evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
STATE OF GUJARAT

NAVINBHAI CHANDRAKANT JOSHI

(Miscellaneous Application No. 2597 of 2018)

(Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2018)

DECEMBER 07, 2018

[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]

Judgments/Orders - Modification of - Application filed by respondent no.1-accused no.2 seeking modification of the judgment dated 17.07.2018 reported in [2018] 9 SCR 329 wherein he was stated to be a Government servant, which is not factually correct - Held: Though, the respondent no.1 is not a Government servant, bribe amount in currency notes of Rs.500/- were recovered from him only - Thus, the ingredients of s.8, 1988 Act are established - Conviction of respondent no.1 u/ss.7 and 13(2) of the 1988 Act is modified as conviction u/s.8, 1988 Act - Sentence of one year reduced to six months - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss.7, 8 and 13(2).

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Miscellaneous Application No. 2597 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 895/2018 (@ Criminal Appeal Nos. 895-896/2018).

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2015 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 477 and 478 of 2000.

Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Vishakha Advs. for the Appellant.

Parthiv Goswami, Pradhuman Gohil, Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil, Vikash Singh, Himanshu Chaubey, Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar Advs. for the Respondent/Applicant.

[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1141


The following Order of the Court was passed :

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the accused no. 2/respondent no. 1 to modify the judgment dated 17.7.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 895-896/

2018. In paragraph (3) of the judgment, the accused no. 2/respondent no. 1 has been stated to be the Government servant, which is not factually correct. Though, the accused no. 2/respondent no. 1 is not a Government servant, bribe amount in currency notes of Rs.500/- were recovered from him only; there were signs of anthracene powder noticed from the shirt pocket of the accused no. 2/respondent no. 1. Considering the fact that currency notes were recovered form the accused no. 2/respondent no. 1, in our view, the ingredients of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are established. The conviction of the accused no. 2/respondent no. 1 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is modified as the conviction under Section 8 of the said Act, and the sentence of one year imposed is reduced to six months.

The judgment shall be modified accordingly.

Divya Pandey Earlier judgment modified.
SURJEET SINGH & ANR. ETC. ETC.

SADHU SINGH & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 11764-11765 of 2018)

DECEMBER 03, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]

Practice and Procedure - Order of remand - Interference in - Held: On perusal of the record of the case, no ground to interfere in the impugned order because the High Court had only remanded the case to the first Appellate Court to decide the first appeal and cross objection afresh on merits in accordance with law.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11764- 11765 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2018 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CR Nos. 182 and 183 of 2015.

R. K. Gautam and Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.R. No.182 of 2015 and C.R. No.183 of 2015 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petitions filed by the respondents herein.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no good ground to interfere in the impugned order because we find that the High Court has only remanded the case to the first Appellate Court to decide the first appeal and cross objection afresh on merits in accordance with law. An order of remand, in our opinion, in the facts of this case, does not call for any interference. It is more so when in the opinion of the High Court a case of remand was made out.

[2018] 14 S.C.R. 991


4. Before parting, we cannot resist observing that having rightly formed an opinion to remand the case to the First Appellate Court, there was no need for the High Court to devote 60 pages in writing the impugned order. In our view, it was not required. The examination could be confined only to the issue of remand and not beyond it. At the same time, there was no need to cite several decisions and that too in detail. Brevity being a virtue, it must be observed as far as possible while expressing an opinion.

5. The appeals stand dismissed in limine.

Ankit Gyan Appeals dismissed in limine.
LALIT YADAV

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

(S.L.P (Criminal) No. 5631 of 2018)

JULY 05, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND

UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 - s.228-A - Disclosure of identity of the victim of rape - In the instant case, the victim of rape (PW-2) was named throughout in the record - Such course is inconsistent with s.228-A though Explanation makes an exception in favour of judgments of superior court - Every attempt should be made by all the courts not to disclose the identity of the victim in terms of s.228-A - The Registry of the High Court is directed to place the record of the appeal in the High Court for causing appropriate changes in the record including passing appropriate practice directions so that the trial courts in the State comply with the mandate and spirit of s.228-A - Practice and Procedure.

State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh (2004) 1 SCC 421 - relied on.

Case Law Reference

(2004) 1 SCC 421 relied on Para 2 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5631 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Bilaspur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2003.

Akshat Shrivastava, Sarabjit Dutta, Ms. Pooja Shrivastava, Advs. for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was passed:

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

1. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 376 IPC and Section 342 IPC and sentenced to substantive sentences of seven years and one year respectively. His conviction and sentence has been affirmed

[2018] 10 S.C.R. 771

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


by the High Court by dismissing present appeal. We do not see any reason to upset the orders of conviction and sentence and as such this petition stands dismissed.

2. We, however, notice from the judgments of both, the trial court and the High Court that the victim in the present case who was examined as PW2 has been named all through. Such a course is not consistent with Section 228-Aof IPC though the explanation makes an exception in favour of the judgments of the superior court. Nonetheless, every attempt should be made by all the courts not to disclose the identity of the victim in terms of said Section 228-A IPC. It has been so laid down by this Court in State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh reported in (2004)1

SCC 421.

3. While dismissing the present matter, we direct the Registry of the High Court to place the record of the appeal in the High Court before the learned Judge for causing appropriate changes in the record including passing appropriate practice directions so that the trial courts in the State comply with the mandate and spirit of Section 228- A IPC.

Devika Gujral Petition dismissed.
MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY AND ANR.

BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 4012 of 2018)

APRIL 18, 2018

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]

Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983:

Jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal - Held: Since the *Va Tech case had been overruled, jurisdiction to deal with the dispute is vested with the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Act - Impugned order is set aside.

*Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another (2011) 13 SCC 261 - Stood overruled.

Case Law Reference

(2011) 13 SCC 261 Stood overruled Para 2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4012 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2011 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Arbitration Case No. 7 of 2011.

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 4013 and 4014 of 2018.

Saurabh Mishra, AAG., Jugal Kishore Gilda, Purushaindra Kumar, Advs. Gen., Naman Nagrath, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Parag Triathi, Ms.

Kiran Suri, Sr. Advs., Harsh Parashar, Jubin Prasad, Aman Pandey, Jasdeep S. Dhillon, Prabhat K. Chaurasia, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Jay Savla, Amar Varun, Shantanu Krishna, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Dhurav Mishra, Divyanshu Kumar Srivastav, Akash Lamba, Viren Sibal, Vivekananda B., Vikas Sood, Apporv Kurup, Ms. Isha Mital, Dr. Harsh Pathak, Ms. Shweta Mahajan, Mohit Chaubey, Siddharth Shukla, Neeraj Shekhar, Arjun Garg, Mishra Saurabh, Sridhar Potaraju, Sudhir Mishra, Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Petal Chandok, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Rishabh,

[2018] 4 S.C.R. 255

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


M. R. Shamshad, Aditya Samaddar, B. S. Banthia, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Saurabh S. Sinha, Aditya Dev Triguna, Sunil Singh Parihar, M/S. AP & J Chambers, Prafulla Kumar Behera, Manish K. Bhardwaj, S. S. Nehra, Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Varun Mohan, Swastik Singh, Manish Yadav, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, B.N. Dubey, Ms. Devika Gulati, Hitendra Nath Rath, Mayank Kshirsagar, Pavesh Joshi, Chavu Ambwani (For M/S. AP & J Chambers), B. K. Satija, Sumit Attri, K. Krishna Kumar, Hitendra Nath Rath, Nilava Bandyopadhayay, Rahul Pandey, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was passed:

O R D E R

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. In view of judgment of this Court in Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another, (2011) 13 SCC 261 having been overruled, the jurisdiction to deal with the dispute in question is vested with the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the M.P.

Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. The direction in the impugned order under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is set aside.

3. The appeals are disposed of.

4. The respondent will be at liberty to take their remedy before the statutory Tribunal in accordance with law.

5. The parties may appear before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal for further proceedings on 9th July, 2018.

6. The appellant may serve a copy of this order on the respondents.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

ASHOKA INFRAWAYS LTD. & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 4018 of 2018)

APRIL 18, 2018

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]

Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983:

Jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal - Held: Judgment relied upon in the impugned judgment is overruled by larger Bench of High Court - Hence, impugned order set aside - Appeal allowed.

Viva Highways Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation 2017 (2) MPLJ 681 - approved.

Case Law Reference

2017 (2) MPLJ 681 approved Para 2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4018 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2016 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Arbitration Appeal No. 11 of 2015.

Saurabh Mishra, AAG., Jugal Kishore Gilda, Purushaindra Kumar, Advs. Gen., Naman Nagrath, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Parag Triathi, Ms.

Kiran Suri, Sr. Advs., Harsh Parashar, Jubin Prasad, Aman Pandey, Jasdeep S. Dhillon, Prabhat K. Chaurasia, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Jay Savla, Amar Varun, Shantanu Krishna, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Dhurav Mishra, Divyanshu Kumar Srivastav, Akash Lamba, Viren Sibal, Vivekananda B., Vikas Sood, Apporv Kurup, Ms. Isha Mital, Dr. Harsh Pathak, Ms.

Shweta Mahajan, Mohit Chaubey, Siddharth Shukla, Neeraj Shekhar, Arjun Garg, Mishra Saurabh, Sridhar Potaraju, Sudhir Mishra, Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Petal Chandok, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Rishabh, M. R.

Shamshad, Aditya Samaddar, B. S. Banthia, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Saurabh S. Sinha, Aditya Dev Triguna, Sunil Singh Parihar, M/S. AP & J Chambers, Prafulla Kumar Behera, Manish K. Bhardwaj, S. S. Nehra, Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Varun Mohan, Swastik

[2018] 4 S.C.R. 263

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


Singh, Arjun Garg, Manish Yadav, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, B.N. Dubey, Ms. Devika Gulati, Hitendra Nath Rath, Mayank Kshirsagar, Pavesh Joshi, Chavu Ambwani (For M/S. AP & J Chambers), B. K. Satija, Sumit Attri, K. Krishna Kumar, Hitendra Nath Rath, Nilava Bandyopadhayay, Rahul Pandey, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was passed:

O R D E R

1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. It is not disputed that the judgment relied upon in the impugned order has since been overruled by a larger bench of the High Court in Viva Highways Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation reported in 2017 (2) MPLJ 681. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

3. It is made clear that if any arbitration proceedings are pending, the same will now be governed by the above judgment of the High Court.

4. The appeal is disposed of.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal disposed of.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 4 S.C.R.

MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY AND ANR.

BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED AND ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 4011 of 2018)

APRIL 18, 2018

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]

Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983:

Arbitration proceedings - Jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal - Held: *Va Tech case on which the impugned order had relied on, had since been overruled, the impugned order is set aside - Matter is remanded to Arbitration Tribunal to decide the case on merit.

*Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another (2011) 13 SCC 261 - Stood overruled.

Case Law Reference

(2011) 13 SCC 261 Stood overruled Para 2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4011 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2010 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in W. P. No. 7105 of 2010.

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 4015 of 2018.

Saurabh Mishra, AAG., Jugal Kishore Gilda, Purushaindra Kumar, Advs. Gen., Naman Nagrath, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Parag Triathi, Ms.

Kiran Suri, Sr. Advs., Harsh Parashar, Jubin Prasad, Aman Pandey, Jasdeep S. Dhillon, Prabhat K. Chaurasia, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Jay Savla, Amar Varun, Shantanu Krishna, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Dhurav Mishra, Divyanshu Kumar Srivastav, Akash Lamba, Viren Sibal, Vivekananda B., Vikas Sood, Apporv Kurup, Ms. Isha Mital, Dr. Harsh Pathak, Ms. Shweta Mahajan, Mohit Chaubey, Siddharth Shukla, Neeraj Shekhar, Arjun Garg, Mishra Saurabh, Sridhar Potaraju, Sudhir Mishra, Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Petal Chandok, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Rishabh,


M. R. Shamshad, Aditya Samaddar, B. S. Banthia, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Saurabh S. Sinha, Aditya Dev Triguna, Sunil Singh Parihar, M/S. AP & J Chambers, Prafulla Kumar Behera, Manish K. Bhardwaj, S. S. Nehra, Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Varun Mohan, Swastik Singh, Manish Yadav, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, B.N. Dubey, Ms. Devika Gulati, Hitendra Nath Rath, Mayank Kshirsagar, Pavesh Joshi, Chavu Ambwani (For M/S. AP & J Chambers), B. K. Satija, Sumit Attri, K. Krishna Kumar, Hitendra Nath Rath, Nilava Bandyopadhayay, Rahul Pandey, Advs. or the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was passed:

O R D E R

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. In view of judgment of this Court in Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. MPSE Board & Another, (2011) 13 SCC 261 having been overruled and as the High Court has relied on Judgment in C.R. NO.353 of 2004, Mahesh Chandra Garg v. State of M.P. and Ors. decided on 23.2.2010 which was based on Va Tech (supra), the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal so that the said Tribunal can deal with the matter on merits in accordance with law.

3. The appeals are disposed of.

4. The parties may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 9th July, 2018.

5. The appellant may serve a copy of this order on the respondents.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of.

MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BACKBONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED
1125 STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY v. STATE

OF T. N. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT

SIDDARAMAIAH, CHIEF MINISTER, GOVERNMENT OF

KARNAKATA & ORS.

(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 225 of 2013

Civil Appeal No.2456 of 2007)

FEBRUARY 16, 2018

[DIPAK MISRA CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND

A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]

Inter-State Water Disputes:

Water dispute between States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala and Union Territory of Puducherry - In respect of waters of river Cauvery - Disposed of by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2456 of 2007 - Contempt Petition by State of Tamil Nadu against the Chief Minister of Karnataka and others - Held: Contempt petition closed in view of judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 2456 of 2007.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 225 OF 2013

Civil Appeal No. 2456 of 2007

From the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2007 of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal at New Delhi under Section 5(2) of the Inter- State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

Ranjit Kumar, S.G., Madhusudan R. Naik, Adv. Gen., Fali S.

Nariman, S.S. Javali, Jaideep Gupta, Shekhar Naphade, A. S. Nambiar, Rakesh Dwivedi, Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Advs., Mohan V. Katarki, S. C. Sharma, Brijesh Kalappa, R.S. Ravi, V. N. Raghupathy, J. M.

Gangadhar, Ranvir Singh, Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Vijay Shankar,

[2018] 5 S.C.R. 1125

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


Kunal Chattarjee, Saurabh Gupta, G. Umapathy, C. Paramasivam, K.V. Vijayakumar, B. Balaji, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mrs. Madhavi Diwan, Ajay Sharma, Ms. Snidha Mehra, Hemant Arya, Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Ms. Kirti Dua, Ms. Somya Rathore, Sumit, D. S. Mahra, M. K. Maroria, R. Nedumaran, V.G. Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, P. K. Manohar, Ms. Shantha Vasudevan, Manu Sundaram, Ramesh Babu M. R., Rajesh Mahale, B. Balaji, A. S. Bhasme, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda,, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DIPAK MISRA, CJI As we have disposed of Civil Appeal No. 2456 of 2007, we do not intend to proceed with the Contempt Petition against the respondents. It stands closed accordingly.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Contempt petition closed.
R. BALAKRISHNA BHAT & ORS. ETC.

BANK OF BARODA & ORS. ETC.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 3762-3764 of 2014)

MAY 16, 2018

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

Service law: Pension - Dearness allowance - Controversy in the present appeals are similar to that arising in the case reported in [2018] 5 SCR 436 - Present appeals dismissed in terms of said judgment.

Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. C.R.

Chandrasekaran etc. decided by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8420-8421 of 2013 on 01.02.2017 - referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3762- 3764 of 2014.

From the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2013 of the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 1127-1129 of 2013.

WITH

R.P. (C) No.1202 of 2017 in C.A. No.8422 of 2013

R.P. (C) No.1201 of 2017 in C.A. No.8424 of 2013

Ms. V. Mohana, V. K. Bali, R. Viduthalai, Sukumar Pattjoshi, Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advs., Rajshekhar Rao, Sewaram, K. Harsha Vardhan, Ms. Kruttika Vijay, Abhinav Mukerji, Aditya Soni, K.V. Jagdishvaran, Mrs. G. Indira, Bhupendra Singh Chauhan, Nishe Rajen Shonker, V. G. Pragasam, Rajesh Kumar, Gaurav Kr. Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.

[2018] 5 S.C.R. 469

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. These appeals by special leave arise out of Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras allowing Writ Appeal Nos.1127 to 1129 of 2013 and dismissing Writ Petition Nos.6632 of 2007, 9952 of 2007 and 14983 of 2007.

2. The aforesaid Writ Petitions preferred by the present appellants were allowed by Single Judge of High Court vide common Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2012. While setting aside the decision of the Single Judge, the Division Bench relied upon its Judgment rendered in Writ Appeal No.355 of 2013 and allied matters (Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. C.R. Chandrasekaran etc.)

3. Said Judgment rendered in Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. C.R. Chandrasekaran etc. by the Division Bench was affirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.8420-8421 of 2013 vide order dated 01.02.2017.

4. The controversy in the present appeals is similar to that arising in Union Bank of India vs. United Bank of India Retirees' Welfare Associations and others which have been disposed of by us vide Judgment of even date. Since the issues involved in the present matter are identical, these appeals are dismissed in terms of our Judgment rendered in United Bank of India and Others etc.

5. The appeals and review petitions, therefore, stand dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Devika Gujral Appeals and Review Petitions dismissed.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN & ANR.

BVG INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 3330 of 2018)

MARCH 28, 2018

[RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI AND

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]

Judgments/Orders - Typographic mistake - Clarification in Judgment delivered on 27th March 2018 and reported in [2018] 6 SCR 861 - Clarification given pursuant to submission made by appellant - Para 52 of the said Judgment (operative portion) accordingly substituted.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3330 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2016 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W. P. No. 4676 of 2015

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 3331 and 3332 of 2018.

Devadatt Kamat, Rajesh Inamdar, Aditya Bhat, Gautam Talukdar, Mishra Saurabh, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Mushtaq Ahmad, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Order of the Court was passed by

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. After pronouncement of the judgment learned counsel for the appellant while mentioning in the court drew the attention of the Court to typographic mistake, that while allowing Civil Appeal Nos. 3330 of 2018 and 3331 of 2018, the dismissal of the Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2018 filed by BVG India Limited is not mentioned in the said judgment, therefore, the same is to be corrected.

On verification, we find that the said submission is justified.

Hence, Para 52 of the judgment (operative portion) is to be substituted by the following:

[2018] 6 S.C.R. 899

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


Accordingly, it is made clear that Civil Appeal Nos. 3330 of 2018 and 3331 of 2018 are allowed. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2018 filed by BVG India Limited stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

The aforementioned clarification shall be noted by the Registry in the main judgment and necessary corrections may be effected in the judgment.

Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of.