Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Supreme Court Judgments

Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2022


RSS Feed img

Hyd.Metrop.Water S.& S.Board & Ors. Vs. P. Satyanarayana Rao & Ors. [2009] INSC 334 (16 February 2009)


NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO...............OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1143 of 2008) Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. ...Appellants VERSUS P.Satyanarayana Rao & Ors. ..Respondents


1.     Leave granted.

2.     It is true that this appeal has been preferred against an order by which the appellants were not granted interim order during the pendency of the appeal.

3.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order in depth and in detail.

4.     Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the prayer for grant of 2 stay of operation of the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, by which regularization of the services of the workmen was passed, if not stayed, the entire appeal would become infructuous. Be it mentioned herein, that the Division Bench of the High Court, however, granted stay of payment of arrears till the disposal of the appeal. That being the position, we grant the stay against the regularization of the services of the workmen till the disposal of the appeal as well. Accordingly, the refusal to stay against regularisation of the services of the workmen stands set aside and interim order is granted in the manner indicated till the disposal of the appeal.

5.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.

6.     The High Court is now requested to dispose of the writ petition pending before the learned 3 Single Judge, if not already disposed of in the meantime, within a period of three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order positively without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. We make it clear that we have not gone into the disputes raised by the parties in the writ application, which shall be decided by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law.

...........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]


New Delhi;



Pages: 1 2 3 

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys