Back
Supreme Court Of India
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., G.P. MATHUR AND C.K. THAKKER,JJ.
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA-Petitioner
Versus
SHARDA DEVI AND OTHERS – Respondents
SLP (C) No. 13620 of 2004,
Decided on July 27, 2004
Advocates appeared
R.N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate (H.S. Parihar and Kuldeep Parihar, Advocates) for the Petitioner.
ORDER
1.Heard on the question of admission.
2. The High Court, in a pending writ petition, passed an interim order dated 29-3-2004 after hearing all the parties including Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner before us. Reserve Bank of India had raised very many pleas contained in its counter-affidavit dated 8-4-2004. It appears that the petitioner in the High Court moved an application dated 21-4-2004 seeking modification of the order dated 29-3-2004. The prayer for modification has been allowed. The grievance of Reserve Bank of India is that the impugned order of modification dated 23-4-2004 is contrary to law and does not take into consideration various pleas which were raised on behalf of Reserve Bank of India in its counter-affidavit dated 8-4-2004. The impugned order dated 23-4-2004 does not reflect the objections raised on behalf of Reserve Bank of India having been dealt with.
3. In our opinion, better course to follow for Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner before us, would be to approach the High Court inviting its attention to the several pleas raised in its counter-affidavit and such other pleas as may be available to it under the law to urge and seek reconsideration of the order dated 23-4-2004, which is only an nterlocutory order.
4. That being the position, the operation of the order dated 23-4-2004 is directed to remain suspended till the application filed by Reserve Bank of India, which shall be filed within a period of two weeks from today, is heard and disposed of. The High Court shall be at liberty to pass such order as it deems fit on the application of Reserve Bank of India after hearing all the parties interested.
5. The special leave petition be treated as disposed of in the light of the abovesaid liberty to the petitioner Reserve Bank of India and the observations made hereinabove.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
