1997(10) Supreme 405
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma CJI., B.N. Kirpal, J.
Rajesh Ahuja -Appellant
versus
Manoj Mittal & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8638-39 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13042- 13043 of 1997)
Decided on 5-12-1997
Counsel For the Parties :
For the Appellant, Vikramjit Sen, Sr. Advocate, Arvind Minocha, Mrs. Veena Minocha, Advocates.
For the Respondents, M.L. Verma, Sr. Advocate, Pramod Dayal, Anand Padmanabhan, Mrs. Ranjana Dutta, Shashi Bhushan, Advocates.
JUDGEMENT
Verma, CJI.-Leave granted.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are not inclined to interfere with the grant of leave to defendant, but we are of the opinion that terms on which leave has been granted should be modified. We are informed that the sum of Rs. 10 lacs has already been deposited in cash by the respondent herein with the High Court against the entire claim in the suit while security has been offered for the amount of Rs. 10 lacs. We modify the condition of grant of leave and direct the defendant/respondent to deposit a further sum of Rs. 10 lacs in the High Court. The entire amount of Rs. 20 lacs would be kept in fixed deposit so that it is available for being paid to the successful party as a result of the decision of the trial Court. On deposit of the balance amount of Rs.10 lacs in the High Court within 8 weeks, the documents for the purpose of security furnished by the defendant/respondent in the High Court would be returned to the defendant/respondent. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Appeal disposed of accordingly.
**********
00020
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.