2.10.11

Case Laws - 03.09.2011

03.09.2011
Bitmap
No.
DISPOSED ONORDERREGARDINGCOURT CASE NO;YEARPETITIONERSRESPONDENTSPETITIONER's   ADVOCATERESPONDENT's ADVOCATERESPONDENT's ADVOCATERESPONDENT's ADVOCATECOURTCOURT
1DISPOSED      25 July, 1986Supreme Court Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 1907, 1986 SCR (3) 383State Government Pensioners'  State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 July, 1986Bench: Thakkar, M.P.
2DISPOSEDSupreme Court  CIVIL APPEAL55912006K.J.S. Buttar  Union of India and Anr.Markandey Katju, J.Gyan Sudha Misra
3DISPOSED ONHome dept officials rapped for denying promotionsCHENNAI
4DISPOSED ON 3.12.2007.IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLACWP2006K. S. Raina. Union of India and others. Ms. Ranjana ParmarMs. Shilpa Sood (Union of India)Mr.Ashwani Sharma(Respondents 2 &3 ) Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
5DISPOSED ON 9/10/1998In the result, this appeal fails and  is  dismissed.             S U P R E M E      C O U R T   O F    I N D I AV. KASTURIMANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY & ANR.S.B. MAJUMDAR M JAGANNADHA RAO
6DISPOSED ON 17/12/1982   Petition allowed.             S U P R E M E      C O U R T   O F    I N D I AD.S. NAKARA & OTHERSUNION OF INDIADESAI, D.A.,CHANDRACHUD,Y.V.(C.J.),TULJAPURKAR, V.D.  V.D.,REDDY,O.CHINNAPPA(J),ISLAM BAHARUL (J)
7DISPOSED ONpassed the order  that he was fully qualified for the benefit because he fulfilled the criterion enunciated in rule 12(a) of the Pension rules that a teacher should have served minimum of 10 years to claim the pension. orders pension to 83-year old former teacher Madras  S Sankaran
8DISPOSED ON February 24,2009.dismissed SUPREME COURT OF INDIA -CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONREVIEW PETITION(C) 1702009UNION OF INDIA & ANR.          MAJOR GEN.SPS VAINS(RETD.) & ORS.           ALTAMAS KABIR,J. MARKANDEY KATJU,J.
9DISPOSED ON 12th January, 2010JAIPUR HIGH COURT  S.B. Civil Writ Petition 6542007Krishna Murari Lal AsthanaUnion of India & Ors.Mr.Abhinav Sharma, Ms.Anita Aggarwal,G.C. Mr.S.S. Raghav  JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
10DISPOSED ON 3-Jun-10dismissed. 3-Jun-10 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA -CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCivil Appeal 9732007Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs.     Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. & Ors.    B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]2
11DISPOSED ON 3-Jun-10                                    allowed.   3-Jun-10 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA -CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCivil Appeal 9742007Ghaziabad Development Authority                    Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. & Ors.   HON'BLE B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]2
12DISPOSED ON 4.7.2008writ petition is allowed IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHCWP 11281997Madan Lal Gandhi and others Union of India and others .....Respondents.Shri K.K.GuptaShri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.Shri B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
13DISPOSED ON 20/09/2010He submitted that accordingly, main grievance of present petitioner is satisfied by Respondent No.1 LIC.IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 11682010LIC PENSIONER'S ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS PRESEDENT & 5 - Petitioner(s)LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & 3 - Respondent(s)MR GT PARIKH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 6.MR AK CLERK for Respondent(s) : 1,MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 2,MS DHARMISHTA RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 3, MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
14  28.6.2011MADRASWrit Appeal 120920071.G.Palani &others1.Bank of Barodaand others:  Mr.AL.Somayaji,: Mr.A.P.S.Kasturi Rangan for.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO , JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN2
15 12/02/200830. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-.  Gratuity Case of LICSupreme Court Appeal (civil) 12892007PETITIONER: Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Retired L.I.C. Officers Association and othersBENCH: S.B. SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI JUDGMENT:2
16DISPOSED ONCWP    CM   29352005
17DISPOSED ON -9-Sep-08 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA -CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL@SPECIAL 55662008UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                   Petitioner(s)MAJOR GEN.SPS VAINS(RETD.) & ORS.          1)ALTAMAS KABIR,J.2)MARKANDEY KATJU,J.2
18DISPOSED ON 12th January, 2010JAIPUR HIGH COURT CWP 66761998Krishna Murari Lal AsthanaUnion of India & Ors.Mr.Abhinav Sharma, Ms.Anita Aggarwal,G.C. Mr. Anurag Aggarwal, Mr.Manoj Singh Ragav JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
19DISPOSED SLP civil123572006UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                   Petitioner(s)MAJOR GEN.SPS VAINS(RETD.) & ORS.          
20DISPOSED CWP    CM   14351 2004
21DISPOSED              S U P R E M E     C O U R T   O F    I N D I ACivil Misc. Petition180441988M. L. JAINUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
22DISPOSED              S U P R E M E     C O U R T   O F    I N D I APetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 208302010M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD & ORS.  
23DISPOSED ON 10/12/20073. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Hence, dismissed.IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION213452007MANOJBHAI N. SHAH & 66 - Petitioner(s)UNION OF INDIA & 4 - Respondent(s)MR DHARME             SH V SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 67.None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
24DISPOSED ON 10/12/20073. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Hence, dismissed.IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADBitmap
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION
214112007MANOJBHAI N. SHAH & 66 - Petitioner(s)UNION OF INDIA & 4 - Respondent(s)MR DHARMESH V SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 67.None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5..JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
25Bitmap
 DISPOSEDAugust 27, 2010
 special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Bitmap
             S U P R E M E      C O U R T   O F    I N D I ASLP (Civil)CC converted to Special Leave Petition 12189 converted to 254712010STATE OF HARYANA & ANR                                       DAYANAND & ORS.                                              1) JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI 2)JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY2
26DISPOSED 14/09/2010 benefit  should be extended to all retired employees ERNAKULAMWP(C).279292003 T.R. VIJAYAN and others. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA and others :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM, ADDL.CGSC Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
27:31/08/2010Even a retrospective amendment cannot  take away the rights of an employee for  retirement benefits  ERNAKULAM OP. 37198   2001   M.C.RATNAKARAN 1. CANARA BANK        Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
28
29 “the object of compensation is the fall in the value of the rupee & the neutralization in cost of living is completely defeated by payment of DR  after reducing slab at all stages & that Pensioner drawing a monthly basic pension of  Rs3000 is treated on par with a person drawing a basic pay of Rs6000 in the matter of payment of DR/DA,which  is unjust & unreasonable.’’Kerala HC Chandrasekara Menon T vs UOI & Ors, ruled , “the object of compensation is the fall in the value of the rupee & the neutralization in cost of living is completely defeated by payment of DR  after reducing slab at all stages & that Pensioner drawing a monthly basic pension of  Rs3000 is treated on par with a person drawing a basic pay of Rs6000 in the matter of payment of DR/DA,which  is unjust & unreasonable.’’ UOI & Ors
30such a statement is unfounded, & is nothing but meekness with no constitutional or legal foundationKerala HC  (WP9)127682006 Manmohan C & Others  Kerala StateWareHousing Corporation 
31 verdict ,which appeared in Indian Express dt 4 August,2010 ,wherein the Tribunal unequivocally pronounced  'distinction in pension on basis of Retirement date is unreasonable ,violates Article 14 of Constitution.' It ordered 'end disparity in pension & other benefits to Defence Personnel who retired prior to January 2006 & those who retired after 1/2006. Army Tribunal Bench 
32Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap
“We are of the view that Court judgments when delivered on merits should not only be implemented invariably but their benefits should also be extended to similarly placed persons without requiring them to resort to litigation (para141.27)V CPCBitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap Bitmap
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment