Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Implementation of Disability Act - Writ petitions filed by a charitable trust seeking the implementation of the 1995 Act's provisions and reservation of 1% of identified teaching posts for visually disabled persons - Supreme Court directs immediate implementation by Union, States, and Union Territories - Held: Beneficial provisions of the 1995 Act must be implemented in letter and spirit without delay - Direction issued for compliance by the end of 2014. [Paras 1-16]

Disability Rights - Reservation in Teaching Posts - Compliance with Section 33 of the 1995 Act - Examination of compliance by UGC and various government entities - Held: UGC acted in compliance, but other entities failed to fully implement the Act - Directions issued to ensure 1% reservation in teaching posts for visually disabled persons across all relevant institutions. [Paras 7-8, 12-15]

Administrative Law - Role of Government in Disability Rights - Proactive and Relief-Oriented Approach - Emphasis on the need for a liberal and relief-oriented approach by the executive in matters concerning differently-abled individuals - Held: Governments must actively work to provide relief and opportunities to differently-abled citizens, ensuring true equality and effective conferment of equal opportunities. [Paras 10-11]

Decision - Implementation of the 1995 Act - Court disposes of writ petitions and appeals, directing immediate and comprehensive implementation of the 1995 Act by the end of 2014 - Orders compliance by the Central Government, State Governments, and Union Territories, ensuring that visually disabled persons benefit from the Act's provisions. [Paras 13-16]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Conviction under Section 23 - Requirements for Offence - Appeal Dismissal- The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to acquit the respondent of charges under Section 23 of the NDPS Act due to the prosecution's failure to prove the foreign origin of the seized ganja and non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 42, 52, and 57 of the NDPS Act. The lack of independent witness testimony and original chemical examination report further weakened the prosecution's case. [Paras 1-11]

Definition and Scope of "Transhipment" under Section 23 - Interpretation and Application - The term "transhipment" within Section 23 must be interpreted in the context of import and export activities. The High Court correctly concluded that without evidence of the respondent engaging in transhipment as part of import into or export out of India, Section 23 does not apply. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent reflected in Section 9(1)(a)(vii) of the NDPS Act. [Paras 7-10]

Mandatory Procedural Compliance under NDPS Act - Significance in Conviction -The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with mandatory provisions under Sections 42, 52, and 57 of the NDPS Act. Non-compliance with these procedural safeguards can vitiate the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal. The prosecution's failure to adhere to these requirements significantly contributed to the respondent's acquittal. [Para 4]

Decision - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the respondent of the charge under Section 23 of the NDPS Act, citing insufficient evidence and procedural lapses by the prosecution. [Paras 10-11]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Enhancement of Compensation - Civil appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Haridwar, and affirmed by the High Court of Uttarakhand. The appellant contested the compensation for the death of Sandeep Chauhan in a motor vehicle accident, arguing that the awarded amount did not adequately cover future prospects, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses. The Supreme Court held that the compensation determined by the Tribunal was inadequate considering the principles laid down in earlier judgments and the prevailing price index. Enhanced compensation was awarded accordingly. [Paras 1-10]

Compensation - Future Prospects - Held - It is reasonable to include future prospects in the calculation of compensation, especially for self-employed or fixed-income individuals. The Tribunal and High Court erred in not considering future prospects, which should be calculated at a rate of 30% of the notional income. [Para 8]

Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses - Held - The amounts awarded under these heads were inadequate. The Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of consortium and Rs. 25,000 for funeral expenses, aligning with the principles established in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh and Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Para 7]

Decision - Enhanced Compensation Awarded - The Supreme Court modified the compensation to Rs. 6,55,400 plus interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment. The enhanced amount was to be paid after deducting any amount already paid within four weeks from the date of the judgment. [Para 10]

Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Jurisdiction - Civil Court Jurisdiction - Executing Court dismissed execution application on grounds of decree being without jurisdiction - High Court reversed decision - Appeal before Supreme Court against High Court order - Held, decree passed by Civil Court is valid and Executing Court erred in its decision - High Court's reasoning upheld - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 2-10]

Res Judicata - Applicability - Suit for eviction and declaration of ownership - Prior dismissal of proceedings before Mamlatdar - Contention that subsequent civil suit was barred by res judicata - No plea of lack of jurisdiction by Defendants in civil suit - High Court found no bar under res judicata - Supreme Court agreed, noting issues were within trial court's jurisdiction and not within scope of authorities under Mundkar Act. [Para 8]

Ownership and Eviction - Mundkarial Rights - Property dispute involving mundkarial house - Trial Court declared Plaintiffs as owners and ordered eviction of Defendants - Defendants contested jurisdiction, claiming property was not mundkarial - High Court upheld trial court's decree - Supreme Court confirmed trial court's jurisdiction and ownership rights of Plaintiffs - Execution of decree to proceed. [Paras 2-10]

Decision - Supreme Court upheld High Court's reasoning that Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain suit and decree was not a nullity - No merits found in appeal - Appeal dismissed. [Para 10]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Appeal against High Court order allowing rejection of plaint on grounds of non-disclosure of cause of action - Plaintiffs, including the Appellant and his mother, had initially sought a declaration and injunction against the Defendant - High Court found that post deletion of Plaintiff No. 1’s (mother's) name, the plaint did not disclose any cause of action for the remaining Plaintiff (Appellant) - Held that possession of the disputed property was handed over following a High Court order, rendering the suit’s cause of action infructuous - Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal. [Paras 2-14]

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Interpretation - Held - Where a plaint does not disclose any cause of action, especially after specific factual changes (like deletion of a party), it attracts the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC - Plaint must disclose an actionable cause to sustain the proceedings - Supreme Court confirmed that with the mother’s deletion as a plaintiff and the possession handed over, the plaint was rightfully rejected by the High Court for non-disclosure of cause of action. [Para 13]

Trust Property and Legal Rights - Held - Appellant's claim of right to reside based on trust deed - Supreme Court noted Appellant had already initiated a separate suit asserting these rights - No cause of action remained in the current plaint after compliance with High Court’s order on possession - Appellant's other suit for declaration, accounts, and injunction deemed sufficient to address his claims. [Para 7]

Decision - Dismissal of Civil Appeal - Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC due to the lack of cause of action post deletion of Plaintiff No. 1 and subsequent factual changes. [Para 14]

Criminal Law - Conviction for Murder - Appeal - Modification of Sentence - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 326, 34 IPC- Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC for causing death by inflicting grievous injuries with sharp weapons. High Court upheld conviction based on medical evidence linking the fatal injuries to the appellants. Supreme Court re-evaluates evidence, noting inconsistencies and lack of direct causation for death by injuries inflicted solely by appellants. Held, conviction under Section 302 IPC not sustainable due to inability to prove that inflicted injuries alone caused death. Conviction modified to Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons. Sentence reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000 each, and further imprisonment in default of payment of fine. [Paras 1-15]

Role of Accused - Analysis - Examination of the testimonies of eyewitnesses and medical evidence. Determination that appellants inflicted grievous injuries but did not solely cause death. High Court’s error in attributing all fatal injuries to appellants corrected. Evidence supports conviction under Section 326 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. [Paras 7-13]

Decision - Modification of Conviction and Sentence- Supreme Court modifies the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 326 IPC due to lack of direct causation of death by injuries inflicted by appellants. Sentence reduced accordingly. Appeal partly allowed. [Paras 14-15]

Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Maintainability of Eviction Suit - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Whether a landlord can maintain a suit for eviction after an award is passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Held, affirmative. The Supreme Court ruled that despite the passing of an acquisition award, the suit for eviction is maintainable if possession has not been taken by the acquiring authority. [Paras 1-17]

Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Vesting of Property – Analysis – When an award is passed under Section 11 and possession is taken, the property vests in the government free from encumbrances. However, in this case, possession was not taken by the acquiring authority, hence the landlord retains the right to evict the tenant. [Para 12]

Tenant's Obligation - Continuation of Rent Payment – Despite claiming the landlord had no right post-award, the tenant continued paying rent, contradicting their position. This inconsistency supports the landlord's claim of maintaining the eviction suit. [Para 13]

Undertaking to Court - Compliance Issues – Highlighted the problem of non-compliance with High Court orders by tenants – Stressed the necessity for tenants to file undertakings before obtaining interim relief to uphold court authority and ensure compliance. [Paras 14-16]

Decision - Petitions Dismissed – Special leave petitions by tenants challenging eviction were dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the landlord's right to evict tenants where possession under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not taken by the acquiring authority. [Para 17]

Civil Procedure - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law – Appeal against High Court judgment setting aside the Trial and First Appellate Court’s decrees granting specific performance of contract – High Court erred by not formulating substantial question of law before deciding second appeal – Compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act regarding readiness and willingness satisfied through conduct and evidence – High Court’s decision reversed – Judgment and decree of the Trial and First Appellate Courts restored. [Paras 1-36]

High Court’s Procedure – Error – Substantial Question of Law – Held - High Court failed to comply with mandatory requirement of Section 100 CPC to formulate substantial question of law at admission stage - Appeal cannot be decided without such formulation – Procedure adopted by High Court was erroneous and the judgment is vitiated. [Paras 15-23]

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Compliance – Held - Plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations evidenced by conduct and sequence of events - Requirement of Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act met – Trial and First Appellate Court’s finding upheld. [Paras 24-34]

Decision – Judgment and Decree of High Court Set Aside – Appeal Allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court and First Appellate Court restored - High Court’s judgment dismissing suit for specific performance set aside – No order as to costs. [Paras 35-36]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Maintainability of Civil Suit - Disciplinary Proceedings – Removal from Service – Civil Appeal challenging the maintainability of a civil suit filed by the respondent for his removal from service, where the appropriate forum should have been the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act - Appellant Corporation contended the suit was not maintainable and argued that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law – Supreme Court held that the suit was not maintainable as the respondent being a workman ought to have approached the Labour Court - Judgments of the courts below quashed - Order of removal from service restored - Appeal allowed. [Paras 1-21]

Disciplinary Proceedings – Principles of Natural Justice – Sufficiency of Evidence – Analysis – Supreme Court found the findings of the lower courts were based on the unsubstantiated allegations by the respondent – Held that the disciplinary proceedings had been conducted in accordance with law, providing adequate opportunity to the respondent – Noted that failure to rebut the respondent's claims by the Corporation was not sufficient to declare the inquiry vitiated - Emphasized on the necessity of proper pleadings and evidence to support claims of procedural violations. [Paras 10-16]

Proportionality of Punishment – Misappropriation of Funds – Held – Dismissal from service is the appropriate punishment in cases of proven corruption or embezzlement irrespective of the amount involved – Court reiterated that any leniency in such cases is against public interest and the principle of proportionality does not apply. [Paras 19-20]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of the lower courts set aside – Order of removal from service restored – No order as to costs. [Para 21]