Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Pola Seshanna vs The Director General Of Eme (Eme Pers 1) on 9 February, 2024
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Aravind Kumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(@ D.NO. 2024 OF 2024)
POLA SESHANNA ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EME ...Respondent(s)
(EME PERS-1) & ANR.
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Application seeking leave to appeal under Section 31(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 is rejected as there is no question of law of general public importance, as required under Section 31(1) of the Act and as explained in Ex LAC Yogesh Pathania v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 311.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
...........................J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA] ..........................J. [ARAVIND KUMAR] NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 09, 2024.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2024.02.10 11:51:52 IST Reason: ITEM NO.21 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
CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 2024/2024 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-07-2010 in TA No. 68/2010 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal) POLA SESHANNA Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EME (EME PERS 1) & ANR. Respondent(s) ( IA No.29931/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.29927/2024-EX-PARTE STAY and IA No.29925/2024- PERMISSION TO FILE APPEAL and IA No.29929/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL ) Date : 09-02-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, AOR Mr. Darshan C Siddarkar, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Jaishree Tandon, Adv.
Ms. Sangeeta Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Shay, Adv.
For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Application seeking leave to appeal under Section 31(1) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 is rejected as there is no question of law of general public importance, as required under Section 31(1) of the Act and as explained in Ex LAC Yogesh Pathania v. Union of India (2019) 4 SCC 311.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)