IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 8875-8876 OF 2011
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
VINOD KUMAR JAIN & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No.1998 of 2012,
C.A.No.3564 of 2012,
C.A.No.3907 of 2012,
C.A.No.4581 of 2012,
C.A.No.4952 of 2012,
C.A.No.4980 of 2012,
C.A.No.4599 of 2013,
C.A.No.1 of 2015
AND
SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013,
SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &
SLP(C)No......... of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904)
Delay condoned.
C.A. No.1998 of 2012,
C.A.No.3564 of 2012,
C.A.No.3907 of 2012,
C.A.No.4581 of 2012,
C.A.No.4952 of 2012,
C.A.No.4980 of 2012,
C.A.No.4599 of 2013,
C.A.No.1 of 2015
AND
SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013,
SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &
SLP(C)No......... of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904)
O R D E RHeard.
Delay condoned.
C.A.Nos.8875-76 of 2011, C.A. No.1998 of 2012, C.A.No.3564 of 2012,
C.A.No.3907 of 2012, C.A.No.4581 of 2012, C.A.No.4952 of 2012,
C.A.No.4980 of 2012:
We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.
The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.
The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.
C.A.No.4599 of 2013, C.A.No.1 of 2015 :
No substantial question of law of general/public importance arises for
our consideration in these applications for leave to appeal.
The prayer for leave to appeal is accordingly declined and the applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
SLP(C)Nos.36148-36150 of 2013
SLP(C)No.16780-16782 of 2014 &
SLP(C)Nos...........of 2015 (CC Nos.16903-16904):
We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned.
The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General,
however submits that in view of the nature of the controversy as also the extent of financial burden arising out of the implementation of the impugned orders, the petitioners-U.O.I.
may be given reasonable time to do the needful. That prayer is not opposed by counsel opposite.
The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General,
however submits that in view of the nature of the controversy as also the extent of financial burden arising out of the implementation of the impugned orders, the petitioners-U.O.I.
may be given reasonable time to do the needful. That prayer is not opposed by counsel opposite.
We accordingly grant four months' time from today to the petitioners to
comply with the impugned orders failing which the contempt petitions
pending before the Tribunal can be revived by the concerned petitioners
and taken to their logical conclusion.
All impleading and intervention applications are also dismissed.
.......................J
(T.S. THAKUR)
.......................J
(R. BANUMATHI)
NEW DELHI
DATED 17th March, 2015.