Specific Performance – Hardship – The Supreme Court held that the first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decree for specific performance without framing an issue on the hardship to the respondent. The Court emphasized that hardship is a good defense in specific performance cases only if such defense is specifically pleaded and supported by evidence. In this case, no such defense was taken by the respondent, and no evidence was presented to show that he would be landless if the decree were granted [Paras 13-15].

Readiness and Willingness – The appellant proved that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The evidence showed that the appellant had paid a significant portion of the sale consideration and was prepared to complete the transaction. The trial court's findings in favor of the appellant on these issues were upheld [Paras 4, 6, 14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court. The judgment and decree of the trial court, which granted specific performance of the contract, were restored. The appellant was given two months to pay the balance consideration, failing which the trial court would ensure the execution of the sale deed [Paras 15-16].

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement – The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant by considering a reasonable increase in the income of the deceased over time, as well as an appropriate deduction for personal expenses. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal and High Court's approach of not providing for an increase in income and deducting one-third of the deceased's income for personal expenses, deeming it unrealistic [Paras 14-15].

Dependants – The Court held that the Tribunal's assumption that the deceased's two adult sons were not dependants was incorrect without evidence to the contrary. The Court emphasized that dependants could include adult children, especially if there was no evidence suggesting they were financially independent [Paras 16].

Future Prospects – The Court applied a 30% increase to the deceased's income for future prospects, aligning with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. This approach considers the natural progression of income due to rising costs of living and other economic factors [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the MACT, awarding the appellant a total compensation of Rs. 3,19,840, which included Rs. 2,94,840 for loss of dependency, Rs. 5,000 for transportation of the body, Rs. 10,000 for funeral expenses, and Rs. 10,000 for loss of consortium. The enhanced compensation carried interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till realization [Paras 17-18].

Double Jeopardy – Doctrine of Autrefois Acquit/Autrefois Convict – The Supreme Court dealt with the plea of double jeopardy raised by the appellant, who argued that having been acquitted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, she could not be tried again for the same offence under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 114 IPC. The Court clarified that the protection against double jeopardy applies only if the ingredients of the offences in the earlier and later cases are the same, which was not the case here [Paras 1-24].

Distinction Between Offences – The Court emphasized that while there may be some overlapping of facts, the ingredients of the offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the IPC are distinct. For instance, under Section 138 NI Act, there is no requirement to prove mens rea (fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of issuing the cheque), which is a crucial element for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Additionally, the presumption of discharge of liability under Section 138 NI Act is not applicable to offences under the IPC [Paras 24-28].

Judicial Precedents – The Court referred to several precedents that distinguished between the scope of criminal liability under different statutes and reiterated that a conviction or acquittal under one statute does not bar prosecution under another statute with different ingredients for the offence. The judgments in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India, Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent District Jail Amritsar, and State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte were particularly noted [Paras 6-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 114 IPC were not barred by the previous trial under Section 138 NI Act. The appeal was devoid of merit as the ingredients of the offences were different [Paras 28].

Civil Procedure – Written Statements – The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the case for retrial and permitting the defendants to file written statements and documents. The High Court’s decision was made despite the defendants’ failure to file written statements in the trial court even after several opportunities were granted [Paras 2-8].

Absence of Written Statements – Judicial Duty – The Court emphasized that even if a written statement is not filed by the defendants, the trial court must critically examine the plaintiff’s case. It must ensure the plaintiff proves their case through evidence rather than merely passing a decree based on the absence of a written statement by the defendants. The Court referenced the judgment in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, which mandates courts to be cautious and ensure facts are proved before passing a judgment [Paras 10-14].

Judicial Discretion – Remand for Retrial – The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to remand the matter for retrial, allowing the defendants to file written statements. It noted that the trial court had granted a decree without adequately scrutinizing the plaintiff’s evidence and without ensuring the plaintiff had proved his claim about the jointness of the property [Paras 15-16].

Equity and Fairplay – Costs – To balance equity and fairplay, the Court directed the respondents to pay a token cost of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant before the trial court proceeds with the retrial. This decision recognized the inconvenience caused to the appellant due to the defendants’ initial failure to file written statements and participate in the trial [Para 16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s order for retrial and directing the payment of costs to the appellant by the respondents [Para 17].

Disability Pension – Attributability to Military Service – The Supreme Court addressed whether an injury sustained by military personnel while on annual leave at home could be considered attributable to or aggravated by military service. The Court reaffirmed that for disability pension to be granted under Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, the injury must be attributable to or aggravated by military service [Paras 7-9].

Medical Board’s Primacy – The Court emphasized the primacy of the Medical Board's opinion in determining the attributability and aggravation of the injury by military service. The opinion of the Medical Board, being a specialized authority, is to be given due weight and should not be ignored by the courts [Paras 7, 9, 11].

Case Law – Judicial Precedents – The Court referred to several precedents, including Union of India v. Baljit Singh and Union of India v. Jujhar Singh, to support the principle that courts should not interfere with the Medical Board’s findings unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The Court reiterated that the claimant must establish a reasonable nexus between the injury and military service [Paras 7-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It restored the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had denied the respondent's claim for disability pension. The Court concluded that the respondent's injury, sustained while on leave at home, was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service [Paras 11-12].

Fast Track Courts – Ad Hoc Appointments – The Supreme Court addressed the legality and propriety of appointing ad hoc judges to FTCs under various state rules. It held that such appointments, being temporary and ad hoc, did not confer any right to regularization or permanent absorption into the regular judicial service cadre. The Court emphasized that the appointments were made under special schemes intended to deal with the backlog of cases, and these schemes did not create permanent posts [Paras 2-7, 29-32].

Judicial Independence – Funding and Infrastructure – The Court recognized the critical need for adequate funding and infrastructure for the judiciary to ensure timely and fair trials. While the FTC scheme had been successful in reducing pendency, the Court noted that discontinuation of central funding posed challenges. The Court urged state governments to consider continuing the scheme using their resources and emphasized the judiciary's role in maintaining public trust through efficient administration of justice [Paras 46-50].

No Right to Regularization – The Court reiterated that judicial officers appointed on an ad hoc basis under the FTC scheme had no right to claim regularization or absorption into permanent posts. The appointments were purely temporary, aimed at addressing specific administrative needs. The Court referred to its earlier decisions in the Brij Mohan Lal and Madhumita Das cases to underline this principle [Paras 51-52].

Equitable Considerations – Compensation – Acknowledging the hardships faced by ad hoc judges, the Court directed that no adverse remarks should be made against those whose services were terminated and that they should be compensated appropriately for their services. The Court emphasized the need for fair treatment of these judges while upholding the temporary nature of their appointments [Paras 35-36].

Decision – Appeals and Writ Petitions Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions seeking regularization and continuation of ad hoc appointments under the FTC scheme. It upheld the temporary nature of these appointments and directed state governments to manage the FTCs' continuation based on their financial capabilities and policy decisions [Paras 38-39].

Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Conviction – The Supreme Court addressed the involvement of the accused in forming an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder. It held that the presence of multiple injuries on the deceased and the evidence presented established the common intention to kill. The convictions under Sections 148, 302/149, and 325/149 IPC were upheld [Paras 1-12, 27-29].

Testimony of Related Witnesses – Reliability – The Court emphasized that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be disregarded merely due to their relationship with the deceased. The statements of the witnesses, if found credible and corroborated by other evidence, hold substantial value. The presence of PW-4 and PW-5 was natural and their statements were consistent and trustworthy [Paras 13-20].

Acquittal – Presumption of Innocence – The Court reiterated the double presumption of innocence in cases of acquittal. It emphasized that to overturn an acquittal, compelling reasons must be provided. The High Court's judgment in acquitting three of the accused was upheld due to lack of compelling evidence to the contrary [Paras 36-40].

Plea of Alibi – Rejected – The Court discussed the plea of alibi raised by some of the accused and found it untenable. The evidence presented by the prosecution effectively countered the alibi claims. The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court were upheld [Paras 31-34].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused as well as the appeal filed by the State against the judgment of conviction and acquittal. The convictions of the remaining accused were upheld, and the acquittal of three accused was confirmed [Paras 42-43].

Election Law – Recognition of Political Parties – The Supreme Court dealt with the challenge to the amendment in the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which required political parties to secure at least 6% of the total valid votes and return at least two members to the Legislative Assembly for recognition as a state party. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the amendment, stating that it was not unreasonable and was aimed at ensuring that recognized political parties had substantial support in the electorate [Paras 1-36, 33-35].

Right to Information – Voter's Right to Know – The Court emphasized the importance of a voter's right to know the antecedents of candidates, which includes knowing whether the candidates belong to a recognized political party. However, the Court balanced this right with the practicalities of conducting state-wide elections, affirming the benchmarks set by the Election Commission [Paras 19-24, 34].

Judicial Review – Legislative and Administrative Actions – The Court reiterated that it has the power to review legislative and administrative actions that are alleged to violate fundamental rights. The bench referred to the case law which establishes that while the judiciary can review such actions, it must do so with deference to the legislative and executive branches' authority to make policy decisions [Paras 31-34, 66].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions and special leave petitions, upholding the amendments to the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The Court found no merit in the arguments against the Election Commission's criteria for recognition of state parties [Paras 35-36].

Motor Insurance – Limits of Liability – The Supreme Court addressed whether the insurer is absolved of its obligations to third parties under the insurance policy if the cheque for the premium is dishonoured and the policy is subsequently cancelled after the accident. The Court held that the insurer remains liable to indemnify third parties for claims arising from an accident if the policy was in force at the time of the accident and was cancelled only afterward [Paras 1-20].

Insurance Contract – Dishonour of Cheque – The Court reiterated that if a policy of insurance is issued on receipt of a cheque for the premium, and the cheque is dishonoured, the insurer must cancel the policy and notify the insured before the accident occurs to avoid liability. If the accident occurs while the policy is still in effect, the insurer cannot deny liability based on the dishonour of the cheque [Paras 7-20].

Public Interest – Protection of Third Parties – Emphasizing public interest, the Court held that insurance companies must fulfill their obligations to third parties even if there is a dispute over the payment of the premium by the insured. The insurer's remedies lie against the insured for recovery of the premium amount, but this does not affect the rights of third parties who rely on the existence of the policy at the time of the accident [Paras 12-20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the insurer was liable to satisfy the award of compensation to the claimants. The insurer was granted the liberty to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the insured [Paras 20-21].