Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam, CJI., Ranjan Gogoi, M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.
R. Subramaniam - Petitioner
Versus
Murugappa Gounder and others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1793 of 2014
Decided On : 31-01-2014
ORDER :
1. Though the respondents duly served with notice but are not represented by counsel.
Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant.
Leave granted.
2. The only grievance of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that though the learned Single Judge accepted the apology tendered by the appellant and Respondent No. 2 herein, forwarded a copy of the order passed in the contempt petition to the Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai, for initiating appropriate action.
3. We have gone through the order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 30 of 2012. In Para 20 and 21 the learned Single Judge clearly accepted the ‘unconditional apology' tendered by Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 therein. In spite of acceptance directed the authority to take action against them. When the said order was challenged in the Contempt Appeal No. 3 of 2012, the Division Bench by its impugned order confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal.
4. In the light of the fact that the persons concerned including the appellant herein have made unconditional apology in the form of an affidavit and having been accepted by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that further direction to the Department concerned for appropriate action neither permissible nor is warranted. Accordingly, the said direction as found in para 20 of the order of the learned Single Judge and the confirmation order of Division Bench are set aside.
The appeal is allowed on the above terms. No cost.
Appeal allowed.
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
