Domestic Violence – Matrimonial Dispute – Maintenance – Civil Appeal against the High Court order denying the appellant’s claim for residence in the matrimonial home and interim maintenance – Supreme Court reviews the grievances stemming from alleged forceful eviction from the matrimonial home and disputes regarding the subsistence of marriage – Court concurs with High Court that the appellant’s claims involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be resolved in writ proceedings – Emphasizes the need for these issues to be addressed in the appropriate proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate. [Paras 2-12]

Restoration of Suit – Procedural Guidance – Held – Supreme Court directs that the appellant may seek restoration of the dismissed Suit No. 51/2008 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi – Orders interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 per month to continue if the suit is restored and directs expedited disposal of the suit. [Paras 13-16]

Decision – Restoration and Maintenance – Court grants the appellant liberty to file for restoration of the dismissed suit within four weeks – Upon restoration, interim maintenance to continue at Rs. 25,000 per month until the final disposal of the suit – Directs the Metropolitan Magistrate to decide the suit expeditiously within four months of restoration. [Paras 14-16]

Referred Cases:

Ramanarayan Popli v. CBI (2003) SCC (Crl.) 869

P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142

Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC Online SC 784

Hari and Anr. v. State of UP 2021 SCC Online SC 1131

Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 624

State through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 253

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1

Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 11 SCC 1

State of Haryana v. Krishan (2017) 8 SCC 204

Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256

Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCCOnline 1364

Chandran v. State of Kerala (2011) 5 SCC 161

P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187

Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P. (2022) 8 SCC 253

Ravasaheb and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 5 SCC 391

Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Quashing of dealership allotment - Civil Appeals arising from the automatic allotment issue following the cancellation of original allotment - Examination of whether second-ranked candidates are entitled to automatic allotment when the first-ranked candidate's allotment is canceled due to political connections or other extraneous considerations.

Allotment Cancellation and Automatic Entitlement - Analysis - Held - When the selection process for dealership allotments is vitiated by extraneous considerations, the entire selection is compromised, negating automatic entitlement for second-ranked candidates - Court emphasized the necessity of a fresh selection process to ensure fairness and merit-based allotments. [Paras 1-29]

Decision - Appeals Allowed, Orders Quashed - The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's orders granting dealership allotments to the second-ranked candidates, ruling that the entire selection process is vitiated in cases of irregular allotments influenced by extraneous factors, and mandated a fresh selection process. [Para 29]

Referred Cases:

Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 673

Ritu Mahajan v. Indian Oil Corporation and Others (2009) 3 SCC 506

Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India (2007) 2 SCC 536

Awadesh Mani Tripathi v. Union of India (SLP (C) No. 34226/2009)

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Ramesh Chand Trivedi (Civil Appeal No. 8586 of 2010)

Raj Bala v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 7718 of 1995)

Anil Kumar Singh v. Chairman, Dealers Selection Board (Civil Appeal Nos. 2012-2014 of 2003)

Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of DRT vs. Civil Courts - Civil appeals addressing whether suits involving counter-claims or set-offs filed by debtors against banks should be adjudicated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) or by Civil Courts - Supreme Court analyzes conflicting precedents and refers the matter to a larger bench for resolution. [Paras 1-15]

Exclusive Jurisdiction of DRT - Counter-claims and Set-offs - The issue involves determining if the DRT has exclusive jurisdiction to hear counter-claims and set-offs within its proceedings or if such matters can be tried by Civil Courts independently. Conflicting judgments in prior cases (United Bank of India v. Abhijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., State Bank of India v. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd., and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation) necessitate clarity. [Paras 7-12]

Transfer of Suits - Consent Requirement - Whether independent suits by borrowers against banks can be transferred to the DRT for joint trial with the consent of both parties. Supreme Court emphasizes the need for explicit consent based on conflicting judicial opinions. [Paras 10-12, 15]

Referral to Larger Bench - Legal Clarification - Due to inconsistencies in judicial interpretations, questions regarding the jurisdiction of DRT and the transfer of suits involving counter-claims or set-offs to the DRT are referred to a larger bench for definitive legal clarification. [Paras 13-15]

Interim Relief - Stay of Proceedings - Request for stay of proceedings in pending civil suits before the Calcutta High Court was denied, noting the lack of substantial progress in the suits and the adequacy of future orders to address the Respondent's claims. [Para 16]

Referred Cases:

Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (2009) 8 SCC 646

United Bank of India v. Abhijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 7 SCC 357

Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 72

State Bank of India v. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 97

Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana (1980) 3 SCR 689

Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (1986) 2 SCR 123

Criminal Law – Conviction for Rape and House Trespass – Appeal against Conviction – Prosecutrix alleged appellant entered her house and committed rape at knife-point – Discrepancies noted in prosecutrix's statements and medical evidence – Affidavit by prosecutrix exonerating appellant – Trial and High Court overlooked material contradictions – Supreme Court evaluated reliability of prosecutrix's testimony and statutory presumptions under Indian Evidence Act – Benefit of doubt accorded to appellant – Conviction set aside. [Paras 1-8]

Discrepancies in Prosecution Evidence – Analysis – Prosecutrix's varying statements regarding presence and actions of appellant – Affidavit disowning initial allegations – Medical report showing no signs of struggle or seminal stains – Prosecutrix's husband's enmity with appellant noted – Contradictions between prosecutrix's and husband’s testimonies – Supreme Court found these discrepancies sufficient to doubt prosecution's case. [Paras 4-7]

Statutory Presumptions and Judicial Approach – Reiterated – Testimony of prosecutrix should ordinarily be given weight comparable to that of an injured witness – Absence of corroboration not necessarily fatal – However, inherent contradictions and infirmities in prosecutrix's testimony can negate its reliability – References made to landmark judgments emphasizing careful judicial scrutiny of such testimonies in the context of Indian societal norms. [Para 6]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant under Sections 376 and 450 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Emphasis on ensuring justice by considering totality of evidence and inherent contradictions in prosecution's case. [Paras 8-10]

Referred Cases:

Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753

State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Others, AIR 1996 SC 1393

Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Independent Investigation - Petition under Article 32 seeking direction for CBI or SIT investigation into police inaction during the incident of beating students at Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai - Court finds matter not proceeded with requisite seriousness by state authorities but refrains from ordering CBI/SIT investigation at this stage - Directs expeditious trial by VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. [Paras 1-16, 23]

Human Rights Violations - Police Inaction - Allegations against Tamil Nadu Police for failing to intervene in a student clash and subsequent harassment of petitioners by registering false cases - Status reports indicate nominal departmental action against delinquent police officers - Court emphasizes need for prompt redressal of human rights grievances and functioning of SHRC. [Paras 1-14, 18-21]

State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) - Vacancy of Chairperson - Office of Chairperson SHRC, Tamil Nadu vacant for over three years - Court directs the State to expedite the appointment of a Chairperson in accordance with Section 21(2)(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. [Paras 18-21]

Decision - Disposition of Writ Petition - Court disposes of the writ petition directing VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai to expedite the trial of cases related to the Law College incident and file periodic progress reports with the High Court of Madras. The High Court is requested to monitor the progress of these cases. Additionally, the State of Tamil Nadu is directed to fill the vacancy of the Chairperson of SHRC expeditiously. [Paras 23, 21]

Referred Cases:

State of West Bengal and Others Vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others, AIR 2010 SC 1476

Criminal Law - Conviction and Acquittal - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Criminal Appeal against High Court's confirmation of conviction and State's appeal against acquittal of co-accused -

Concurrent Findings of Fact: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the guilt of Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3), and Shamsher Singh (A-7) for offences under Sections 302 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC, resulting in life imprisonment and a fine. The evidence of eyewitnesses Chanda Singh (PW-6) and Sham Singh (PW-7), coupled with medical evidence, was found credible. The Court upheld the conviction citing the consistency and reliability of the witnesses’ testimonies despite challenges regarding their conduct and delays in FIR registration. [Paras 1-28]

Delay in FIR: The Court ruled that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained due to the urgency in attending to the injured, thereby dismissing the argument that it was fatal to the prosecution’s case. [Paras 20-23]

Acquittal of Co-accused: Appeals against the acquittal of Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6), and Charan Singh (A-8) were dismissed. The High Court’s acceptance of Ranbir Singh’s alibi and the lack of corroborative medical evidence against Balkar Singh and Charan Singh were deemed reasonable and did not warrant interference. [Paras 32-37]

Behaviour of Witnesses: The Court emphasized the varying natural human reactions to witnessing a crime, rejecting the argument that Chanda Singh’s conduct was unnatural and thereby discrediting his testimony. [Paras 13-17]

Evidence and Recovery: The recovery of weapons and their forensic linkage to the crime corroborated the prosecution's narrative against Dilawar Singh, Yash Pal, and Shamsher Singh, further solidifying their convictions. [Para 26]

Plea of Alibi: The plea of alibi by Ranbir Singh (A-6) was substantiated through credible evidence, leading to his acquittal by the High Court. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court as it found no compelling reason to reverse the acquittal. [Paras 33-34]

Decision- Convictions Upheld: The appeals by Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3), and Shamsher Singh (A-7) were dismissed, and their convictions and sentences were upheld. Acquittals Upheld: The appeals against the acquittal of Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6), and Charan Singh (A-8) by the State and Chanda Singh were also dismissed.

Referred Cases:

Sri Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das and Another vs. State of Assam, AIR 2010 SC 3300

Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 3123

Rana Partap and Others vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 680

State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Mast Ram, AIR 2004 SC 5056

Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 1 ABR 633

State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta, AIR 2012 SC 1

Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) CriLJ 2136

Constitutional Law - Article 136 - Judicial Review - Employment Regularization:Special Leave Petition against High Court order dismissing writ petition for regularization of employment in non-statutory non-recognized canteen - Tribunal and High Court found canteen not recognized by Railway Board - No interference by Supreme Court with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts - Petitioners not entitled to claim status as railway employees. [Paras 1-21]

Employment Law - Railway Canteen Workers - Classification and Regularization:Workers in non-statutory non-recognized canteens not entitled to regularization as railway employees - Detailed analysis of categories of canteens and their recognition status as per M.M.R. Khan case - Petitioners failed to prove canteen's recognition by Railway Board. [Para 7-18]

Decision:Special Leave Petition dismissed, affirming High Court and Tribunal decisions - No error in findings that canteen was non-statutory non-recognized - No grounds for regularization of petitioners' employment. [Para 21]

Referred Cases:

Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala and Another, AIR 2006 SC 3028:

M/s. Reliance Silicon (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector, Central Excise, Thane, AIR 1997 SC 1617:

Piara Singh and others v. Natha Singh and others, AIR 1991 SC 1529:

Asian Paints India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1988 SC 1087:

S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 1994 SC 853:

Metroark Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta, (2004) 92 ECC 489:

M.M.R. Khan and others etc. v. Union of India and others, etc., AIR 1990 SC 937:

Pragati Computers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras, (2000) 68 ECC 231:

Traders and Traders v. Ramnarayan Bhattad, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 661:

Criminal Law - Conspiracy and Cheating - Criminal Appeal against conviction and enhancement of sentence - The case involved the procurement of Damp Proof Cement (DPC) at an inflated price by Deva Prasad Sharma (A-1), the Chief Engineer of NEHU, in collusion with Edmund S. Lyngdoh (A-4) and others - Allegation that A-1 invited quotations and approved inflated rates, causing financial loss to NEHU - High Court convicted A-1 and A-4 under Sections 120B and 420 IPC, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Enhanced the sentence of A-1 - Reversed the acquittal of A-4 and imposed sentences.

Role of Chief Engineer in Conspiracy - Analysis - Held - A-1, as a Technical Member, played a dominant role in misleading the Purchase Committee of NEHU to purchase DPC at an inflated rate - Evidence showed that A-1 invited quotations without ascertaining market rates and approved rates of Rs. 42.75 per kg against the prevailing market rate of Rs. 5-10 per kg - Conviction upheld based on oral and documentary evidence.

Role of Supplier in Conspiracy - Analysis - Held - A-4, as a supplier and dealer in DPC, quoted and supplied DPC at an inflated rate, causing wrongful gain to himself and loss to NEHU - Conviction under Sections 120B and 420 IPC upheld - Sentence modified considering age and health of A-4, and duration of the case.

Decision - Appeal by legal representative of deceased A-1 dismissed - Appeal by A-4 partly allowed - Sentence of imprisonment modified to the period already undergone with additional fine imposed.

Referred Cases:

Balwant v. State of U.P. (2008) 9 SCC 974 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1

Civil Procedure - Amendment of Decree - Scope of Section 152 CPC - Partition Suit: The Supreme Court examined the scope and application of Section 152 of the CPC, determining that the section is intended for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors or accidental slips or omissions in judgments, decrees, or orders. The Court held that amendments under this section should not involve reappraisal of evidence or affect substantive rights. The High Court’s correction of the decree to accurately allot shares to the heirs was upheld, affirming that the corrections were within the scope of Section 152. [Paras 11-20]

Partition of Property - Joint Ownership - Rights of Co-Heirs: The Court reiterated that in cases of joint ownership, the possession of one co-heir is presumed to be on behalf of all co-heirs. The partition of matrooka properties under Muslim Law involves redistribution among heirs, with the possession of one heir not being adverse to others. The Court noted that the trial court's findings on exclusive possession were incorrect, affirming the High Court's correction to reflect joint ownership and entitlement accurately. [Paras 7-10, 17-18]

Interpretation of Preliminary Decree - Rights of Parties: The Supreme Court emphasized that a preliminary decree in a partition suit can declare the rights and interests of all parties involved, as per Order 20, Rule 18(2) CPC. This includes specifying shares of each heir. The High Court’s order clarifying the shares of the heirs of Shahzadi Bee, Khadar Nawaz Khan, and Feroz Khan was consistent with this provision. [Para 20]

Decision: The appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order amending the preliminary decree to correctly reflect the shares of the parties, finding no error in the exercise of powers under Section 152 of the CPC. The amendment did not alter the substantive rights of the parties but corrected an omission in the original decree. No costs were awarded. [Paras 21-23]

Referred Cases:

Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna and Others, (2009) 9 SCC 689

Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Another, AIR 1966 SC 1047

Bijay Kumar Saraogi v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2005 SC 2435

State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh, AIR 2003 SC 4179

U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Imtiaz Hussain, AIR 2006 SC 649