IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3198 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 10478/2010 ) IQBAL NATH SHARMA (D) BY LRS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted. Heard Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Iqbal Nath Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the deceased appellant), who was an ex serviceman from the Armed Forces, after his retirement from the Army on 31.7.1986 was re-employed as Senior Field Assistant in the Cabinet Secretariat in the Motor Transport Department on and from 23.8.1986. He was issued a charge memo dated 7.4.2004, wherein as many as ten charges were levelled against him. Nine charges related to forged acknowledgment receipts of medical bills claimed to have been 1
submitted with the Department for reimbursement and the tenth charge related to production of false medical claim for treatment under an ENT Specialist by name, Dr. V.P. Aggarwal. At the very outset, it must be noted that the deceased appellant did not gain any monetary benefit based on the above claims, inasmuch as even before sanctioning of the reimbursement, the above alleged false claim came to be noted by the Department. Initially, an inquiry was held and a Report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 3.7.2004 finding the deceased appellant guilty of all the charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority invoked Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, (for short, 'the Rules') and decided to hold a de novo inquiry by appointing a new Inquiry Officer on the ground that the inquiry conducted was not in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 14 of the Rules. In the second Inquiry also a Report came to be submitted holding that all the charges were found proved. The said Report was dated 12.6.2006. The deceased appellant was removed from service by 2
order dated 17.11.2006. The order of removal was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 12.3.2007. When the deceased appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No.912 of 2007, the Tribunal in its order dated 24.1.2008 partly allowed the application and held that Rule 15 was not followed in letter and spirit and that the punishment for the acts of misconduct found proved against the deceased appellant was disproportionate. Subsequently, the Appellate Authority passed the second order on 25.4.2008 reiterating its earlier conclusion and held that there was no violation of Rule 15 and that the punishment was not disproportionate. When the deceased appellant approached the Tribunal again on the second time, the Tribunal in its order dated 3.12.2008 passed in O.A. No.1690 of 2008 confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority and the Division Bench also having declined to interfere with the said order of the Tribunal, the appellants who are the legal representatives of the deceased employee are 3
before us. Mrs. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the respondents failed to comply with the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 24.01.2008 in the proper perspective, inasmuch as there was gross violation of Rule 15 when the Disciplinary Authority decided to hold a de novo inquiry without assigning any reason and that even the order directing to hold a de novo inquiry was not permissible under Rule 15. Learned senior counsel then contended that the proportionality of the punishment was not duly addressed by the Appellate Authority after the earlier order of remand passed by the Tribunal. As against the above submission, Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that the Disciplinary Authority was well justified in invoking Rule 15 while ordering for de novo inquiry, inasmuch as the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer was not in accordance with Rule 14, that the respondent was not duly notified about the holding of the inquiry on 4
various dates and that the appointment of second Inquiry Officer was necessitated, inasmuch as the previous Inquiry Officer retired from service. As regards the proportionality of the punishment, learned counsel submitted that though the deceased appellant did not gain any monetary advantage based on a false claim if the falsity in the submission of bills had gone unnoticed it would have resulted in a huge monetary loss of approximately Rs.4,82,894/- towards reimbursement of medical bills apart from the treatment claim of Rs.1,50,487.40. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the Appellate Authority was well justified in its subsequent order passed after remand made by the Tribunal. Having considered the respective submissions, insofar as violation of Rule 15 is concerned, we find that the appellants did not raise the said point before the Division Bench. A perusal of the impugned order disclose that the only point which was contended before the Division Bench pertains to the proportionality 5
of the punishment based on the charges found proved against the deceased appellant. In fact, when the Tribunal passed its earlier order on 24.1.2008 in O.A. No.912 of 2007, the case was remitted back to the Appellate Authority to consider the questions relating to violation of Rule 15 and the proportionality of the punishment based on 35 years of service i.e. the service put in by the deceased appellant in the Army as well as in the Cabinet Secretariat. The said order of the Tribunal was not challenged by the appellants. Therefore, the appellants cannot now be permitted to raise any ground as regards the proof or otherwise of the misconduct alleged against the deceased appellant. The only other question left open for consideration was relating to violation of Rule 15 and the proportionality of the punishment by taking into account the period of service as 35 years. As noted above earlier, the violation of Rule 15 was not a point in issue before the Division Bench. We, therefore, do not propose to deal with the same in this appeal. We, 6
therefore, confine our consideration only to the question of proportionality of the punishment. It was not brought to our notice relating to any Rule or condition of service to state that the service put in by the deceased appellant in the Army can be tagged along with the service after his re-employment in the Cabinet Secretariat. In the said circumstances, it will have to be held that the service can be counted only from the date of his re-employment, namely, 27.8.1986 and the date of his removal from service i.e. on 17.11.2006, namely, twenty years and three months. The misconduct found proved was the alleged forged acknowledgments for having submitted the medical bills and false claim for having availed treatment for a value of more than Rs.1.5 lacs. It is not in dispute that though such claims were made by the deceased appellant, the same was not sanctioned, since even before that the respondent decided to take action against the deceased appellant. Taking into account the said factors, we are of the view that though the act of 7
misconduct found proved cannot be dealt with lightly, the punishment of removal may not be warranted while the other major punishment of compulsory retirement would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, we are convinced that the punishment of compulsory retirement, which is also one of the major punishments under Rule 11 (vii) can be imposed instead of removal from service taking into account the long service of twenty years put in by the deceased appellant. With the said modification in the matter of punishment, the impugned order of the High Court stands confirmed. Based on the said modified punishment of compulsory retirement whatever terminal benefits as well as family pension payable to the dependents of the deceased appellant shall be processed and wherever it needs to be granted, the same may be granted by passing appropriate orders. Since it is stated that Iqbal Nath Sharma (deceased appellant) died on 15.3.2012, it will be appreciated if the respondents pass such orders within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8
With the above modification and directions the appeal stands disposed of. ................................J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ................................J. [S.A. BOBDE] NEW DELHI; MARCH 29, 2016. 9
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV 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). 10478/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/02/2010 in WP No. 8007/2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) IQBAL NATH SHARMA (D) BY LRS. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S) (with interim relief and office report) (For Final Disposal) Date : 29/03/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Sr.Adv. M r. G. Balaji,Adv. Ms. Shiva Vijaya Kumar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nikhil Majithia,Adv. Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv. Mr. R.S. Jena,Adv. Mr. Raj Singh Rana,Adv. Ms. Nivedita Nair,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file) 10
\214YIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 3198 OF 2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 10478/2010 )IQBAL NATH SHARMA (D) BY LRS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E RLeave granted.Heard Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learnedsenior counsel appearing for the appellants andMr. Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel appearingfor the respondents.Iqbal Nath Sharma (hereinafter referred toas the deceased appellant), who was an exserviceman from the Armed Forces, after hisretirement from the Army on 31.7.1986 wasre-employed as Senior Field Assistant in theCabinet Secretariat in the Motor TransportDepartment on and from 23.8.1986. He wasissued a charge memo dated 7.4.2004, wherein asmany as ten charges were levelled against him.Nine charges related to forged acknowledgmentreceipts of medical bills claimed to have been1submitted with the Department for reimbursementand the tenth charge related to production offalse medical claim for treatment under an ENTSpecialist by name, Dr. V.P. Aggarwal. At the very outset, it must be noted thatthe deceased appellant did not gain anymonetary benefit based on the above claims,inasmuch as even before sanctioning of thereimbursement, the above alleged false claimcame to be noted by the Department. Initially,an inquiry was held and a Report was submittedby the Inquiry Officer on 3.7.2004 finding thedeceased appellant guilty of all the charges.However, the Disciplinary Authority invokedRule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, (for short,the Rules) and decided to hold a de novoinquiry by appointing a new Inquiry Officer onthe ground that the inquiry conducted was notin accordance with the procedure laid downunder Rule 14 of the Rules. In the secondInquiry also a Report came to be submittedholding that all the charges were found proved.The said Report was dated 12.6.2006. Thedeceased appellant was removed from service by2order dated 17.11.2006. The order of removalwas also confirmed by the Appellate Authorityby order dated 12.3.2007. When the deceased appellant approached theCentral Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A.No.912 of 2007, the Tribunal in its order dated24.1.2008 partly allowed the application andheld that Rule 15 was not followed in letterand spirit and that the punishment for the actsof misconduct found proved against the deceasedappellant was disproportionate. Subsequently,the Appellate Authority passed the second orderon 25.4.2008 reiterating its earlier conclusionand held that there was no violation of Rule 15and that the punishment was notdisproportionate. When the deceased appellantapproached the Tribunal again on the second
time, the Tribunal in its order dated 3.12.2008passed in O.A. No.1690 of 2008 confirmed theorder of the Appellate Authority and theDivision Bench also having declined tointerfere with the said order of the Tribunal,the appellants who are the legalrepresentatives of the deceased employee are3before us.Mrs. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned seniorcounsel appearing for the appellants contendedthat the respondents failed to comply with theearlier order of the Tribunal dated 24.01.2008in the proper perspective, inasmuch as therewas gross violation of Rule 15 when theDisciplinary Authority decided to hold a denovo inquiry without assigning any reason andthat even the order directing to hold a de novoinquiry was not permissible under Rule 15.Learned senior counsel then contended that theproportionality of the punishment was not dulyaddressed by the Appellate Authority after theearlier order of remand passed by the Tribunal.As against the above submission, Mr.Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel appearing forthe respondents pointed out that theDisciplinary Authority was well justified ininvoking Rule 15 while ordering for de novoinquiry, inasmuch as the procedure followed bythe Inquiry Officer was not in accordance withRule 14, that the respondent was not dulynotified about the holding of the inquiry on4various dates and that the appointment ofsecond Inquiry Officer was necessitated,inasmuch as the previous Inquiry Officerretired from service. As regards theproportionality of the punishment, learnedcounsel submitted that though the deceasedappellant did not gain any monetary advantagebased on a false claim if the falsity in thesubmission of bills had gone unnoticed it wouldhave resulted in a huge monetary loss ofapproximately Rs.4,82,894/- towardsreimbursement of medical bills apart from thetreatment claim of Rs.1,50,487.40. The learnedcounsel, therefore, submitted that theAppellate Authority was well justified in itssubsequent order passed after remand made bythe Tribunal. Having considered the respectivesubmissions, insofar as violation of Rule 15 isconcerned, we find that the appellants did notraise the said point before the Division Bench.A perusal of the impugned order disclose thatthe only point which was contended before theDivision Bench pertains to the proportionality5of the punishment based on the charges foundproved against the deceased appellant. Infact, when the Tribunal passed its earlierorder on 24.1.2008 in O.A. No.912 of 2007, thecase was remitted back to the AppellateAuthority to consider the questions relating toviolation of Rule 15 and the proportionality ofthe punishment based on 35 years of service
i.e. the service put in by the deceasedappellant in the Army as well as in the CabinetSecretariat. The said order of the Tribunalwas not challenged by the appellants.Therefore, the appellants cannot now bepermitted to raise any ground as regards theproof or otherwise of the misconduct allegedagainst the deceased appellant. The only other question left open forconsideration was relating to violation of Rule15 and the proportionality of the punishment bytaking into account the period of service as 35years. As noted above earlier, the violationof Rule 15 was not a point in issue before theDivision Bench. We, therefore, do not proposeto deal with the same in this appeal. We,6therefore, confine our consideration only tothe question of proportionality of thepunishment. It was not brought to our noticerelating to any Rule or condition of service tostate that the service put in by the deceasedappellant in the Army can be tagged along withthe service after his re-employment in theCabinet Secretariat. In the saidcircumstances, it will have to be held that theservice can be counted only from the date ofhis re-employment, namely, 27.8.1986 and thedate of his removal from service i.e. on17.11.2006, namely, twenty years and threemonths. The misconduct found proved was thealleged forged acknowledgments for havingsubmitted the medical bills and false claim forhaving availed treatment for a value of morethan Rs.1.5 lacs. It is not in dispute thatthough such claims were made by the deceasedappellant, the same was not sanctioned, sinceeven before that the respondent decided to takeaction against the deceased appellant. Taking into account the said factors, weare of the view that though the act of7misconduct found proved cannot be dealt withlightly, the punishment of removal may not bewarranted while the other major punishment ofcompulsory retirement would meet the ends ofjustice. Therefore, we are convinced that thepunishment of compulsory retirement, which isalso one of the major punishments under Rule 11(vii) can be imposed instead of removal fromservice taking into account the long service oftwenty years put in by the deceased appellant.With the said modification in the matterof punishment, the impugned order of the HighCourt stands confirmed. Based on the saidmodified punishment of compulsory retirementwhatever terminal benefits as well as familypension payable to the dependents of thedeceased appellant shall be processed andwherever it needs to be granted, the same maybe granted by passing appropriate orders.Since it is stated that Iqbal Nath Sharma(deceased appellant) died on 15.3.2012, it willbe appreciated if the respondents pass suchorders within three months from the date ofreceipt of copy of this order.8
With the above modification and directionsthe appeal stands disposed of.................................J.[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]................................J.[S.A. BOBDE]NEW DELHI;MARCH 29, 2016.9ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10478/2010(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/02/2010in WP No. 8007/2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)IQBAL NATH SHARMA (D) BY LRS. PETITIONER(S) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. RESPONDENT(S)(with interim relief and office report)(For Final Disposal)Date : 29/03/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDEFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Sr.Adv.M r. G. Balaji,Adv.Ms. Shiva Vijaya Kumar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nikhil Majithia,Adv.Mrs. Asha G. Nair,Adv.Mr. R.S. Jena,Adv.Mr. Raj Singh Rana,Adv.Ms. Nivedita Nair,Adv.Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RLeave granted.The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER(Signed order is placed on the file)10
ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV 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). 10478/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/02/2010 in WP No. 8007/2009 04/02/2010 in WP No. 8007/2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) IQBAL NATH SHARMA (D) BY LRS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNIOON OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) (For final disposal) Date : 16/02/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shiva Vijaya Kumar, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Adv. Mr. R.S. Rana, Adv. Mr. R.S Jena, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List next week. (USHA BHARDWAJ) (SHARDA KAPOOR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
\202 ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV 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). 10478/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/02/2010 in WP No. 8007/2009 04/02/2010 in WP No. 8007/2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) IQBAL NATH SHARMA (D) BY LRS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNIOON OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) (For final disposal) Date : 16/02/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shiva Vijaya Kumar, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Adv. Mr. R.S. Rana, Adv. Mr. R.S Jena, Adv. Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List next week. (USHA BHARDWAJ) (SHARDA KAPOOR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySuman WadhwaDate: 2016.02.1716:59:56 ISTReason:
ITEM NO.43 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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10478/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/02/2010 in WP No. 8007/2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) IQBAL NATH SHARMA (D) BY LRS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 15/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shiva Vijaya Kumar, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, A.O.R. For Respondent(s) Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv. Mr. Raj Singh Rana, Adv. Mr. R.S. Jena, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, A.O.R. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the mater on 9 th February, 2016 for final disposal. [KALYANI GUPTA] COURT MASTER [SHARDA KAPOOR] COURT MASTER
è ITEM NO.43 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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10478/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/02/2010 in WP No. 8007/2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) IQBAL NATH SHARMA (D) BY LRS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 15/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shiva Vijaya Kumar, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, A.O.R. For Respondent(s) Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv. Mr. Raj Singh Rana, Adv. Mr. R.S. Jena, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Majithia, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, A.O.R. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the mater on 9th February, 2016 for final disposal.Signature Not Verified [KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR]Digitally signed bySanjay Kumar COURT MASTER COURT MASTERDate: 2016.01.1916:47:49 ISTReason:
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIV 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). 10478/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/02/2010 in WP No. 8007/2009,04/02/2010 in WP No. 8007/2009 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) IQBAL NATH SHARMA (D) BY LRS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL) Date :24/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Shiva vijaya Kumar, Adv. for Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K Parmeshwar, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Adv. Mr. K Parmeshwar, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balramdas, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused letter, dated 23.11.2015. List after four weeks. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Asstt. Registrar
@ ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIV 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). 10478/2010 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/02/2010 in WP No. 8007/2009,04/02/2010 in WP No. 8007/2009 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) IQBAL NATH SHARMA (D) BY LRS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL) Date :24/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Shiva vijaya Kumar, Adv. for Mr. G. Balaji,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K Parmeshwar, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Adv. Mr. K Parmeshwar, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balramdas, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused letter, dated 23.11.2015. List after four weeks. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Asstt. RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byCharanjeet KaurDate: 2015.11.2617:14:52 ISTReason:
ôITEM NO. 46 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 PROCEEDINGSPetition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10478/2010(From the judgement and order dated 04/02/2010 in WP No.8007/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)IQBAL NATH SHARMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordand with prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 11/04/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTUFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, Adv. for M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.For Respondent(s) Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Deepak Jain, Adv. Mr. D.K. Thakur, Adv. Ms. Yogita Yadav, Adv. Ms. Mudrika Bansal, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List for final disposal. (VINOD LAKHINA) (KUSUM GULATI) Court Master Court Master
ôITEM NO. 49 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 PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10478/2010(From the judgement and order dated 04/02/2010 in WP No.8007/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)IQBAL NATH SHARMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordand with prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 07/03/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTUFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, Adv. for M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohan Jain, ASG Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Adv. Ms. Shipra Ghose, Adv. Mr. Deepak Jain, Adv. Ms. Yogita Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit within four weeks. List thereafter. (VINOD LAKHINA) (KUSUM GULATI) Court Master Court Master
&ITEM NO. 55 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 PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10478/2010(From the judgement and order dated 04/02/2010 in WP No.8007/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)IQBAL NATH SHARMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on recordand prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 31/01/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTUFor Petitioner(s) M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Adv. (NP)For Respondent(s) Mr. H.P. Rawal, ASG Ms. Shipra Ghose, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused the letter. List after four weeks. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Kusum Gulati ] Court Master Court Master
\202ITEM NO.37 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10478/2010IQBAL NATH SHARMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record)Date: 24/11/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Prakriti Purnima, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counter affidavit is to be filed before 13.1.2011. (S.G. SHAH) REGISTRARrd
ÒITEM NO. 32 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 PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10478/2010(From the judgement and order dated 04/02/2010 in WP No.8007/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)IQBAL NATH SHARMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record)Date: 06/09/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTUFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Adv. Mr. G Balaji, Adv. for M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Advs.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Kusum Gulati ] Court Master Court Master
øITEM NO. 37 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10478/2010(From the judgement and order dated 04/02/2010 in WP No.8007/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)IQBAL NATH SHARMA Petitioner(s) VERSUSUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief)Date: 10/05/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. PRASADFor Petitioner(s) Mr.V. Balaji, Adv. M/S.Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused the letter. List after four weeks. [ Usha Bhardwaj ] [ Pushap Lata Bhardwaj ] Court Master Asstt.Registrar