Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., S.P. BHARUCHA, J.
(Record of Proceedings)
UNION OF INDIA, OTHERS Petitioners;
Versus
SUSHIL KUMAR MODI, OTHERS Respondents.
SLPs (C) Nos. 17144-17145 of 1997
Decided on September 11,1997
ORDER
1. Learned Attorney General submits that the real grievance in this petition is against the direction given by the High Court in the order dated 29-8-1997 pertaining to the inquiry into the manner in which the assistance of the army was sought for execution of the warrant of arrest against Shri Laloo Yadav. We find that in the special leave petition, the real grievance of the petitioner has not been brought out clearly and the specific portions of the High Courts order dated 29-8-1997 have not been indicated against which the petitioner has the grievance. This be done by amending the petition within four days.
2. In a matter of this kind, which is a PIL matter, it is unnecessary to issue notice to all the respondents and to permit all the individuals shown as respondents (writ petitioners in the High Court) to continue as separate parties in the matter. In view of the fact that Shri Shanti Bhushan appears for one of these respondents (Respondent 11) and that the remaining writ petitioners/respondents have identical interest, which in substance is a matter of public interest, we do not direct issue of notice to the others.
3. We now request Shri Shanti Bhushan to appear as amicus curiae in this matter in this Court and, therefore, none of the original writ petitioners/individual respondents in the special leave petition have any additional or distinct right of appearance in the matter. Shri Gopal Singh is requested to assist Shri Shanti Bhushan. We make this direction in consonance with the procedure adopted in other similar matters in this Court.
4. Issue notice only to Respondents 5 to 8 and 14 to 19.
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
