**Civil Law - Rejection of Suit for Non-payment of Court Fee – Appeal against High Court's rejection of condonation of delay – Appellant's financial constraints leading to inability to pay the court fee – Trial court's rejection of suit due to non-payment without granting extension – High Court's dismissal of appeal for condonation of delay unsupported by evidence – Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's decision, condones the delay, and remands the case to the trial court with directions to accept court fee within stipulated time or facilitate through legal aid – Emphasis on justice under Article 39A of the Constitution and Section 12(h) of the Legal Services Authorities Act. [Paras 1-19]

**Power of Courts to Condon Delay – Legal Precedents and Principles – Analysis – Supreme Court reaffirms that the discretionary power under Section 149 CPC and the rationale behind the Limitation Act aims to ensure substantial justice – Liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to prevent technicalities from overriding justice – Directions to trial courts to consider financial hardships and facilitate legal aid where necessary – High Court's error in a rigid approach towards delay condonation highlighted. [Para 8-17]

**Decision – Condonation of Delay and Remand – Supreme Court allows the appeal, condones the delay in payment of court fee, and remands the matter to the trial court – Directions to trial court for expeditious disposal ensuring justice per constitutional mandates and legal aid provisions – Order for trial court to adjudicate the merits post facilitation of court fee payment either personally by appellant or through legal aid services. [Para 18-19]

Family Law - Domestic Violence and Maintenance – Criminal Appeal challenging High Court's affirmation of lower court orders – Appellant-wife's allegations of domestic violence, dowry demands, and non-compliance with maintenance and protection orders – High Court's error in disregarding pre-enactment conduct under the Domestic Violence Act – Supreme Court sets aside High Court order, directs compliance with maintenance and protection orders, and awards compensation for mental and emotional distress. [Paras 1-16]

Domestic Violence - Retrospective Application – Analysis – Held – Supreme Court clarifies that conduct prior to the enactment of the Domestic Violence Act can be considered – Emphasis on continuous nature of domestic violence and protection of aggrieved persons – High Court's dismissal of consideration of pre-enactment conduct is erroneous. [Paras 9-15]

Decision – Maintenance, Protection Orders, and Compensation – Court directs respondent-husband to comply with maintenance and protection orders within three months – Additional compensation of Rs. 500,000 awarded for mental torture and emotional distress – Appeal allowed with specific directions for compliance and enforcement of legal protection. [Paras 15-16]

Reorganisation of States - Liability for Employee Salaries – Civil Appeals challenging High Court's decision holding Bihar and Jharkhand responsible for payment of salaries to employees of BHALCO – Dispute over the continuation of employment and liability post-bifurcation – Supreme Court reviews historical context, legal provisions, and previous court directions – Holds both states responsible for different periods – Orders payment of dues with interest – Emphasizes role of State as model employer and constitutional obligations for social and economic justice. [Paras 1-53]

State Reorganisation - Employee Welfare and Continuity – Analysis – Supreme Court highlights the plight of employees unpaid for years – Criticizes administrative lapses and conflicting stances of states – Affirms that employees' fundamental rights under Article 21 are at stake – Directs specific timelines for payment of dues and conditions for compliance by both states – Emphasizes human rights and social justice obligations under the Constitution. [Paras 17-45]

Decision – Payment of Salary and Interest – Court directs Bihar to pay salaries from 1.1.1995 to 29.12.2001 and Jharkhand from 29.12.2001 to 13.9.2004 – Orders payment with 7.5% simple interest per annum – Concludes claim for absorption of employees – Addresses procedural fairness and adherence to constitutional principles by state entities. [Paras 52-53]

Civil Procedure - Order 2 Rule 2 CPC - Splitting of Claims – Civil Appeals against High Court's decision allowing second suit – Respondent filed two suits: one for recovery of amounts from a Letter of Credit, and another for damages due to withdrawal of credit facilities – District Court rejected second suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, finding same cause of action – High Court reversed this – Supreme Court examines whether second suit barred by Order 2 Rule 2 – Finds second suit should have been included in first – Allows appeal, sets aside High Court order. [Paras 1-16]

Splitting of Claims - Order 2 Rule 2 - Legal Principles – Analysis – Supreme Court clarifies that a plaintiff must include whole of the claim arising from the same cause of action in one suit – Emphasizes avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings and vexation of defendants – Reviews previous case law and principles – Concludes that respondent had cause of action for both claims at the time of first suit – High Court's error in allowing second suit highlighted. [Paras 9-15]

Decision – Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 – Court allows appeals, reinstates District Court’s order rejecting second suit – Emphasizes that plaintiff’s omission to claim all reliefs in the first suit precludes subsequent suits for omitted claims – Highlights principle of judicial economy and prevention of vexatious litigation. [Paras 15-16]

Contempt of Court - Suppression of Material Facts – Criminal Appeal against High Court's dismissal of contempt petition – Appellant's arrest and judicial custody based on incorrect information from Interpol – Subsequent correction by Interpol not disclosed promptly by respondents – Allegation of suppression of facts leading to prolonged custody – Supreme Court finds High Court's summary dismissal without addressing key legal and factual issues inadequate – Sets aside High Court order, remands case for reconsideration with direction to address all relevant issues. [Paras 1-14]

Criminal Procedure - Role of Investigating Agencies – Analysis – Supreme Court highlights duty of investigating officers to disclose correct information to courts – Criticizes suppression of material facts impacting judicial decisions – Emphasizes necessity of thorough judicial scrutiny in contempt proceedings, especially involving liberty of individuals. [Paras 6-13]

Decision – Remand for Reconsideration – Court sets aside High Court order dismissing contempt petition – Directs High Court to re-examine case addressing all factual and legal issues – Stresses importance of adherence to procedural law and ensuring justice in contempt proceedings. [Paras 13-14]

Intellectual Property - Trademark Usage - Civil Appeals against High Court’s decision allowing expanded trademark usage – Appellant challenges orders permitting respondent to use "KOHINOOR" trademark throughout Uttar Pradesh – High Court expanded usage based on historical use and trade practices – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision, finding no error in extending trademark usage to entire state – Emphasizes the impracticality of restricting trademark to specific cities – Reiterates principles for rectification and concurrent use under Trademark Act. [Paras 1-14]

Trademark Law - Rectification and Concurrent Use – Analysis – Supreme Court examines provisions of Sections 46(1) and 46(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 – Highlights burden of proof for non-use and bona fide use during relevant period – Confirms High Court's factual findings on continuous use and practical considerations for statewide trademark usage – Legal precedents on non-user and special circumstances discussed – Emphasizes avoidance of arbitrary geographic restrictions. [Paras 10-13]

Decision – Expanded Trademark Usage – Court dismisses appeals, affirms High Court's order permitting respondent’s trademark use across Uttar Pradesh – Finds geographical restrictions impractical and potentially litigious – Orders based on sound reasoning and trade practices – No merit in appeals, dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 13-14]

Criminal Law - Perjury and False Affidavits – Criminal Appeal challenging High Court's dismissal of application under Section 340 CrPC – Appellant claims respondent misled court by stating investigation was complete when further witnesses were later examined – High Court found no deliberate falsehood or intent to mislead – Supreme Court affirms High Court's decision, highlighting the need for evidence of deliberate and conscious falsehood to initiate perjury proceedings – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Criminal Procedure - Initiation of Perjury Proceedings – Analysis – Supreme Court reiterates principles for invoking Section 340 CrPC – Emphasizes necessity of prima facie evidence of deliberate falsehood and expediency in the interest of justice – Reviews procedural requirements under CBI manual and judicial precedents – Concludes that further investigation based on superior officer's directions does not constitute misleading the court – No grounds to interfere with High Court's findings. [Paras 7-14]

Decision – Dismissal of Perjury Allegations – Court dismisses appeal, upholds High Court's order – Finds no evidence of intentional misleading by respondent – Affirms need for careful judicial scrutiny before initiating perjury proceedings – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 14-15]

Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Public Land Allotment – Special Leave Petition against State Government’s decision to allot land for IFSC – Appellant bases challenge on CAG report citing inconsistencies and lack of uniform policy in land allotment – High Court dismissed writ petition, upholding government’s decision – Supreme Court finds no merit in claims of arbitrariness or malafide intentions – Holds that policy decisions taken in public interest with transparency cannot be questioned solely based on CAG report – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Public Policy - Land Allotment and Public-Private Partnership – Analysis – Supreme Court emphasizes that CAG reports are advisory and must be balanced with government’s explanations – Recognizes State's authority to make economic decisions and enter public-private partnerships – Affirms that absence of tender or auction does not inherently imply arbitrariness – Examines procedural integrity and public interest benefits of the IFSC project – No violation of constitutional principles found. [Paras 7-12]

Decision – Policy Decisions and Judicial Review – Court dismisses appeal, affirms High Court's order – Endorses government’s transparent process and public interest considerations in land allotment for IFSC – Confirms that judicial scrutiny of economic policies should not impede administrative functions unless clear evidence of malafide or statutory violations exists – SLP dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Law - Validity of Sanction for Prosecution – Criminal Appeal challenging High Court's decision to set aside Special Judge's order – Respondent contested validity of sanction alleging non-placement of relevant material before sanctioning authority – High Court remanded case to trial court for re-examination – Supreme Court affirms High Court’s decision, emphasizing need for comprehensive scrutiny of material by sanctioning authority – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-50]

Sanction for Prosecution - Requirement of Material Disclosure – Analysis – Supreme Court reiterates principles for valid sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act – Highlights obligation of sanctioning authority to review all relevant material – Affirms High Court’s findings of incomplete material presentation – Emphasizes importance of strict adherence to procedural guidelines to ensure fair prosecution – Directive for trial court to re-examine sanctioning authority's scrutiny. [Paras 7-15]

Decision – Remand for Re-examination of Sanction – Court dismisses appeal, upholds High Court's order remanding case to trial court – Directions to trial court to assess validity of sanction with complete material – Emphasizes procedural integrity and necessity of comprehensive review by sanctioning authority – Case remanded for fresh consideration without influencing trial proceedings. [Paras 45-50]