Criminal Law – Gang Rape Conviction – Appellants convicted for abduction, gang rape, robbery, and wrongful confinement of the prosecutrix (PW1) – Trial court’s judgment upheld by the High Court – Emphasizing the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony and corroborative evidence from eyewitness PW2 – Application of stringent penal provisions under Section 376D of IPC [Paras 1-19, 31-32].

Evidence – Reliability of Sole Testimony – Supreme Court emphasizes that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if credible and trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction – Court rejects appellants' contentions regarding inconsistencies and discrepancies in testimonies [Paras 13-15, 20-21].

Sentencing – Consideration of Mitigating Factors – While affirming the convictions, Supreme Court considers the age of the appellants and their behavior during incarceration – Modifies sentences to balance interests of justice [Paras 32, 39-40].

Conspiracy – Application of Section 120B IPC – Supreme Court finds no independent evidence of conspiracy – Conviction under Section 120B set aside for A1 to A4 but upheld for other charges based on established evidence [Paras 26, 33].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences modified – Appellants granted liberty to seek state government remission of sentence considering mitigating factors and time already served [Paras 39-40].

Condonation of Delay – Matrimonial Appeal – Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 122 days delay in filing appeal against ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage – COVID-19 and family responsibilities cited as reasons for delay – Respondent remarried after expiry of appeal period – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Application dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Remarriage of Divorced Person – Bar under Section 15 applies only if appeal filed within limitation period – Respondent remarried after expiration of appeal period – Court holds bar not applicable – Appeal not filed within 90 days; remarriage on 26.05.2022 considered lawful [Paras 7-12].

Case References – Legal Precedents Cited – Cites Supreme Court decisions in Tejinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh (1988) 2 SCC 90 and Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj Rai (2020) 11 SCC 253 – Highlights precedent on procedural obligations and conditions for remarriage post-divorce decree [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Interlocutory Application Dismissed – Delay in filing appeal not condoned – Court finds delay not satisfactorily explained and bar under Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act not applicable [Paras 13-14].

Joint Trial – Family Court Proceedings – Petitioner sought joint trial for efficiency and consistency in cases involving related issues of maintenance and return of articles – Family Court dismissed application citing different procedures for summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – High Court emphasized objective of speedy justice in family disputes – Joint trial ordered to save judicial time and ensure comprehensive resolution [Paras 1-9].

Legal Interpretation – Family Court’s Power – Division Bench referenced precedents allowing joint trials in family matters for integrated justice – Interpreted Family Court Act to support joint trials despite different procedural rules for related cases – Emphasized interpretation aligning with objectives of efficient and expedited family justice [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Family Court’s dismissal of joint trial application set aside – Joint trial of OP No. 2174/2020 and MC No. 86/2021 directed for unified adjudication of maintenance and related claims [Para 9].

Employment Law – Termination on Medical Grounds – Challenge to the order terminating a contractual driver on medical grounds without citing any misconduct – Court finds termination arbitrary and without basis in rules or regulations – University failed to accommodate the petitioner in an alternative role despite medical opinion deeming him fit for duty with due risk [Paras 1-16].

Contractual Terms – Application and Interpretation – Court holds that while termination clause permitted termination without reason, it must be applied in conjunction with overall objective and satisfactory performance criteria – University’s action deemed inconsistent with employment terms and objectives [Paras 10-12].

Compensation for Wrongful Termination – Consideration of subsequent events including employee’s death – Court directs payment of compensation to the widow in lieu of potential terminal benefits – Emphasis on providing equitable relief in public law proceedings [Paras 17-19].

Decision:

Appeal allowed to the extent of granting compensation – Termination order set aside – University directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the widow of the original petitioner within three months [Para 20].

Consumer Protection Law – Setting Aside Ex-parte Orders – Petitioner, NTC Nidhi Ltd, was set ex-parte by the DCDRC for filing the version beyond the statutory period – Petitioner contended active participation in proceedings despite late filing – Supreme Court precedent supports participation rights even if declared ex-parte [Paras 2-6].

Right to Participate in Proceedings – Emphasis on participation despite procedural lapses – High Court set aside DCDRC’s orders, allowing petitioner to take part in proceedings, adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and present arguments – Version filed out of time not accepted on record [Paras 5-6].

Supreme Court Precedent – Cited ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. Hara Prasad Ghosh and Saint Gobian India Pvt. Ltd v. Deepak Achuthan, confirming participation rights in the interest of justice [Paras 5-6].

Decision:Original petitions allowed – DCDRC’s orders set aside – Petitioner permitted to participate in further proceedings, excluding the late version filing [Para 6].

Public Interest Litigation – Post-Poll Violence – Allegations of post-election violence following the 2024 West Bengal state elections – Petitioners raised concerns over the safety and security of citizens, citing incidents of violence and the State Police’s alleged failure to act – High Court directed the continued deployment of Central Forces until 21^st June 2024 to ensure safety and security [Paras 1-14].

Jurisdiction – Locus Standi in PILs – Court addressed the issue of locus standi for petitioners with political affiliations, referencing Supreme Court precedents – Emphasized that political affiliations do not automatically disqualify petitioners from filing PILs, provided the petition serves a public interest without settling political scores [Paras 15-20].

Central Forces Deployment – Law and Order – Court considered the necessity of retaining Central Forces in West Bengal post-elections to maintain law and order – Directed State to file a comprehensive report detailing actions taken on lodged complaints of violence [Paras 21-28].

Decision: Interim order – Central Forces to remain deployed until 21^st June 2024 – State directed to submit a report on actions taken concerning complaints of post-poll violence by 14^th June 2024 – Matter listed for further hearing on 18^th June 2024 [Para 29].

Service Law – Appointment and Approval – Appellant school functionaries challenged the order directing approval of Mihir’s service – Contention on procedural lapses, lack of requisite qualifications, and alleged interpolations in records – High Court found Mihir was appointed against a sanctioned post and the procedural lapses were not substantiated by evidence – The Court emphasized the importance of adherence to established appointment procedures but noted the specifics of this case justified Mihir’s appointment [Paras 1-24].

Regularization and Compensation – Prolonged litigation from 1987 to 2024 – Mihir forcibly removed from service despite interim protections – Court found procedural non-compliance by school authorities and continuous deprivation of Mihir’s employment rights – Ordered compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs, balancing Mihir’s inability to serve and the State’s financial obligations – Recognized need for equitable relief given the circumstances [Paras 21-23].

Evidence in Writ Proceedings – Adjudication based on affidavits – State’s contradictory affidavits over decades undermined their position – High Court stressed the need for consistent and fair administrative actions – Highlighted jurisprudence on affidavit evidence and procedural justice [Paras 16-20].

Procedural Fairness – Inspection reports and evidence gaps questioned – Court dismissed claims of record tampering and lack of vacancy – Validated Mihir’s appointment based on continuous service, previous approvals, and absence of contrary proof – Criticized appellants’ delay tactics and lack of credible counter-evidence [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Direction for compensation to Mihir – Recognition of procedural adherence and equitable relief – Emphasized justice for long-pending employment disputes [Para 24].

Pre-Institution Mediation – Compliance Requirement – Defendant sought rejection of the plaint for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Held, whether urgent interim relief is contemplated must be assessed based on the plaint’s pleadings – Plaintiff’s contemplation of urgent interim relief justified due to alleged trademark infringement – Application dismissed [Paras 1-40].

Trademark Infringement and Passing Off – Plaintiff alleged infringement of its registered trademark “CHEMCO” and sought permanent and mandatory injunction against defendant – Plaintiff demonstrated long-term use and goodwill associated with the trademark – Delay in filing suit after initial cause of action addressed – Court acknowledged the plaintiff’s right to seek urgent interim relief given the nature of intellectual property rights and potential consumer confusion [Paras 20-33].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court’s interpretation in Patil Automation Private Limited vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited and Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi emphasized the mandatory nature of pre-institution mediation – Court concluded that the plaintiff had not engaged in clever drafting or falsehood to create an illusion of urgent interim relief [Paras 14-39].

Decision: Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Interim Application for Lodging No. 23077 of 2023 to be taken up for consideration [Para 40-41].

Criminal Law – Appeal for Anticipatory Bail under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Kerala High Court dismissed appeal for anticipatory bail filed under Section 14-A of the Act – Appellant accused of humiliating respondent (a Scheduled Caste member) publicly through derogatory remarks made during a YouTube interview – Prima facie evidence supported allegations of intentional insult based on caste – Judicial scrutiny confirmed the applicability of Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act, leading to dismissal of bail application [Paras 1-27].

Public View Requirement – Interpretation – Kerala High Court clarified that public view requirement under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act is met if the offensive content is accessible to the public online – Uploaded YouTube interview containing derogatory remarks considered within public view, as it could be viewed by the public at any time [Paras 19].

Misuse of SC/ST Act – Legal Position – Kerala High Court observed that misuse of SC/ST Act provisions cannot be presumed as inherent to any specific community – False reports, if any, are due to human failings and not attributable to caste – Emphasis on strict enforcement of the Act to achieve a caste-free society [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal for Anticipatory Bail – Held – The appeal is dismissed based on the substantial evidence indicating the appellant's intent to insult and humiliate the respondent on account of his caste, within public view. Appellant directed to surrender before the jurisdictional court within a week, with instructions for prompt bail consideration by the lower court upon surrender [Paras 24-27].