Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Dismissal of Suit – Application under Order VII Rule 11 to be decided based solely on plaint averments – Defendants' pleas irrelevant for deciding such application – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision remitting matter to trial court for fresh consideration of all issues [Paras 6-10].

Order IX Rules 8 and 9 CPC – Applicability – Earlier suit dismissed for default but later restored – Provisions of Order IX Rules 8 and 9 not applicable when suit restored and property in dispute different from earlier suit – Supreme Court found trial court's reliance on these provisions improper [Para 7].

Order XXIII Rule 1(3) and 4(b) CPC – Inapplicability – Present suit regarding different properties than those in previously dismissed suit – Provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) and 4(b) CPC not applicable – Supreme Court confirmed High Court's correction of trial court's erroneous application of these rules [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's order confirmed – Trial court directed to decide suit considering all issues within six months from receipt of judgment copy – Supreme Court emphasized prompt disposal due to long pendency since 2002 [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Police Remand – Justification and Exception – Police remand granted for three days to appellant who had been enlarged on bail – Supreme Court held police remand should be an exception and must be justified by strong reasons – Overruled Magistrate's and High Court's orders granting remand as they lacked sufficient justification [Paras 6-18].

Article 22(2) Constitution of India and Section 57 CrPC – Legal Mandate – Person arrested to be produced before magistrate within 24 hours – Detention in police custody beyond 24 hours requires magistrate's order – Supreme Court emphasized strict adherence to statutory requirements for police remand [Para 11].

Section 167 CrPC – Initial and Subsequent Custody – Magistrate can authorize police custody for a maximum of 15 days – Any further custody must be judicial – Supreme Court underscored the importance of judicial scrutiny in extending custody [Paras 12-13].

Revival of Investigation – Withdrawal of Complaint – Complainant had withdrawn complaint after compromise – Investigation revived at instance of third party – Supreme Court questioned validity of revival and emphasized magistrate's duty to scrutinize such requests meticulously [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court and Magistrate granting police remand set aside – Supreme Court highlighted need for careful judicial consideration before granting police remand, especially when the accused has been granted bail [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Subsequent Settlement – FIR quashed based on bona fide settlement between appellant and complainant – Supreme Court exercised inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and Article 142 of the Constitution to quash FIR to prevent abuse of process of law and secure ends of justice [Paras 5-11].

Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Non-Compoundable Offences – Supreme Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be used to quash proceedings even in non-compoundable offences if it serves justice and prevents abuse of process [Paras 7-9].

Settlement Agreement – Affidavit by Complainant – Complainant affirmed no objection to quashing FIR against appellant – Supreme Court accepted settlement and quashed FIR to respect the settlement and avoid futile trial [Para 5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR No. 45/2011 quashed as against the appellant – Supreme Court emphasized careful exercise of inherent powers to secure justice [Paras 10-11].

Freedom Fighters' Pension – Liberal Approach – Claim rejected by State Government – Appellant's husband provided substantial evidence supporting his claim as an Underground Freedom Fighter – Supreme Court reiterated the need for a liberal approach in assessing claims for Freedom Fighters' Pension [Paras 6-9].

Criteria for Underground Freedom Fighter – Government Resolution – Appellant's husband provided necessary certificates and documents – Supreme Court found that the claim should have been accepted based on the evidence provided [Paras 3-5, 7-8].

Gurdial Singh v. Union of India – Standard of Proof – Supreme Court applied principles from this case emphasizing a liberal and non-technical approach – Claim to be determined on probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – State Government directed to grant Freedom Fighters' Pension with arrears to the Appellant – Supreme Court stressed expeditious action to ensure benefits during the Appellant's lifetime [Para 9].

Bar Association Elections – Eligibility to Vote – Criteria for Regular Practitioners – Implementation Committee's criteria reviewed and modified – Supreme Court provided specific guidelines for identifying members entitled to vote, including appearance records, government representation, Senior Advocates, and attendance [Paras 9-14].

Vinay Balalchandra Joshi v. Registrar General Supreme Court of India – Application of Principles – Criteria for allotment of Chambers used to identify regular practitioners for voting eligibility in SCBA elections – Supreme Court ensured consistent application of principles [Para 3].

Publication of Voters' List – Privacy Considerations – Voters' list to be communicated individually rather than published on the website to protect members' privacy – Supreme Court accepted this modification [Para 12].

Decision: I.A. No. 5 disposed of with directions to Implementation Committee – Committee to finalize voters' list and set election program expeditiously – Existing management arrangement of SCBA to continue until elections [Paras 15-16].

Tenancy and Rent Recovery – Unregistered Rent Deed – Appellants sought recovery of rent based on unregistered rent deeds – High Court set aside decrees due to inadmissibility of unregistered documents – Supreme Court reversed High Court decision, emphasizing undisputed landlord-tenant relationship and tenant's admission of non-payment of rent – Decrees for arrears of rent restored with modifications to amounts due [Paras 1-16].

Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act – Admissibility of Unregistered Documents – Unregistered rent deeds cannot support primary claim but can be used to establish collateral facts – High Court failed to consider tenant's admission of non-payment and undisputed tenancy relationship – Supreme Court upheld decrees based on tenant's admissions and corroborative evidence [Paras 11-14].

Judicial Procedure – Evidence and Admission – Admissions by parties in pleadings or orally are best evidence – Supreme Court emphasized that unregistered rent deeds could be used to establish relationship of landlord and tenant and ascertain arrears of rent due – Decrees for arrears based on tenant's admissions restored [Paras 10, 13-15].

Decision: Appeals allowed, High Court's order set aside, decrees for recovery of rent by trial court and lower appellate court restored with modification of rent due amounts to Rs. 7200/- in total – No orders as to costs [Para 16].

Civil Procedure Code – Additional Evidence – Appellate Court should not admit additional evidence unless it is necessary to pronounce judgment or for substantial cause – Discretion should be exercised judicially and with reasons recorded in writing – Allowing additional evidence prior to hearing the appeal without application of mind renders the order inconsequential [Paras 25-41].

Evidence Act – Adverse Inference – Adverse inference for non-production of evidence must consider all facts and circumstances – Mere non-production of documents does not justify adverse inference unless party fails to comply with court's order to produce documents – Burden of proof lies on the party making factual averments [Paras 6-17].

Admissions – Legal Weight – Admissions are decisive unless withdrawn or proven erroneous – Failure to produce rebuttal evidence does not constitute admission – Admission must be clear and unambiguous, and the court must provide an opportunity for cross-examination [Paras 18-24].

Specific Relief Act – Declaratory Suit – Suit for declaration of title without seeking possession is not maintainable – Relief of declaration cannot be granted if consequential relief is omitted [Paras 43-46].

Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Second appeal can be entertained only on substantial questions of law – Such questions must materially affect the decision of the case – Erroneous findings of fact do not constitute substantial questions of law [Paras 47-50].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the High Court and first appellate court set aside – Suit dismissed for non-compliance with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act​​.

Criminal Procedure – Hearing on Sentence – Section 235(2) CrPC mandates that after conviction, the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard on the question of sentence – High Court’s failure to elicit relevant information from the accused or prosecution on sentencing violated the procedural requirement – Non-compliance with Section 235(2) vitiates the death sentence imposed [Paras 26-33].

Evidence and Sentencing – Psychological state of a convict awaiting death sentence must be considered – Courts have a duty to elicit relevant facts for proper sentencing – Mere formal questioning of the accused without effort to obtain substantial information is insufficient [Paras 26-33].

Sentencing Policy – Death sentence should be an exception, not the rule – Courts must provide special reasons for awarding death penalty, which can only be validly recorded if effective hearing as per Section 235(2) CrPC is conducted – High Court failed to follow correct procedure in enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to death penalty [Paras 33-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside the death sentence – Matter remitted to the High Court to follow Section 235(2) CrPC and pass fresh orders on sentencing – Conviction by High Court confirmed – High Court requested to pass fresh orders within six months​​.

Appointment on Deputation – Legal Right – Difference between transfer on deputation and appointment on deputation – Appellant was selected and offered appointment following due process – Cancellation of appointment offer without valid reason is arbitrary and violates Article 14 – Appellant has a right to join the post of Director, AICTE [Paras 11-15].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Any person selected for appointment through due process must be treated fairly and equally – Arbitrary cancellation of appointment offer is unconstitutional – High Court erred in not recognizing appellant's entitlement to the post [Paras 9-12].

Administrative Law – Terms of Deputation – Terms and conditions of deputation should be honored once accepted – Appellant accepted the terms including the pay scale – Respondent cannot withdraw the offer arbitrarily after acceptance [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of withdrawal of appointment and High Court order set aside – Respondents directed to accept appellant's joining for the post of Director, AICTE, for a period of one year on deputation – North Gujarat University to relieve the appellant and AICTE to accept his joining within one week of reporting​​.

Representing Advocates:

Nikhil Goel for the Appellant

Amitesh Kumar and Navin Prakash for the Respondents