THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT. 12 Nov. 2013- Registration of FIR by police in cognizable offence is must and action must be taken against officials for not lodging a case on the complaint filed in such offences.- Supreme Court.(PTI) 09/11/2013: Supreme Court stayed Gauhati High Court order that declared CBI as unconstitutional. 06-11-2013 -"while we decline to hold and declare that the DSPE Act, 1946, is not a valid piece of legislation, we do hold that the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a ‘police force’ constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946"-GUWAHATI HIGH COURT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGEMENTS


Print Judgement
 
Judgement:
                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2074-2078 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.26451-26455/2010)

PERSN MEDICINAL PLANTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Appellant(s)

:VERSUS:

INDIAN BANK AND ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

These appeals emanate from the judgment and orders dated 16th June, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.17016/2009 and Civil Revision No.2467 of 2009 and M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 in Civil Revision No.2467 of 2009 by which, while allowing the writ petition and the civil revision petition, the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (““DRAT”“).

Our attention has been drawn to a letter dated 13.12.2010 sent by the Chief Manager, Indian Bank, to the Director of the appellant Company, the relevant portion of which reads as under: ““As regards the liabilities, we wish to state that the amount due as on 30.11.2010 is Rs.3467.89 Lakhs after appropriation of a sum of Rs.410.00 lakhs collected after filing of suit and Rs.5525.00 lakhs being the sale proceeds of property said above.”“ (Page 226)

Learned Solicitor General submits that if the Bank is allowed to appropriate this amount, then he has no objection to the appeal of the appellant being heard on merit by the DRAT. We direct that the Indian Bank would be at liberty to appropriate the amount which is already with the Bank, however, this would be subject to the final decision of the appeal by the DRAT.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the DRAT to hear and dispose of the appeal on all questions of law, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within two months from the date of the communication of this order.

These appeals are accordingly disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own respective costs.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi;

February 25, 2011.