advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
ashok kumar
Industrial Dispute Act – Since the claim was made after six years of termination, compensation only awarded to the workman = “Whether 18.02.86 termination of labour Shri Mohan Lal S/o Shri Dhanna Lal (Post-Mistri), who has been represented by Regional Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Kota Cantt., from service by the Employer – Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division – Kota is legal and justifiable? If not, then applicant – labour is entitled to get what relief and compensation?”= In our opinion, interest of justice will be subserved if in lieu of reinstatement, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) is paid by the appellant (employer) to the respondent (workman). We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made by the appellant to the respondent within six weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum. 23. The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40659 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6795 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11305 of 2006) Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota … Appellant Versus Mohan Lal …Respondent JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, J. … Continue reading
service matter = There were vacancies in the cadre of Computer Operator/Lab Assistant/System Administrator and therefore, advertisement Notice No.1 of 2005 was published on 15.1.2005 by the appellant. Applications were invited from suitable candidates and qualifications required for the posts had been incorporated in the aforestated advertisement notice.=As per the select list prepared by the appellant alongwith other candidates, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were selected to be appointed. 5. A candidate named Renu Bala, respondent No. 1 herein, was not selected and therefore, she had filed Writ Petition No.93 of 2005 in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu challenging the selection procedure as well as the appointments to be made. – the learned single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that the allegations made in the petition filed by Renu Bala, who is respondent No.1 in this appeal were genuine. Certain provisions had been relaxed in favour of Shri Ashok Kumar Koul and the said relaxation made in favour of Shri Ashok Kumar Koul had violated rights of all other candidates, who had applied for the posts. The learned single Judge, therefore, allowed the petition with costs and directed the appellant to appoint present respondent No.1 to the said post. 7. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.937 of 2005, the present appellant had filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court being LPASW No.146/08. The said appeal was heard by the High Court at length and ultimately the Division Bench had come to the conclusion that the view expressed by the learned single Judge was correct. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the Recruitment Rules framed for the posts in question and the selection procedure carried out by the appellant was not proper because more weight was given to the oral interview and even the scheme of allotting marks under different heads was not proper. The Division Bench, therefore, gave a direction whereby the appellant has been directed to read its Recruitment Rules in an altogether different manner and declare the result afresh. In pursuance of the said direction given by the Division Bench in the impugned order, the court has virtually amended the Recruitment Rules and has given direction in such a way that the entire selection procedure suggested by the court would virtually change the result. The Division Bench, however, set aside the direction with regard to the costs, which had been quantified at Rs.10,000/- by the learned single Judge.= In our opinion, the learned single Judge was right when he came to the conclusion that undue favour was done to respondent No.8 (Shri Ashok Kumar Koul) and therefore, he had quashed and set aside his selection by allowing the petition.= Upon setting aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the Judgment delivered by the learned single Judge would operate and therefore, name of Shri Ashok Kumar Koul shall stand removed from the select list. Subject to other formalities being done by the appellant, the persons next to Shri Ashok Kumar Koul shall be selected for the posts in question in accordance with the existing Recruitment Rules. Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel, appearing for the original petitioner has submitted that Ms. Renu Bala will get selected as per her position in the select list. Be that as it may, if Ms. Renu gets her name included in the select list, she or any other person who gets into the select list shall be appointed in accordance with law after doing necessary formalities by the appellant. 16. As a result, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40631 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6141 OF 2013 J & K Institute of Management Public Administration and Rural Development ….Appellant Versus Renu Bala & others. …..Respondents J U D G M E N T 1 … Continue reading
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: s.52 – Transfer of property by a defendant pending a partition suit – Partition suit found to be not collusive – Decree in partition suit – In terms of decree, the pendente lite transferor found to have only half share in the property and she was allotted only one fourth of the property purchased by the transferee – Suit by transferee for declaration of title and permanent injunction in regard to transferred property – Courts below dismissed the suit – Held: Suit ought not to have been dismissed in entirety even if the sale was hit by the Doctrine of lis pendens – Transferee’s title will be saved in respect of that part of the transferred property allotted to the transferor in the partition suit – Transfer in regard to the remaining portion of the transferred property to which the transferor is found not entitled, will be invalid and the transferee will not get any right, title or interest in that portion. Transfer of Property: Suggestion to Law makers – Absence of a mechanism for prospective purchasers to verify whether a property is subject to any pending suit or a decree or attachment cause lot of hardship, loss, anxiety and leads to unnecessary litigation – All these inconveniences, risks and misery could be avoided and the property litigations could be reduced to a considerable extent, if there is some satisfactory and reliable method by which a prospective purchaser can ascertain whether any suit is pending (or whether the property is subject to any decree or attachment) before he decides to purchase the property – Law Commission and the Parliament much consider such amendment or other suitable amendment to cover the existing void in title verification or due diligence procedures – Also, registration of agreements of sale should be made compulsory to reduce property litigation – Registration Act, 1908 – Legislation. Appeal: Appeal before Supreme Court – Concurrent findings of facts by the three courts below that the partition suit was not collusive – Interference with – Held: Not called for – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of his right and title and permanent injunction in regard to the suit property. The case of the appellant was that he purchased the suit property from the second respondent under sale deed dated 11.4.1990 and he was a bona fide purchaser and was unaware of the partition suit between the second respondent and the first respondent who was the step daughter of the second respondent. On 17.3.1994, the said suit for partition was decreed by preliminary decree whereby the two respondents were held entitled to half share each in the properties including the suit property. In the final decree proceedings, the Commissioner divided the suit property in such a manner that nearly three-fourth portion of the suit property was allotted to the share of the first respondent and only about a one-fourth portion was allotted to the share of the second respondent. The first respondent resisted the suit contending that the appellant had purchased the suit property during the pendency of her suit for partition; and that being a purchaser pendente lite, the sale in his favour was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and, therefore, he could not claim any right in the suit property; and she denied that there was any collusion between her and the second respondent. The second respondent did not contest the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the sale in favour of the appellant was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the first appellate court. The High Court dismissed the second appeal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal. =Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The trial court, the first appellate court and the High Court on appreciating the evidence have held that the partition suit was not collusive and that there was a valid reason for a larger portion of the suit property being allotted to the first respondent, plaintiff in the partition suit as the portion allotted to the second respondent had a house therein and to equalize the value, a larger portion (vacant plot) was allotted to the first respondent. There is no reason to interfere on that score. [Para 8] [570-C-D] Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami AIR 1973 SC 569; Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007) 2 SCC 404 – relied on. 2.1. The principle underlying Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is clear. During the pendency in a court of competent jurisdiction of any suit which is not collusive, in which any right of an immovable property is directly and specifically in question, such property cannot be transferred by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree that may be made in such suit. If ultimately the title of the pendente lite transferor is upheld in regard to the transferred property, the transferee’s title will not be affected. On the other hand, if the title of the pendente lite transferor is recognized or accepted only in regard to a part of the transferred property, then the transferee’s title will be saved only in regard to that extent and the transfer in regard to the remaining portion of the transferred property to which the transferor is found not entitled, will be invalid and the transferee will not get any right, title or interest in that portion. If the property transferred pendente lite, is allotted in entirety to some other party or parties or if the transferor is held to have no right or title in that property, the transferee will not have any title to the property. Where a co-owner alienates a property or a portion of a property representing to be the absolute owner, equities can no doubt be adjusted while making the division during the final decree proceedings, if feasible and practical (that is without causing loss or hardship or inconvenience to other parties) by allotting the property or portion of the property transferred pendente lite, to the share of the transferor, so that the bonafide transferee’s right and title are saved fully or partially. [Para 10] [571-C-H; 572-A] 2.2. In the instant case, a suit for partition filed by the first respondent against the second respondent in the year 1985 which included the suit property, was pending in a court of competent jurisdiction as on the date of sale (11.4.1990) by the second respondent in favour of the appellant. The partition suit was not collusive. Having regard to Section 52 of the Act, the sale by the second respondent in favour of the appellant did not in any way affect the right of the first respondent (plaintiff in the partition suit) or the decree made in her favour in the said partition suit. It is thus evident that the sale by the second respondent in favour of the appellant though not void, did not bind the first respondent. On the other hand, the sale in favour of appellant was subject to the right declared or recognized in favour of the first respondent-plaintiff under the decree passed in the pending partition suit. The sale pendente lite would, therefore, be subject to the decree in the partition suit. In the final decree passed in the partition suit, the major portion of the suit property was allotted to the share of the first respondent and to that extent, the sale in favour of the appellant would be ineffective. But in regard to the remaining portion of the suit property which stood allotted to the share of the second respondent in the final decree in the partition suit, the sale by the second respondent in favour of the appellant would be effective, valid and binding on the second respondent and to that extent, the appellant is entitled to a declaration of title and consequential injunction. The suit ought not to have been dismissed in entirety even if the sale by the second respondent in favour of appellant on 11.4.1990 was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The second respondent cannot avoid the sale made by her on the ground that she was held to be not the exclusive owner, in the pending partition suit. Therefore, the courts below ought to have decreed the appellant’s suit in part, in regard to the portion of the suit property that fell to the share of second respondent instead of dismissing the suit. Therefore, the declaration of title with consequential permanent injunction as prayed is granted in regard to that portion of the suit property that was allotted to the second respondent in the partition suit. [Paras 11, 12, 16] [572-B-H; 573-A-B; 576-B] A related suggestion to the Law makers 3.1. Absence of a mechanism for prospective purchasers to verify whether a property is subject to any pending suit or a decree or attachment cause lot of hardship, loss, anxiety and unnecessary litigation. At present, a prospective purchaser can find out about any existing encumbrance over a property either by inspection of the Registration Registers or by securing a certificate relating to encumbrances (that is copies of entries in the Registration Registers) from the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar under Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908. But a prospective purchaser has no way to ascertain whether there is any suit or proceeding pending in respect of the property, if the person offering the property for sale does not disclose it or deliberately suppresses the information. The inconveniences, risks, hardships and misery as a result of such transfers could be avoided and the property litigations could be reduced to a considerable extent, if there is some satisfactory and reliable method by which a prospective purchaser can ascertain whether any suit is pending (or whether the property is subject to any decree or attachment) before he decides to purchase the property. A solution has been found to this problem in the States of Maharashtra by an appropriate local amendment to section 52 of the Act, by Bombay Act 4 of 1939. The Law Commission and the Parliament must consider such amendment or other suitable amendment to cover the existing void in title verification or due diligence procedures. Provision can also be made for compulsory registration of such notices in respect of decrees and in regard to attachments of immoveable properties. [Paras 13, 14] [573-C-H; 574-A-C; 575-C] 3.2. At present in most of the States, agreements to sell are not compulsorily registrable as they do not involve transfer of any right, title or interest in an immoveable property. Registration of agreements of sale will reduce property litigation. It will go a long way to discourage generation and circulation of black money in real estate matters, as also undervaluation of documents for purposes of stamp duty. It will also discourage the growth of land mafia and muscleman who dominate the real estate scene in various parts of the country. [Para 15] [575-D-G] Case Law Reference: AIR 1973 SC 569 relied on Para 9 (2007) 2 SCC 404 relied on Para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10325 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 01.09.2009 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 1141 of 2008. R. Balasubramaniam, B. Karunakaran, V. Balachandran for the Appellant. N. Shobha, Sriram J. Thalapathy, Adhi Venkataraman, S.P. Parthasarthy for the Respondents.
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10325 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] No. 163 of 2010] T.G. Ashok Kumar … Appellant Vs. Govindammal & Anr. … Respondents JUDGMENT R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Notice to respondents was issued limited to the question whether the High Court ought to have decreed … Continue reading
Transfer of Property Act, 1882: s.52 – Transfer of property by a defendant pending a partition suit – Partition suit found to be not collusive – Decree in partition suit – In terms of decree, the pendente lite transferor found to have only half share in the property and she was allotted only one fourth of the property purchased by the transferee – Suit by transferee for declaration of title and permanent injunction in regard to transferred property – Courts below dismissed the suit – Held: Suit ought not to have been dismissed in entirety even if the sale was hit by the Doctrine of lis pendens – Transferee’s title will be saved in respect of that part of the transferred property allotted to the transferor in the partition suit – Transfer in regard to the remaining portion of the transferred property to which the transferor is found not entitled, will be invalid and the transferee will not get any right, title or interest in that portion. Transfer of Property: Suggestion to Law makers – Absence of a mechanism for prospective purchasers to verify whether a property is subject to any pending suit or a decree or attachment cause lot of hardship, loss, anxiety and leads to unnecessary litigation – All these inconveniences, risks and misery could be avoided and the property litigations could be reduced to a considerable extent, if there is some satisfactory and reliable method by which a prospective purchaser can ascertain whether any suit is pending (or whether the property is subject to any decree or attachment) before he decides to purchase the property – Law Commission and the Parliament much consider such amendment or other suitable amendment to cover the existing void in title verification or due diligence procedures – Also, registration of agreements of sale should be made compulsory to reduce property litigation – Registration Act, 1908 – Legislation. Appeal: Appeal before Supreme Court – Concurrent findings of facts by the three courts below that the partition suit was not collusive – Interference with – Held: Not called for – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of his right and title and permanent injunction in regard to the suit property. The case of the appellant was that he purchased the suit property from the second respondent under sale deed dated 11.4.1990 and he was a bona fide purchaser and was unaware of the partition suit between the second respondent and the first respondent who was the step daughter of the second respondent. On 17.3.1994, the said suit for partition was decreed by preliminary decree whereby the two respondents were held entitled to half share each in the properties including the suit property. In the final decree proceedings, the Commissioner divided the suit property in such a manner that nearly three-fourth portion of the suit property was allotted to the share of the first respondent and only about a one-fourth portion was allotted to the share of the second respondent. The first respondent resisted the suit contending that the appellant had purchased the suit property during the pendency of her suit for partition; and that being a purchaser pendente lite, the sale in his favour was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and, therefore, he could not claim any right in the suit property; and she denied that there was any collusion between her and the second respondent. The second respondent did not contest the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the sale in favour of the appellant was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the first appellate court. The High Court dismissed the second appeal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal. =Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The trial court, the first appellate court and the High Court on appreciating the evidence have held that the partition suit was not collusive and that there was a valid reason for a larger portion of the suit property being allotted to the first respondent, plaintiff in the partition suit as the portion allotted to the second respondent had a house therein and to equalize the value, a larger portion (vacant plot) was allotted to the first respondent. There is no reason to interfere on that score. [Para 8] [570-C-D] Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami AIR 1973 SC 569; Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007) 2 SCC 404 – relied on. 2.1. The principle underlying Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is clear. During the pendency in a court of competent jurisdiction of any suit which is not collusive, in which any right of an immovable property is directly and specifically in question, such property cannot be transferred by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree that may be made in such suit. If ultimately the title of the pendente lite transferor is upheld in regard to the transferred property, the transferee’s title will not be affected. On the other hand, if the title of the pendente lite transferor is recognized or accepted only in regard to a part of the transferred property, then the transferee’s title will be saved only in regard to that extent and the transfer in regard to the remaining portion of the transferred property to which the transferor is found not entitled, will be invalid and the transferee will not get any right, title or interest in that portion. If the property transferred pendente lite, is allotted in entirety to some other party or parties or if the transferor is held to have no right or title in that property, the transferee will not have any title to the property. Where a co-owner alienates a property or a portion of a property representing to be the absolute owner, equities can no doubt be adjusted while making the division during the final decree proceedings, if feasible and practical (that is without causing loss or hardship or inconvenience to other parties) by allotting the property or portion of the property transferred pendente lite, to the share of the transferor, so that the bonafide transferee’s right and title are saved fully or partially. [Para 10] [571-C-H; 572-A] 2.2. In the instant case, a suit for partition filed by the first respondent against the second respondent in the year 1985 which included the suit property, was pending in a court of competent jurisdiction as on the date of sale (11.4.1990) by the second respondent in favour of the appellant. The partition suit was not collusive. Having regard to Section 52 of the Act, the sale by the second respondent in favour of the appellant did not in any way affect the right of the first respondent (plaintiff in the partition suit) or the decree made in her favour in the said partition suit. It is thus evident that the sale by the second respondent in favour of the appellant though not void, did not bind the first respondent. On the other hand, the sale in favour of appellant was subject to the right declared or recognized in favour of the first respondent-plaintiff under the decree passed in the pending partition suit. The sale pendente lite would, therefore, be subject to the decree in the partition suit. In the final decree passed in the partition suit, the major portion of the suit property was allotted to the share of the first respondent and to that extent, the sale in favour of the appellant would be ineffective. But in regard to the remaining portion of the suit property which stood allotted to the share of the second respondent in the final decree in the partition suit, the sale by the second respondent in favour of the appellant would be effective, valid and binding on the second respondent and to that extent, the appellant is entitled to a declaration of title and consequential injunction. The suit ought not to have been dismissed in entirety even if the sale by the second respondent in favour of appellant on 11.4.1990 was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The second respondent cannot avoid the sale made by her on the ground that she was held to be not the exclusive owner, in the pending partition suit. Therefore, the courts below ought to have decreed the appellant’s suit in part, in regard to the portion of the suit property that fell to the share of second respondent instead of dismissing the suit. Therefore, the declaration of title with consequential permanent injunction as prayed is granted in regard to that portion of the suit property that was allotted to the second respondent in the partition suit. [Paras 11, 12, 16] [572-B-H; 573-A-B; 576-B] A related suggestion to the Law makers 3.1. Absence of a mechanism for prospective purchasers to verify whether a property is subject to any pending suit or a decree or attachment cause lot of hardship, loss, anxiety and unnecessary litigation. At present, a prospective purchaser can find out about any existing encumbrance over a property either by inspection of the Registration Registers or by securing a certificate relating to encumbrances (that is copies of entries in the Registration Registers) from the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar under Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908. But a prospective purchaser has no way to ascertain whether there is any suit or proceeding pending in respect of the property, if the person offering the property for sale does not disclose it or deliberately suppresses the information. The inconveniences, risks, hardships and misery as a result of such transfers could be avoided and the property litigations could be reduced to a considerable extent, if there is some satisfactory and reliable method by which a prospective purchaser can ascertain whether any suit is pending (or whether the property is subject to any decree or attachment) before he decides to purchase the property. A solution has been found to this problem in the States of Maharashtra by an appropriate local amendment to section 52 of the Act, by Bombay Act 4 of 1939. The Law Commission and the Parliament must consider such amendment or other suitable amendment to cover the existing void in title verification or due diligence procedures. Provision can also be made for compulsory registration of such notices in respect of decrees and in regard to attachments of immoveable properties. [Paras 13, 14] [573-C-H; 574-A-C; 575-C] 3.2. At present in most of the States, agreements to sell are not compulsorily registrable as they do not involve transfer of any right, title or interest in an immoveable property. Registration of agreements of sale will reduce property litigation. It will go a long way to discourage generation and circulation of black money in real estate matters, as also undervaluation of documents for purposes of stamp duty. It will also discourage the growth of land mafia and muscleman who dominate the real estate scene in various parts of the country. [Para 15] [575-D-G] Case Law Reference: AIR 1973 SC 569 relied on Para 9 (2007) 2 SCC 404 relied on Para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10325 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 01.09.2009 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 1141 of 2008. R. Balasubramaniam, B. Karunakaran, V. Balachandran for the Appellant. N. Shobha, Sriram J. Thalapathy, Adhi Venkataraman, S.P. Parthasarthy for the Respondents.
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10325 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] No. 163 of 2010]T.G. Ashok Kumar … AppellantVs.Govindammal & Anr. … Respondents JUDGMENTR.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Notice to respondents was issued limited to the question whether theHigh Court ought to have decreed the appellant’s suit for declaration … Continue reading
The apex court set aside the high court orders which directed that the matter should be decided by civil court in respect of overlapping of lease=to avoid delay, the apex court granted directions in sundur mining lease(1) The Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Karnataka, shall constitute a Committee of officers for conduct of the demarcation and identification of the boundaries of the area leased to the appellant in terms of Mining Lease No.2622. The Committee so constituted shall include the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned, the Chief Conservator of Forests or his nominee who shall be an officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests, the Director of Survey and a Senior Officer of the Mines Department to be nominated by the Secretary. The Secretary shall be free to nominate any other official or officials whom he considers suitable for 25
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8819 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.35213 of 2010) Ashok Kumar Lingala …Appellant Versus State of Karnataka & Ors. …Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8820 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 200 of 2011) L.V. Ashok Kumar Lingala … Continue reading
service matter =The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, first respondent holds examinations for direct recruitment to State and subordinate service posts under the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules 1962 (`Rules’ for short). Appellant appeared as an `open market candidate’ in the 1983 examination and was selected to Rajasthan Tehsildar Services (Subordinate service) and = Sub-rule 1 of Rule 11 of Rules provided that the number of chances which a candidate appearing at the examinations can avail of, shall be restricted to three, for direct recruitment to posts specified in Schedules I and II of the Rules. The said rule was amended by notification dated 30.3.1990 whereby the ceiling in regard to the number of chances to appear in the examination was relaxed by increasing it from 3 to 4 examinations.= Having regard to the bar contained in Rule 4(2)(v), the appellant could not have appeared for the examination for the year 1990, as an NGE candidate, as by then he had appeared only thrice as an open market candidate and had not exhausted all the four chances as an open market candidate.
Not Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8399 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.27941/2008] Ashok Kumar Jain … Appellant Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through its Chairman & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted. 2. The Rajasthan … Continue reading
Shri Shivlal Verma (husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and son of Shri Swaminath and Smt. Tulsi Devi) died in an -MULTIPLIER IS 17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6480 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 951 of 2010) Urmila and others … Appellants Versus Rashpal Kaur and others … Respondents J U D G M E N T G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Feeling dissatisfied with the enhancement … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 