evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
(2017) l l S.C.R. 137

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

SUNIL KUMAR & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 9694 of2013)

DECEMBEROl,2017

[RANJAN GOGOi AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.163A - Clarification given with respect to decision dated 24.11.2017 reported in {2017] II S.C.R. 130.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9694 of2013.

From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.10.2011 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC Appeal No. 900/2011.

D Amit Kumar Singh, Mrs. E. Enatoli Serna (for Mis. Law Associates), Ad vs. for the Appellant.

Ajay Kumartalesara, Amit Singh Chauhan, Ms. Nidhi. Vipin Nair, P. B. Suresh, Abbay Pratap Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

ORDER

Paragraph. I I of the Judgment dated 24.11.2017 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 9694 of2013 reads as follows:-

"11. As the final disposal of the appeal may take some time, we F are of the view that 50% of the compensation that is presently . lying in deposit in the Registry in terms of the Order dated 24.02.2012 should be released to the claimant on due identification."

Upon a mention being made by the learned counsel for the respondent(s), the said paragraph will now be read to mean that the G . amount lying in deposit in the trial Court be released to the claimant(s)

on due identification.

Nidhi Jain Clarification given with respect to ealier decision.

H 137
[2017] ll S.C.R. 251

UNION OF INDIA

AKHILA BHARATHIYA ADIVASI VIKASA PARISHAD & ORS.

(Transfer Petition (C) No.423 of2012)

NOVEMBER 13, 2017

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND

DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.J

Constitution of India - Arts. I 39A and 32 - Transfer Petition

- Petitioner sought transfer of a writ petition pending before the c High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh to Supreme Court - Writ petition before High Court assails the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006,(Act No.2 of 2007) - Held: Since a Substantive writ petition u/Art.32 is pending before the Supreme Court where the vi res of the same ce/lfral statute is in issue, D prayer for transfer accepted - Writ petition before High Court

transferred to Supreme Court and registry directed to take necessary steps expeditiously.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 423 of2012 E

Under Article 139A of the Constitution of India.

Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, A. K. Shrivastav, Rishabh Jain, Hemani Arya and Ms. Palla vi Chopra, Ad vs. for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

ORDER

I. The Union oflndia has sought a transfcrofWrit Petition (Civil) No. 15798 of2009 pending before the High Court ofJudicature ofAndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad to this Court under Article 139(A) of the

Constitution.

2. The Writ Petition before the High Court assails the constitutional validity ofThe Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, (Act No. 2 of2007).

251 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) I l S.C.R.

3. A Writ Petition un<ler Article 32 of the Constitution - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 50 of2008. challenging the vires of the Act is pending before the Court.

4. Notice was issued in this proceeding on 13 January 2014anda stay of further proceedings before the High Court was granted. The B office report inicates that service of notice is complete. No appearance has been entered on behalf of the respondents.

5. Since a substantive Writ Petition under Article 32 is pending before this Co411 where the vires of the same central statute is in issue, we accede to the prayer for transfer of the proceedings pending before C the High Court to this Court.

6. Consequently, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15798 of2009 pending before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad is transfcmd to this Court. The registry is directed to take necessary steps to ensure that the papers and proceedings arc transmitted to this Cou11 D expeditiously.

7. The Transfer Petition is accordingly disposed ot'.

Ankit Gyan Tnu1slt.•r Pelition disposed of.
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 331

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

HUSAINY FAKHRUDDIN AND OTHERS

(Criminal Appeal No. 968of2011)

JANUARY 31, 2017

[KURIAN JOSEPH AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]

Supreme Court - Directions - Release of bank deposits made by respondents - CBI requested appellant-bank not to release the deposits till a reference was given by CBI or the special court concerned - Respondent filed writ Petition - High Court directed appellant-bank to release the deposit - On appeal, held: The main objection was of CBI, which subsequently had withdrawn its request and there was no objection for release of the amounts - Hence, appeal disposed of with direction to appellant-bank to release the deposits within stipulated time frame, in case the same were not withheld for any other reason.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 968 of20I I.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.20IO of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition No. 496 of2006.

Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Dinesh Mathur, Ms. Priyanka Bharti, (For Mis. Dua Associates), Advs. for the Appellant.

Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sharavanth Paruchuri, (For Mis. M.

F Rambabu & Co.), Raja! Nair (For Mukesh Kumar Maroria), Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KURIAN, J. I. Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgement whereby the High Court has directed the appellant to release the deposits made by Respondents I to 4. When the request for withdrawal of the money was being processed, the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI", for short), by communication dated 06.12.2005, requested the appellant-Bank not to release the deposits ... "till you receive any reference from this office or the Special Court, Ako la ... ".

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


2. Respondents I to 4 challenged the same before the High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 496 of2006. The Writ Petition was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 23 .07 .20 I 0 directing the Bank to release the amounts, and hence, the appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the CBI, on instruction, submits that they B have withdrawn their request to the Bank, and from their side, there is no objection for release of the amounts.

4. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into the various contentions raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank. Hence we leave open all questions of law. The main objection to c the release was the request made by the CBI and hence, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellant-Bank to release the deposits made by Respondents 1 to 4, in case the same are not to be withheld for any other reason. The needful be done within a week from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. o

5. There shall be no order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan Appeal disposed of.
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 348

POORAN CHANDRA JOSHI & ORS.

BISWAN CHANDRA HARRIS (DEAD) BY L.RS.

(Civil Appeal No. 6138 ofZ009)

JULY 03,2017

[R. BANUMATHI AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.)

Rent Control and Eviction - Judgment reported in [2017)7 SCR 326 in companion Civil Appeal Nos. 6139 of 2009 on merits of C the issues dealing with the selfsame gift deed dated 31.05.1949, which is also the subject matter of the present appeal -Accordingly, present appea~ also dismissed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6138 of 2009.

D From the Judgment and Order dated 16.052007 of the High Court

ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Second Appeal No. 882 of2001.

Shrish Kumar Misra, Ayush Negi, Advs. for the Appellants.

E. C. Agrawala, Ms. Lalita Kohli, Abhinav Agrawal, Ms. Lalita Kohli (For Mis. Manoj Swarup & Co.), Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. In view of the judgment in the companion civil appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 6139 of2009 on merits of the issues dealing with the selfsame gift deed dated 31.05 .1949, which F is also the subject matter of the present appeal, for the same reasons even this appeal must fail and the same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

Devika Gujral Appeal dismissed.