.02.2016 (by Mr. Prafulla

C.B.I. BANK SECURITIES & FRAUD CELL v. RAMESH GELLI 871

& ORS.

C. Pant, J.) instead of words "Section 46 of Banking Regulation Act,

1949" the words "Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949" shall be substituted and in th~ last sentence of the paragraph instead of "Section 7 to 13 of the P.C. Act, 1988", the words "Section 7 to 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988", shall be substituted.

CRL.M.P. Nos. 6416-6420 of2016 are accordingly allowed.

Nidhi Jain Petitions allowed.
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 839

LIFE CONVICT LAL SINGH @ MANJEET SINGH A

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

(WritPetition(Crl.)No.181 of2012)

JUNE 29, 2016

[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.)

Criminal Lmv - Writ Petition - Petition disposed of. in view of ; udgment reported in 2016 (4) SCR 816.

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) C No. 181 of2012.

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

V. Madhukar, AAG, D. N. Ray, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms Jesal Wahi, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. Anvita Cowshish, Kuldip singh, Ms.

Naresh Bakshi, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DIPAK MISRA, J. In view of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of2016 today, the present Writ Petition stands disposed

~ E

Klpana K. Tripat)1y Writ petition disposed o[
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 983

LOKESH KATARA AND ANR.

HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 758 of2016)

DECEMBER 14, 2016

[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

AND L. NAGESWARA RAO; JJ.] Alternative remedy - Writ Petition u/Art. 32 .:.. Writ petitioners _ working as Systems Officers and Systems Assistants, on contractual basis, challenged advertisement by respondent-High Court inviting applications for these posts - Also sought mandamus for incorporating a provision in the recruitment rules for absorption of petitioners and similarly placed persons - Held: Writ petition dismissed since the petitioners have a remedy available of moving the High Court on the judicial side u/Art. 226 - Constitution of India - Arts.32 and 226.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 758of2016.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution ofindia.

S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Prateek Dhir and Mis Lawyer S. Knit & Co., Advocates, for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered by

DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. These proceedings have been instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution by two petitioners who are stated to be working as Systems Officers and Systems Assistants since 2009 on a contractual basis. The petitioners state that Systems Officers and Systems Assistants were engaged in the High Court and the district courts in the State of Gujarat in consoni\nce with the National Policy and Action Plan prepared by the E- Committee. In 2013, the Government of Gujarat sanctioned pos!s of Systems Officers and Systems Assistants in the regular cadre.

An amendment was made to the recruitment rules in 2015 for filling up these posts by direct recruitment. The existing Systems Officers and Systems Assistants working in various district courts submitted a

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


representation seeking their absorption. An online skill test was conducted.

Another representation was submitted on 16 March 2016. However, the representation for absorption was rejected on 26 May 2016. On 9 September 2016 an advertisement was published by the Registrar (Recruitment and Finance) inviting applications for thirty posts of

Systems Officers and thirty posts of Systems Assistants. The Writ Petition has been insttuted seeking to challenge the advertisement issued by the High Court and for a mandamus for incorporating a provision in the recruitment rules for the absorption of the petitioners and similarly placed persons.

2. We are not inclined to entertain a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners have a remedy available of moving the High Court on the judicial side under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In the circumstances, while leaving it open to the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings as they may be advised, we decline to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

3. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Divya Pandey Writ Petition dismissed.
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 436

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

NEELAM NAG & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 4715of2011)

NOVEMBER 09, 2016

[T.S. THAKUR, CJI AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Judgment/Order - Modification/correction - To be treated as . part of the judgment reported in [2016] 5 SCR 278- Word "Neelam C Nag" in the cause title to be read as "Neelam Nag & Am: - Word

"respondent" in the judgment to be read as "respondent No. l ".

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4715 of201 l.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2010 of the High Court D of Judicature at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in WA 80 of2010.

G ~

K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv, Sanjay Kapur, Anmol Chandan, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Advs. for the Appellants.

Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, R. B. Sharma, Akshat Shrivastava, Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, Advs. for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

The following modification/correction shall be treated as part of the judgment dated 16.09.2016 in the aforementioned appeal:-

(i)

(ii)

Nidhi Jain

The word "Neelam Nag" in the cause title shall be read as " Neelam Nag & Anr."

The word "respondent" whereever referred in the judgment shall be read as "respondent No. I".

Modification in earlier judgment