Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

General Manager, South Central Railway vs P. Padmaja Priya Darshini on 26 November, 2020

Bench: Navin Sinha, Surya Kant

     ITEM NO.4                    Court 5 (Video Conferencing)                      SECTION XVII-A

                                   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). 15913/2020
     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-11-2019
     in RP No. 1169/2017 passed by the National Consumer Disputes
     Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad)

     GENERAL  MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY & ANR.                                Petitioner(s)
                                     VERSUS
     P. PADMAJA PRIYA DARSHINI                                                     Respondent(s)

     (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.83583/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY
     IN FILING
      IA No. 83583/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)

     Date : 26-11-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

     For Petitioner(s)                  Ms.   Madhavi Divan, ASG
                                        Mr.   Prashant Singh, Adv.
                                        Ms.   Shradha Deshmukh, Adv.
                                        Mr.   Niteen Kr. Sinha, Adv.
                                        Mr.   Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
     For Respondent(s)

                             UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                O R D E R

Our attention is invited to the Judgment dated 06.04.2004 in Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 113, and the order dated 02.07.2013 in SLP (C) Nos. 34738-34739 of 2012, both by Bench of two Hon’ble Judges. It is submitted by learned Additional Solicitor General Ms. Madhavi Divan that there is apparent conflict of views with regard to applicability of Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989. We observe that the attention of the Court does not appear to have been invited in the latter order to the former judgment.

Issue notice.

Prayer for interim relief is refused. 17:14:14 IST Reason:

     (RAJNI MUKHI)                                                              (RAJ RANI NEGI)
     COURT MASTER (SH)                                                           DY. REGISTRAR