Selected for UPSC in 2012 and now finally order of appointment is made

 1

ITEM NO.16               COURT NO.5               SECTION XIV

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 25341/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-05-2022

in WP(C) No. 5591/2021 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New

Delhi)

UNION OF INDIA                                     Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

MACCHITA MALIK & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.161457/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY

IN FILING and IA No.161458/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE

IMPUGNED  JUDGMENT  and  IA  No.161456/2022-CONDONATION  OF  DELAY  IN

REFILING /  CURING THE DEFECTS)

Date : 21-11-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG

Ms. Kiran Bala Sahay, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv.

Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.

Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv.

Ms. Ayushi Nagar, Adv.

                   Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR   

For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.

                   Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Arup Sinha, Adv.

Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Arun Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Yogesh Aggarwal, Adv.

Nazish Fatima, Adv.

                   

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                             O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Having  heard  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respective

parties and considering the fact that earlier respondent No.1 did

clear the examination except the medical and nothing is on record

2

that communication dated 27.04.2013 was served upon respondent No.1

by which respondent No.1 was alleged to have been communicated to

appear  before  the  Medical  Board  and  in  the  peculiar  facts  and

circumstances  of  the  case,  we  direct  that  let  respondent  No.1

appear before the Medical Board and on the basis of the report of

the Medical Board, the case of respondent No.1 be considered for

appointment.  

If the respondent is found to be medically fit, his case may

be  considered  for  appointment,  however,  at  the  same  time,

respondent No.1 shall be appointed from the date on which he is

found  to  be  medically  fit  and  he  is  actually  appointed.  Meaning

thereby, he shall not be entitled to any other benefits until he is

actually appointed. 

The aforesaid order is passed considering the fact that for

the recruitment of 2012, he approached the Central Administrative

Tribunal in the year 2021 only.

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of

three months from today. 

With this, the present Special Leave Petition stands disposed

of. 

Pending application stands disposed of. 

(R. NATARAJAN)                                  (NISHA TRIPATHI)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Luxury Option not maintainable; complainant is entitled for delayed compensation @ 6% interest till the offer of possession: NCDRC

 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

CONSUMER CASE NO. 51 OF 2019

1. NEHA SOOD At Present:- Flat No-1401, Dosti Ambrosia, Dosti Acres, Antop Hills, Wadala East, Mumbai - 400037 Maharashtra	...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED (Through its Directors) R/o 306-308, 3rd Floor, Square One, C-2, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi - 110017	...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,MEMBER

For the Complainant :

Mr. Dhruv Gautam, Advocate

For the Opp.Party :

Mr. Arvind Gupta, Advocate

Dated : 17 Nov 2022

ORDER

1.      Heard counsel for the parties.  2.      Above complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of Flat no. PGN-02-0806 in the project ‘Palm Gardens’, Sector-83, Gurgaon, (ii) pay Rs.7212562/- as compensation for delay in handing over possession, (iii) pay interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed compensation, (iv) pay pendent lite future interest @ 12% per annum, (v) pay Rs.100000/- as litigation cost and (vi) other relief which may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.   3.      The complainant has stated that the opposite party was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project. In the year 2010, the opposite party launched a group housing project in the name of ‘Palm Gardens’ at Sector-83, Gurgaon. The complainant, who was in need of a house, booked a flat and deposited the booking amount on 06.10.2011. The opposite party issued an allotment letter dated 27.10.2011 allotting Unit no. PGN-02-0806 size 1900 sq. ft. for basic sale price of Rs.9310000/- and executed Buyers’ Agreement on 28.11.2011 in respect of the aforesaid unit. In Buyers’ Agreement, the basic sale price has been revised to Rs.9500000/-. The mode of payment was “construction linked payment plan”. As per demand, the complainant deposited Rs.11066735/- till 01.07.2017. As per clause 10(a) of the Agreement, possession had to be delivered within 36 months from the date of start of construction with grace period of three months. Due date of possession expired in August 2015 but the opposite party neither completed the construction nor offered possession of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint was filed for possession, delayed compensation etc. In IA/6601/2020, the complainant stated that the opposite party offered the luxury options namely (i) split air conditioners in all the rooms, (ii) modular kitchen with chimney and hob, (iii) imported marble in master bathroom & (iv) imported sanitary & CP fittings (Kohler or equivalent) and its charges were included in the basic sale price but it has not been provided. She prayed that the opposite party be directed either to provide the luxury options or to refund a sum of Rs.1235000/- towards it.  4.      The opposite party filed its written reply and contested the matter.  Material facts relating to the project, allotment of unit no. PGN-02-0806 size 1900 sq. ft. to the complainant and deposits made by her have not been disputed.  However, it has been disputed that the luxury option was offered to the complainant due to mistake. It has been denied that its prices were included in the basic sale price. It has been stated that for force majeure circumstances, construction was delayed and could not be completed on due date as per the Agreement. In Affidavit of Evidence of Rajendra Prasad, the opposite party has stated that after obtaining the occupancy certificate on 17.10.2019, the complainant was offered possession vide letter dated 19.11.2019. 5.      The complainant filed rejoinder reply and Affidavit of Evidence.  Opposite party has also filed Affidavit of Evidence and Affidavit of admission/denial of documents of Rajendra Prasad. Both the parties filed short synopsis of arguments.  6.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. In order to justify the claim of the luxury options, the counsel for the complainant, on the basis of the allotment to her mother of unit no. PGN-03-1504 submitted that her mother was charged for lesser rate of the land in the same project as she was not given luxury option. We have examined the allotment letters of both i.e. of the complainant and her mother. We find that the complainant was allotted the unit at the basic rate of Rs.5000/- per sq. ft. while her mother was allotted unit at the basic rate of Rs.5212/- per sq. ft. As such, the argument in this respect is not substantiated. Otherwise also, perusal of the slip pasted on the Agreement shows that it was merely an option and not a free offer. If any allotte opt for luxury option, he has to pay for it. No separate charges have been paid by the complainant for the luxury options. Therefore, claim for luxury options is not maintainable.  7.      The counsel for the complainant submitted that as per clause-10 (a) of the agreement dated 28.11.2011, possession had to be delivered within 36 months from the date of start of construction with grace period of three months and due date of possession expired in August 2015. The possession was offered on 19.11.2019. Relying upon judgment of three members Bench of this Commission in CC/423/2016 Altaf Ahmed Lal & Anr. Vs. M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & other connected matters, decided on 11.10.2021, in respect of the same project, he claimed delayed compensation in the form of interest @8% per annum on the deposits. 8.      Section 71 of the Contract Act, 1872 prescribes for compensation for breach of the contact, which amounts to actual loss suffered by the party due to such breach. In the cases of delay in delivery of flat, the allottee is getting flat with appreciated value and loss is only of the rent. Supreme Court in Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limited Vs. Manisha Balkrishna Kulkarni & Anr. (2020) 11 SCC 699, R.V. Prasannakumaar & Ors. Vs. Mantri Castles Private Limited & Anr., (2020) 14 SCC 769 and Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana & Ors. Vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 16 SCC 512, held that fair delayed compensation would be interest @ 6% per annum on the deposit. Although the judgment of this Commission is in respect of same project but it is not between the same parties. So for as binding precedent is concerned, judgment from Supreme Court has an overriding effect over contrary judgement of any other sub-ordinate court or tribunal. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for delayed compensation in the form of interest @ 6% per annum on her deposit from due date of possession till the offer of possession.  ORDER           The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to hand over possession as per letter dated 19.11.2019 to the complainant within a period of six weeks. The opposite party shall also prepare a fresh statement of account in respect of delayed compensation in the form of interest @ 6% per annum on the deposit of the complainant, from September 2015 till 19.11.2019. If any amount is payable to the complainant, it shall also be paid within the same period. If any amount is payable by the complainant, she will pay it within one month of communication of statement of account. After completing the documentations, the opposite party shall execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant within a period of one month, thereafter.

......................J

RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

DR. INDER JIT SINGH

MEMBER

Convenience of Parties and witnesses

 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (Crl.) NO. 366 OF 2019

TESHI YAMI & ORS.                                  Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

CBI/ACB                                            Respondent(s)

O R D E R

 

 This  Transfer  Petition  has  been  filed  by  the

petitioners  for  transfer  of  CBI  Case  No. 3  of  2019

(arising out of RC No. 4A of 2016/SHG) titled as  CBI/ACB

vs. Teshi Yami & Ors. Pending before the Court of Special

Judge, CBI, Shillong, Meghalaya to the Court of Special

Judge,  CBI/ACB,  Yupia,  District  Papum  Pare,  Arunachal

Pradesh. 

The  court  is  of  the  opinion  that  looking  at  the

number  of  witnesses  (who  reside  in  Arunachal  Pradesh)

further  having  regard  to  the   fact  that  most  of  other

witnesses do not reside within Meghalaya and also that a

large number of accused reside in Arunachal Pradesh, it

would  be  in  the  larger  interest  of  justice  that  the

proceedings are transferred.  Accordingly, CBI Case  No.

3 of 2019 titled as CBI/ACB vs. Teshi Yami & Ors. pending

2

before  the  Court  of  Special  Judge,  CBI,  Shillong,

Meghalaya is hereby transferred to the Court of Special

Judge,  CBI/ACB,  Yupia,  District  Papum  Pare,  Arunachal

Pradesh.  

The Petitioners who are accused in the said case are

bound out to appear before the Special Judge, CBI  /ACB,

Yupia, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh on 13th  July 2020.

The  transferee  court  shall  secure  the  presence  of

all the other accused and proceed further with the matter.

The  transferor  court  shall  forthwith  transmit  the

record of the aforesaid case to the transferee court.  

Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed in the

above terms. 

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

 

.............................J.

 (S. RAVINDRA BHAT)

NEW DELHI

JUNE 01, 2020

3

ITEM NO.5       Virtual Court 7               SECTION XVI-A

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal)  No(s).  366/2019

TESHI YAMI & ORS.                                  Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

CBI/ACB                                            Respondent(s)

Date : 01-06-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Piyush Sharma, Adv.

                    Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

                  

For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhatti, Sr. Adv.

                    Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

                    Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv.

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                             O R D E R

The Transfer Petition is allowed in terms of the signed

order.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

(NEELAM GULATI)                                 (RAJINDER KAUR)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                         ASSISTANT  REGISTRAR

(Signed order is placed on the file)

Reservation in Jharkhand Higher Judicial Services

 ITEM NO.13               COURT NO.16               SECTION XVII

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13307/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-03-2019

in WP No. 48/2017 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)

DINESH CHOUDHARY                                   Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ORS.          Respondent(s)

(IA No. 85438/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 07-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

For Petitioner(s)   Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv.

Mr. Pran Krishna Jane, Adv.

Ms. Nazish Fatima, Adv.

Mr. Utkarsh Sahu, Adv.

                  

For Respondent(s)   Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR

                    Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR

Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.

                   

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                             O R D E R

The  petitioner  is  before  this  Court  assailing  the

order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand

at Ranchi in WP No. 48/2017.

The issue which arose for consideration in the said

Writ Petition was with regard to the claim of the petitioner

and  certain  other  similarly  placed  persons  seeking  for 

1

providing reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes

and other Backward Classes in the recruitment to the Higher

Judicial Services in the State of Jharkhand.

In that light it was contended that the Notification

for recruitment was issued without providing for reservation

and was violative of the Reservation Policy of the State of

Jharkhand. Though several contentions were urged in the Writ

Petition, considering the fact that the Public Advertisement

No. 1/2017/Apptt. was already issued and as on such date the

Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment

and  Conditions  of  Service)Rule,2001  did  not  provide  for

reservation,  the  High  Court  was  of  the  view  that  no

interference  in  the  process  which  had  already  commenced  is

contemplated when as on the date of the advertisement there

was no provision for reservation in the Rules,2001. The High

Court accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, though

that be the position, subsequent recruitments have been made

and  in  future  also  the  recruitments  are  to  be  made  and

therefore the reservation is to be provided in terms of the

reservation policy of the State.

In that regard, learned counsel appearing for the High

Court  has  referred  to  the  Objection  Statement  filed  herein

indicating that Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide Minutes dated

29.01.2019 has constituted a special Committee of five Hon’ble

Judges  to  consider  the  matter  for  reservation  in  Jharkhand

Higher Judicial Services.  It is also stated therein that that

2

the Committee had considered the matter in its meeting dated

29.07.2019 and had issued certain directions.

In that view it is indicated that the matter is under

active  consideration  before the High Court.  The High Court

having taken note of this aspect and taking into consideration

the  fact  that  steps  have  been  taken  by  the  High  Court  to

constitute  a  Committee  and  the  matter  is  under  due

consideration,  we  see  no  reason  to  pass  any  specific

directions in this petition.

We  are  confident  that  the  High  Court  would  take  an

appropriate decision in accordance with law after securing the

recommendation from the Committee.  It would also be open to

the  petitioner  to  file  appropriate  representation  before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice putting forth their grievances, if

any.

With  the  above  observations,  the  Special  Leave

Petition stands disposed of. 

(RAJNI MUKHI)                               (DIPTI KHURANA)

COURT MASTER (SH)                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

3

After a long battle, 79 persons got employed

 ITEM NO.7               COURT NO.9               SECTION XVI

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 25749/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  19-03-2021

in WPCRC No. 267/2019 29-07-2022 in WPCRC No. 35/2022 passed by the

High Court At Calcutta)

THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER                     Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

ALOK RANJAN ROY & ORS.                             Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.119286/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY

IN FILING and IA No.119288/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 23-09-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG

Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Adv.

Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv.

Mr. Sahil Monga, Adv.

Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR

                  

For Respondent(s) Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Amit S., Adv.

                    

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                             O R D E R

Delay condoned.

The  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  has,  today,  placed

before us a communication sent by the Senior Divisional Personnel

Officer,  Eastern  Railway,  Sealdah  dated  22.09.2022,  stating  that

the competent authorities of railways have initiated the process to

employ  79  (seventy  nine)  applicants.  It  has  further  been  stated

that  the  general  medical  fitness  test  would  be  completed  by

14.10.2022  and  final  appointment  order  would  be  issued  by

21.10.2022.

In continuity with the order dated 26.08.2022, we could only

observe  that  even  if  late,  when  the  authorities  concerned  have

taken  concrete  steps  for  compliance,  it  may  not  be  a  case  of

willful and deliberate disobedience on their part. 

Having said so and having taken note of the submissions made

on behalf of the petitioners, we would modify the impugned order

dated 29.07.2022 in the manner that the observations therein shall

not  operate  against  the  petitioners  provided  the  process  is

completed  as  contemplated  by  the  communication  dated  22.09.2022,

punctually and without fail. We would leave other aspects of the

matter  open  for  consideration  by  the  High  Court  in  the  pending

contempt petition.

A  copy  of  the  said  communication  dated  22.09.2022  may  be

placed on record.

It  goes  without  saying  that  the  decision  as  taken  by  the

competent authorities in this matter had been in reference to the

peculiar circumstances of the case and orders earlier passed in the

matter.

Subject to the observations foregoing, this petition seeking

special leave to appeal stands disposed of.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

(SNEHA DAS)                              (RANJANA SHAILEY)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT                     COURT MASTER (NSH)

SC granted higher the rate of interest on enhanced compensation

 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8103   OF 2022

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5851 /2020)

   SHAMSHER SINGH & ORS.                       APPELLANT(S)

                                VERSUS

   LILA RAM & ORS.

    

            RESPONDENT(S)

                        O R D E R

Leave granted.

We  have  heard  Learned  Counsel  for  the

appellants.  The  only  ground  of  challenge  in  this

appeal filed by the claimant is that the High Court

while allowing enhancement of the compensation only

awarded  6%  interest  on  the  enhanced  amount  of

compensation  though  Motor  Accidents  Claims  Tribunal

(‘the  tribunal’)  has  awarded  9%  interest.  Learned

Counsel  for  the  appellants  contends  that  there

appears to be no rationale in not awarding the same

interest which was awarded by the tribunal even on

the enhanced amount of compensation.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-

insurance  company  tried  to  justify  the  order  by

saying that the High Court has rightly reduced the

rate of interest since the amount of compensation was

being enhanced.

2

We are not impressed by this submission made

on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent. 

We do not find any justification for the High

Court to have reduced the interest component on the

enhanced amount of compensation only because of the

fact  that  the  compensation  awarded  by  the  Tribunal

was being enhanced by it. 

In  view  of  above,  the  part  of  the  impugned

order  passed  by  the  High  Court,  awarding  only  6%

interest  on  enhanced  amount  of  compensation  is  set

aside and the appellants-claimants shall be entitled

for the payment of 9% interest on the total amount

payable as compensation.

The appeal accordingly, stands allowed to the

extent directed above.

…………………………………….J.

[KRISHNA MURARI]

…………………………………….J.

[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]

NEW DELHI;

   03

rd

 November, 2022

3

ITEM NO.6               COURT NO.15               SECTION IV-B

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  5851/2020

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  11-08-2014

in FAO No. 875/2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at

Chandigarh)

SHAMSHER SINGH & ORS.                              Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

LILA RAM & ORS.                                    Respondent(s)

([MACT MATTER] )

Date : 03-11-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv.

Mr. Utkarsh Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Nazish Fatima, Adv.

                  

For Respondent(s) Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Gunjan sharma, Adv.

Mata Prashad Singh, Adv.

Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, Adv.

Ms. Ranjana R. Singh, Adv.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Adv.

Mr. Dharam Pal Singh, Adv.

                    Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR                 

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                             O R D E R

Leave granted.

The order inter alia reads as under:-

“We are not impressed by this submission made

on  behalf  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the

respondent.

We do not find any justification for the High

Court to have reduced the interest component on the

4

enhanced amount of compensation only because of the

fact that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

was being enhanced by it.

In  view  of  above,  the  part  of  the  impugned

order  passed  by  the  High  Court,  awarding  only  6%

interest on enhanced amount of compensation is set

aside  and  the  appellants-claimants  shall  be

entitled  for  the  payment  of  9%  interest  on  the

total amount payable as compensation.”

The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  order.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

   (SONIA GULATI)                             (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT                       COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed order is placed on the file)

Article 142 invoked and granted Divorce to the parties by mutual consent

 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1343 OF 2021

   RINKI

                       

PETITIONER(S)

                                VERSUS

   ARUN KUMAR GAUD 

 

          RESPONDENT(S)

                        O R D E R

We have learned counsel for the parties.

During the pendency of this transfer petition,

the  parties  have  entered  into  a  compromise and  a

joint  application  has  been  filed  with  a  prayer  to

dissolve  the  marriage  in  exercise  of  the  powers

conferred  by  Article  142  of  the  Constitution  of

India. 

Further prayer has also been made to quash all

the  pending  proceedings,  civil  as  well  as  criminal

mentioned in points (b) to (g) of the prayer clause

of the joint application.

Parties are  present in  person and  have been

identified by their learned counsel. Affidavits filed

by them are also on record. 

Considering the above facts and circumstances

exercising  the  powers  under  Article  142  of  the

Constitution of India, we hereby grant Divorce to the

parties by mutual consent. Various disputes civil as

2

well  as  criminal  pending  between  the  parties  as

detailed in clause (b) to (g) of the prayer clause

also stand quashed. The parties henceforth, shall not

have  any  claim  against  each  other  whatsoever  in

respect of the matrimonial dispute. The petitioner-

wife is present before us and has confirmed that she

has  received  the  amount  of  14  lakhs  50  thousand

towards  full  and  final  settlement  between  them  as

agreed in the settlement.

With the aforesaid orders and directions, this

Transfer application stands disposed of. Let a decree

of  divorce  be  drawn  and  the  settlement  agreement

shall be made part of the decree.

The transfer petition stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed

of.

…………………………………….J.

[KRISHNA MURARI]

…………………………………….J.

[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]

NEW DELHI;

   03

rd

 November, 2022

3

ITEM NO.13               COURT NO.15               SECTION XVI-A

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1343/2021

RINKI                                              Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

ARUN KUMAR GAUD                                    Respondent(s)

 IA No. 56280/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

 IA No. 95367/2021 - STAY APPLICATION)

Date : 03-11-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

For Petitioner(s)

                    Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv.

Mr. Utkarsh Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

                  

For Respondent(s)

                    Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, AOR

Mr. S.P. Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Tomar, Adv.

Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv.

Mr. Mohd. Hasibuddin, Adv.

Mrs. Manjulika Pal, Adv.

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Anant Kumar, Adv.

                    

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                             O R D E R

The transfer petition stands disposed of in terms of the

signed order. 

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

4

   (SONIA GULATI)                             (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT                       COURT MASTER (NSH)

(signed order is placed on the file)

Article 142 invoked to do complete justice & passed decree of divorce by mutual consent

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION(CIVIL) NO. 2655 OF 2019

PRASANT KANKRANIA                                  … Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

NEHA KANKRANIA NEE AGARWAL                         … Respondent(s)

WITH

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 485 OF 2020

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Pursuant  to  the  order  dated  22.01.2021,  the  parties  were

referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. 

With  the  assistance  of  the  learned  Mediator,  Mr.  Snehasish

Mukherjee,  Advocate, the  parties have  settled their  disputes and

have executed an agreement.  The parties have agreed to dissolve

their  marriage  by  a  decree  of  divorce  as  the  marriage  has

irretrievably  broken  down.   Both  the  parties  being  economically

independent,  they  do  not  have  any  pecuniary  claims  against  each

other. 

In  exercise  of  jurisdiction  under  Article  142  of  the

Constitution of India, to do complete justice, this Court deems it

appropriate  to  pass  a  decree  of  divorce  by  mutual  consent  under

Section  13-B  of  the  Hindu  Marriage  Act  dissolving  the  marriage

between the petitioner and the respondent.

2

The  cases  filed  by  the  petitioner  and  the  respondent

respectively, as noticed in paragraph 2 of the settlement agreement

shall stand disposed of.

This order shall be communicated to the concerned courts for

necessary action to update the records.

The transfer petitions are, accordingly, disposed of in terms

of the settlement.

Pending  connected  applications,  if  any,  stand  disposed  of

accordingly.

………………………………………………………,J.

(Indira Banerjee)

………………………………………………………,J.

(J.K. Maheshwari)

New Delhi;

February 11, 2022.

3

ITEM NO.30     Court 8 (Video Conferencing)          SECTION XVI-A

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Transfer Petition(s)(Civil)  No(s).  2655/2019

PRASANT KANKRANIA                                  Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

NEHA KANKRANIA NEE AGARWAL                         Respondent(s)

(MEDIATION REPORT HAS BEEN RECEIVED IA No. 71113/2020 - APPLICATION

FOR PERMISSION IA No. 171472/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY IA No. 69687/2020

- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 69686/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

WITH

T.P.(C) No. 485/2020 (XVI-A)

(FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 41186/2020  FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

O.T. ON IA 41193/2020)

Date : 11-02-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :  HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI

For Parties

Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Dr. Kamal Yash Sahwal, Adv.

Mr. Brahma Prakash, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Law, Adv.

Mr. Vivek Bhojrajka, Adv.

Mr. Pran Krishna Jana, Adv. 

Mr. M. P. Vinod, AOR

                  

                    

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                             O R D E R

(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA)                           (MATHEW ABRAHAM)

AR-CUM-PS                                 COURT MASTER (NSH)

Article 142 Invoked by SC and quashed all the cases between parties

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos.349-350/2021

MOHIT BHANDARI                                  Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

SUMEDHA BHANDARI & ORS.                         Respondent(s)

 O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel parties state that the parties have settled

their dispute and are living together.  

The  question  which  has  to  be  still  examined  is  in  what

manner  the  litigation  already  initiated  by  the  parties  be

quashed. In terms of the settlement agreement dated 09.06.2022

following  cases  are  mentioned  which  are  lying  pending  between

the parties:

“CASES FILED BY MOHIT BHANDARI- PETITIONER

a. Criminal Revision No.95/2021 pending before the Ld.

Addl. Session Judge, Ludhiana (Punjab) wherein the

next date of hearing is 27.7.2022.

b. Criminal  Miscellaneous  No.316  of  2020  filed  before

Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar

(UP), U/s. 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act

1956 r/w Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

for seeking custody of the child wherein next date

of hearing is 20.7.2022.

1

CASES FILED BY SUMEDHA BHANDARI-RESPONDENT

Because of the misunderstanding, the respondent wife filed

following cases:

a.  FIR  No.91/2019  dated  29.7.2019  at  PS  Mahila  Thana,

District-Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) u/S 313/323/504/498-A,

R/W  Section  3  and  4  of  the  Dowry  Prohibition  Act,

wherein  the  Police  filed  chargesheet  against  the

Petitioner u/S 323, 504, 498-A R/W Section 3 and 4 of

the Dowry  Prohibition Act  and is  now pending  before

the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Gautam  Budh  Nagar

bearing Criminal Case No.160862/2020 wherein the next

date of hearing is 28.6.2022.

b.  A  Maintenance  Petition  u/S  125  Cr.P.C.  bearing

No.MNT/125/2075/2019 in the Court of Hon’ble Principal

Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana wherein the next date of

hearing is 26.9.2022.

c. A complaint case bearing No.COMA/27328/2019, u/S 12 of

the  Protection  of  Women  from  Domestic  Violence  Act,

2005 before the Illaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana, wherein

the next date of hearing is 06.8.2022.”

 Prayer is made on behalf of the parties for quashing of above-

mentioned  proceedings  initiated  against  each  other  and/  or  the

proceedings should be treated as withdrawn.

In  view  of  the  endeavour  of  the  parties  to  live  together,

existence  of  these  cases  would  certainly  come  in  the  way.

Therefore,  we  are  inclined  to  exercise  our  jurisdiction  under

Article 142 of the Constitution of India and quash all the cases

filed inter se the parties. 

2

The  Settlement  agreement  is  taken  on  record  and  the  IA  No.

106534/2022-application for settlement stands disposed of.

In  view  of  the  settlement  agreement  the  transfer  petitions

have become infructuous and are accordingly disposed of.

………………………………………………………J.

(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)

………………………………………………………J.

(ABHAY S. OKA)

NEW DELHI

07

th

 September, 2022

3

ITEM NO.10               COURT NO.3               SECTION XVI-A

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal)  No(s).  349-350/2021

MOHIT BHANDARI                                     Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

SUMEDHA BHANDARI & ORS.                            Respondent(s)

(IA No.105377/2021-EX-PARTE STAY

 IA No. 106534/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SETTLEMENT)

Date : 07-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

For Petitioner(s)   Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Bidhuri, Adv.

Mr. Vinod Kaushik, Adv.

Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwary, Adv.

Mr. Pran Krishna Jana, Adv.

Mr. Utkarsh Sahu, Adv.

                

  For Respondent(s) Mr. Karan Dewan, Adv.

Miss Aanchal Jain, AOR

Mr. Kartik Yadav, Adv.

                    

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                             O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The transfer petitions have become infructuous in terms of the

signed order.

Pending applications stand disposed of.

(RASHMI DHYANI PANT)                            (POONAM VAID)

  COURT MASTER                                   COURT MASTER

(signed order is placed on the file)

4