Municipal Corporation – Duty to Repair Dangerous Structures – The appellant sought a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation to repair the damaged portion of his flat, which had deteriorated, posing a danger to occupants. Notices issued under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, required the housing society to carry out repairs, but these were not complied with. The High Court dismissed the writ, suggesting the appellant seek execution of orders from the Cooperative Appellate Court [Paras 1-13].

Interpretation of Section 489 – Enabling vs. Mandatory – The Supreme Court held that while Section 489 of the Act appears to be enabling, it imposes a duty on the Commissioner to act upon non-compliance with notices under Section 354, to prevent danger from ruinous structures. The Court clarified that statutory provisions aimed at public safety should be construed to advance their remedial objectives [Paras 14-20].

Alternative Remedy – Section 499 Approval – The Court noted that the appellant could have sought approval from the Commissioner under Section 499 of the Act to carry out repairs himself and recover costs from the housing society. The appellant failed to pursue this remedy despite being advised by the municipal authorities [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to utilize the remedy under Section 499 and the Cooperative Appellate Court’s directions for repairs. The appellant was directed to seek execution of the Cooperative Appellate Court’s order [Para 23].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 138 NI Act – The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhiwani to try a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque in question, drawn on a Guwahati bank, was deposited by the respondent in Bhiwani, where it was dishonoured. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that under K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, jurisdiction lies in any of the places where components of the offence occur, including where the cheque is presented and dishonoured [Paras 1-14].

Components of Offence – Section 138 NI Act – The offence under Section 138 consists of drawing the cheque, presentation, dishonour, notice to the drawer, and failure to pay within 15 days. The Court emphasized that the complaint can be filed in any jurisdiction where these acts occur, thereby supporting the complainant's choice of forum in Bhiwani [Para 8].

Distinguishing Precedents – The Court distinguished the reliance on Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals NECO Ltd., which focused on the period within which a cheque must be presented to the drawee bank, and did not address territorial jurisdiction. The decision in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Ltd., was also discussed, clarifying that notice alone does not confer jurisdiction unless combined with other components of the offence [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhiwani, confirming that the complaint under Section 138 NI Act was rightly filed there as the respondent is a resident of Bhiwani and the cheque was presented and dishonoured in Bhiwani [Para 14].

Preservation of Historical Monuments – Mining Restrictions – The appellant, K. Guruprasad Rao, filed a writ petition seeking the cancellation of a mining lease and the cessation of mining activities within one kilometer of Jambunatheswara Temple in Hospet, Karnataka. The temple, built in 1540 and a protected monument under the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961, faced structural damage due to nearby mining operations [Paras 1-23, 24-48].

Factual Background and Legal Framework – The temple, surrounded by rich iron-ore deposits, suffered from structural cracks and discoloration attributed to mining activities, including the use of explosives. The temple was officially declared a protected monument, with specific areas around it designated as 'protected' and 'safe zones' where mining was prohibited [Paras 24-26, 32-35].

Impact Assessment and Expert Committee Findings – An expert committee was constituted to assess the impact of mining on the temple. The committee conducted extensive investigations, including experimental blasts and monitoring vibrations. The findings confirmed that mining activities within close proximity to the temple caused significant structural damage. Recommendations included banning mining activities within a 1 km radius of the temple and implementing strict controls on mining practices beyond this zone to minimize further damage [Paras 44-48].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court directed the State Government to implement the recommendations of the expert committee, including the creation of a Corpus Fund for the conservation of the temple. The mining activities within a one-kilometer radius of the temple were prohibited to protect and preserve the historical monument [Para 48].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation for Disability – The appellant, Neerupam Mohan Mathur, suffered a severe injury resulting in the amputation of his right arm above the shoulder due to a motor vehicle accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded Rs. 320,000 with 12% interest, which was later enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 704,800 with 6% interest. The appellant challenged the compensation as inadequate, citing incorrect assessment of disability and insufficient compensation for prosthesis and other damages [Paras 2-18].

Assessment of Disability and Earning Capacity – The appellant, a qualified Product Design Engineer, contended that his disability should be assessed at 100% rather than the 70% determined by the High Court. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to assess the impact of disability on earning capacity rather than just the percentage of physical disability. The Court noted that the appellant could still perform jobs requiring intellectual rather than physical labor, thus supporting the High Court’s assessment of 70% disability [Paras 9-14].

Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Damages – The Court found that the Tribunal and the High Court had inadequately compensated the appellant for various damages, including the cost of prosthesis, future medical expenses, loss of earnings during treatment, and pain and suffering. The Supreme Court re-determined the compensation to ensure complete justice, awarding a total of Rs. 11,64,300, inclusive of amounts for medical expenses, prosthesis, and other damages [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court directed the respondent, New India Assurance Co., to pay the appellant a total sum of Rs. 11,64,300, after adjusting amounts already paid, within three months from the judgment date, with interest at 12%. The orders of the High Court and the Tribunal were modified accordingly [Paras 18-19].

Promotion Criteria – Merit and Ability vs. Seniority – The case concerns the promotion of K.V. Karthalingan from Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade II) to Regional Transport Officer. The contention was whether Rule 36(b)(ii) of the General Rules, allowing for out-of-turn promotions based on merit and ability, could be applied. The Supreme Court examined the eligibility criteria under the Special Rules framed for the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Service and Tamil Nadu Transport Service, which supersede the General Rules in case of conflict [Paras 1-30].

Eligibility and Special Rules Supremacy – The Court noted that the Special Rules require specific conditions for promotion, including a minimum service period. Respondent No. 5, K.V. Karthalingan, did not meet these conditions at the time of seeking promotion. The Special Rules also state that promotion should be based on merit and ability, with seniority considered only when merit and ability are equal. The application of Rule 36(b)(ii) for out-of-turn promotion was found inapplicable, as the General Rules cannot override the Special Rules [Paras 22-30].

Procedural Impropriety – The Court observed that the Administrative Tribunal and High Court erred in granting promotion without ensuring compliance with the Special Rules. The absence of affected senior candidates in the original proceedings and the failure to provide a platform for their objections were significant lapses. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of following established rules and procedures for promotions to maintain fairness and meritocracy [Paras 16-30].

Decision: Appeals allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, which had directed the promotion of Respondent No. 5. The Court reaffirmed the need to adhere to the Special Rules and the proper procedural requirements for promotions within the service [Para 30].

Workmen's Compensation – Evidence and Assessment – The appellants, employed as driver, cleaner, and loaders in a lorry, were injured in an accident. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded compensation based on medical evidence and disability certificates. The High Court overturned this decision, demanding x-rays as proof of injury. The Supreme Court reinstated the Commissioner’s award, emphasizing that medical experts, not the Commissioner, assess disabilities. The insurer's challenge to the evidence was dismissed as the Commissioner had rightly relied on the orthopedic surgeon’s testimony and disability certificates [Paras 1-10].

Legal Standard for Appeals – Substantial Question of Law – The Supreme Court highlighted that appeals under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act require a substantial question of law. The High Court erred in re-appreciating evidence, which is beyond its jurisdiction in such cases. The Commissioner’s findings on fact were based on credible evidence and thus binding. The High Court’s intervention lacked grounds as no material irregularity or perversity in the evidence appraisal was demonstrated [Paras 10-12].

Interest on Compensation – The Commissioner’s award included a 12% interest on the compensation amount, in line with Section 4A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Supreme Court upheld this statutory interest rate [Para 13].

Decision: Appeals allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the orders of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, affirming the awarded compensation and statutory interest. The insurer was directed to comply with the payment order within the specified timeframe [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant, Harivadan Babubhai Patel, was convicted for wrongful confinement, murder, conspiracy, and destruction of evidence. The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recovery of the deceased's body at the appellant's instance, and medical evidence confirming the homicidal nature of death. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, noting the sufficiency and reliability of circumstantial evidence, and the appellant's failure to provide an explanation under Section 313 CrPC [Paras 1-24].

Last Seen Theory and Recovery of Evidence – The deceased was last seen with the appellant and others, and the dead body was recovered from a place within the appellant's special knowledge. The Court emphasized the validity of the last seen theory and the admissibility of recovery evidence under Sections 8 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The recovery of the dead body and other articles substantiated the prosecution's case [Paras 13-16].

Conspiracy and Acquittal of Co-accused – The appellant's conviction under Section 120B IPC was set aside due to the acquittal of co-accused, as conspiracy charges cannot stand against a single accused. However, the concurrent sentences for other offences, including murder, were upheld [Paras 23-24].

Delay in Lodging FIR – The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the family's efforts to search for the deceased. The Court accepted the explanation and dismissed the argument that the delay undermined the prosecution's case. The credibility of the prosecution's explanation was affirmed based on consistent witness testimonies and circumstances [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences for wrongful confinement, murder, and destruction of evidence. However, the conviction under Section 120B IPC was set aside due to the acquittal of the co-accused. The sentences for the other offences will run concurrently as directed by the lower courts [Paras 24].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of L. Shivaraman, based on circumstantial evidence including extra-judicial confession, motive, and forensic evidence. The Supreme Court scrutinized the chain of circumstantial evidence, finding inconsistencies and gaps that raised reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt [Paras 1-33].

Extra-Judicial Confession and Corroboration – The prosecution relied on an extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Kalyan Singh (PW-6). The Supreme Court emphasized that extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated and the exact words used by the accused should be reproduced. The Court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the confession, reducing its reliability [Paras 9-10, 13].

Forensic Evidence and Missing Links – The knife allegedly used in the murder (Ex. P-3) bore the appellant's fingerprints, but another blood-stained knife (Ex. 2b) found with the victim’s clothing was not adequately investigated. The Court noted that the second knife was not shown to the medical examiner to determine if it could have caused the injuries, and there was no forensic examination of fingerprints on the second knife [Paras 23-30].

Procedural Irregularities and Incomplete Chain of Evidence – The Court observed procedural lapses, including the failure to seize the appellant's clothes, which were crucial for establishing the presence of blood stains. The crime scene was cleaned before the investigation, eliminating critical evidence. The non-examination of key witnesses further weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 23-32].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 33].

Illegal Detention – Compensation Claim – The appellant, N. Sengodan, an ex-service man and retired police officer, claimed damages for illegal detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. He was detained based on a complaint alleging incitement to disaffection within the police force through a press statement. The High Court dismissed his writ petition, and the Supreme Court reviewed the factual background, legal provisions, and procedural aspects to determine the validity of the appellant's claims [Paras 1-15].

Malafide Intention and Lack of Evidence – The Supreme Court found that the appellant's press statement did not incite disaffection or public disorder as alleged. The press statement sought the formation of a police association for addressing grievances and did not violate any legal provisions. The Court noted the lack of evidence to support the allegations against the appellant and criticized the authorities for acting with malafide intention to punish him without proper justification [Paras 16-33].

Procedural Irregularities and Advisory Board's Findings – The detention order was revoked by the Advisory Board, which found no sufficient cause for detention. The Supreme Court highlighted procedural irregularities, including the failure to file a charge sheet and the absence of credible evidence. The Court also noted that the respondents did not provide a valid explanation for the detention, supporting the appellant's claim of malafide actions [Paras 34-42].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and directed the State of Tamil Nadu to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation to the appellant within two months. The Court emphasized the need for adherence to legal procedures and protections against wrongful detention [Paras 50-51].