SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Pat) 918

SHIVAJI PANDEY, PARTHA SARTHY
Union of India through the Secretary (Food), Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, through its Chairman Cum Managing Director – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asst. Solicitor General Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, C.G.C. Mrs. Priya Gupta, Advocate Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate

ORDER :

SHIVAJI PANDEY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. All these Letters Patent Appeals are arising from the common order passed in different writ petitions as well as review applications and in all the appeals limitation petitions have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the respective appeals. The Food Corporation of India (hereinafter mentioned as “the F.C.I.”) filed the appeals against the judgment and order passed in three writ petitions as well as against the orders passed in the three review applications. Similarly, the Union of India has also filed appeals against the order passed in the three writ petitions as well as against the order passed in three review applications. Altogether 12 appeals have been filed by the Food Corporation of India as well as the Union of India.

3. In all the cases, the matter relates to refund of amount of supply of levy sugar for the period 1995-96, which has been turned down by the Food Corporation of India with the simple excuse that they would be taken up after the disposal of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the F.C.I. against the judgment and order passed in L.P.A. No. 380 of 2002.

4. While

                    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                    1
                    2
                    3
                    4
                    5
                    6
                    7
                    8
                    9
                    10
                    11
                    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                    supreme today icon
                    logo-black

                    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

                    qr

                    Scan Me!

                    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                    whatsapp-icon Back to top