Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. Lahoti, CJI., G.P. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
State of U.P. and others - Petitioners
Versus
Jeet S. Bisht and another - Respondents
I.A. Nos. 8, 11, 15 and...in SLP(C) No. 6928 of 1999 with WP(C) No. 164 of 2002.
Decided On : 04-05-2005
ORDER :
I.A. No. 8/2003 in SLP(C) No. 6928/1999
1. The learned senior counsel for the applicant has pressed in particular relief (f) sought for in the application. The learned counsel for the State of U.P. states that a decision in this regard has been taken favourable to the applicant and it is awaiting clearance at the highest level. Six weeks's time is allowed for the purpose of finalising the a decision and bringing the same on record.
2. The attention of the learned counsel for the State of U.P. is invited to the order dated 17.1.2005 made on I.A. Nos. 12 and 13. The learned counsel for the State states that the appointed time of four months is yet to expire and the decision will be taken within that much time and then brought on record through an affidavit.
I.A. No. 11/2003
3. To come up for hearing with W.P.(C) No. 164/2002.
I.A. No. 15/2005
4. Issue notice to the State of Uttaranchal.
WP(C) No. 164/2002
5. The matter would need to be heard afresh in view of several subsequent developments. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be allowed liberty of filing a fresh and complete statement setting out the relevant facts and statistics, the problematic areas wherein directions of the Court are sought for, for the purpose of making several Consumer Fora fully functional, and the suggestions which the Petitioner chooses to put forth for the consideration of the Court in the direction of resolution. As prayed, four weeks' time is allowed for the purpose.
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
