Civil Appeal – Interest on Refund – Appellants, charitable institutions, deposited amounts with Delhi Development Authority for additional FAR benefits. Appeals arise from High Court's refusal to grant interest on refunded amounts. [Para 1-2]

Statutory Notifications – Delhi Development Authority issued notifications under Section 57 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, fixing rates for additional FAR. Appellants challenged these notifications in High Court. [Para 2-3]

Interim Relief – High Court granted interim relief, allowing appellants to deposit disputed amounts and proceed with construction. High Court indicated that the question of refund with interest would be examined later. [Para 9-10]

Subsequent Amendment – Delhi Development Authority amended notifications, exempting certain categories, including appellants, from additional FAR charges. High Court disposed of writ petitions and directed refund of deposited amounts without interest. [Para 4, 12]

Legal Principles – Appellants relied on various Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the principle of restitution and 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit'. Court found these principles not applicable in the present case. [Para 8, 13-14]

Contempt Proceedings – Appellant in second appeal initiated contempt proceedings for non-refund of deposit. High Court disposed of contempt petition, stating that payment of interest or compensation would not arise. [Para 15-16]

Decision – Appeals disposed of without any order as to costs. Appellants free to initiate separate proceedings for claiming interest for the period of retention of their deposits. [Para 17-18]

Appeal – Conviction for Murder – Appellants convicted by the High Court and Trial Court for the murder of Ellahabadiya alias Vijay under Section 302 of the IPC – Appeals filed against the conviction. [Para 1, 7]

Eyewitness Testimony – Inconsistencies and Contradictions – PW-2 and PW-6 identified as the main eyewitnesses – PW-2's testimony found inconsistent with his previous statements and not corroborating with other evidence – PW-6's testimony also found unreliable due to inconsistencies and failure to explain key aspects of the case. [Para 5, 20-23]

Delayed FIR – Questionable Credibility – FIR lodged the next day by PW-9, a village chowkidar from a neighboring village, who was not an eyewitness – The delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in the statements of eyewitnesses raise questions about the credibility of the prosecution's case. [Para 16-19]

Discovery of Evidence – Lathi and Clothes – Seizure of lathi and clothes from the accused not considered conclusive evidence due to inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and failure of serologist report to confirm the origin of blood stains. [Para 25]

Mob Violence – Possibility – Evidence suggests the possibility of mob violence against the deceased, rather than a targeted attack by the accused – Prosecution fails to provide a clear motive or account for the crime. [Para 14, 24]

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Due to inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, delayed FIR, and lack of conclusive evidence, the appellants are acquitted and given the benefit of the doubt. [Para 24-26]

Writ Petition under Article 32 – Juvenility Claim – Petitioner seeks verification of his claim of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Court allows the Writ Petition based on the report confirming the petitioner's juvenility at the time of the offense. [Para 1]

Criminal History – Petitioner convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for life imprisonment – Conviction upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court – Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition two months after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. [Para 2-3]

Juvenility – Right to Raise at Any Stage – Court acknowledges that the question of juvenility can be raised at any stage and directs an enquiry – State confirms petitioner's date of birth based on school records. [Para 4]

Judicial Enquiry – Additional Sessions Judge confirms petitioner's juvenility based on detailed examination of documents and oral evidence – Court accepts the report without hesitation. [Para 5]

Age at Time of Crime – Petitioner was 16 years and 7 months old at the time of the crime, confirming his status as a juvenile in conflict with the law. [Para 6]

Maximum Statutory Punishment – Under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the maximum period of custody for the petitioner should have been three years – Petitioner has already undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment. [Para 7]

Decision – Writ Petition allowed – Petitioner to be released forthwith, unless required to be detained in another case – No order as to costs. [Para 8]

Bail Application – Multiple Offences – Accused nos. 5 and 6 sought bail for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 – Applications filed in connection with FIR No. RC-BD1/2014E004-CBI/BS&FC/New Delhi and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 326 of 2023 – No connection with pending transferred cases in TC (Crl.) No. 1 of 2016 and TC (Crl.) No. 3 of 2016. [Para 2-3]

Criminal Investigation – Siphoning of Funds – Applicants, being Directors at the relevant time, were accused in a case where the amount siphoned off exceeds 40 thousand crores – Limited recovery made despite efforts by the investigating agency and a Committee constituted under Justice R.M. Lodha. [Para 3]

Scope of Relief – Omnibus Relief – Applicants sought bail in all pending cases across different jurisdictions and investigating agencies – Court emphasized that one bail order cannot be applied to all other subsequent cases. [Para 5, 8]

Arguments for Bail – Incarceration and Good Faith – Applicants argued they have been in jail for over 7 years and acted in good faith – No evidence of tampering with witnesses or non-cooperation with the investigating agency. [Para 6]

Arguments Against Bail – Public Interest – Learned Additional Solicitor General argued against bail citing the large number of investors duped and the international scope of the financial trail – Recommended that applicants approach jurisdictional courts for bail. [Para 7]

Decision – Dismissal of Applications – Court dismissed the bail applications and the writ petition, directing the applicants to approach the jurisdictional courts for bail – Interim bail extended for 3 months to facilitate the same. [Para 9-10]

Consumer Law – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Appellant challenging the decision of the NCDRC which dismissed his complaint against the respondent for an alleged defect in a drug. NCDRC held that there was no evidence of defect or negligence on the part of the manufacturer. [Para 1]

Medical Negligence – Vaccine Administration: Appellant claimed to have an adverse reaction to the Hepatitis B vaccine Engerix-B, manufactured by the respondent, leading to 'myositis' and permanent disability in his shoulder. The Court found no documentary evidence or medical records to substantiate the claim. [Para 2-3, 8-9]

Evidentiary Value – Affidavits: Appellant relied on affidavits from his family physician and his uncle, both doctors, to establish his case. The Court found these affidavits lacking in evidentiary value and not sufficient to establish medical negligence or a defect in the drug. [Para 5, 12-13]

Burden of Proof: The appellant failed to discharge the initial burden of proof. No muscle biopsy was furnished despite being requested by the respondents, leading to an adverse inference against the appellant. [Para 14, 17]

Deficiency of Service: The Court found that the non-mentioning of 'myositis' as a potential adverse reaction in the vaccine's literature was not a 'deficiency of service,' given the minimal incidence rate of 0.02 per million doses and the detailed certification procedure followed for the drug. [Para 6, 15-16]

Decision: NCDRC's decision upheld. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. No error was found in NCDRC's judgment. [Para 17-18]

Probationary Employment – Discharge of Probationary Constable – Respondent Jaswant Singh discharged from Punjab Police during probation under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (PPR) – Discharge challenged on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. [Para 1, 5]

Appellate Proceedings – First Appellate Court and High Court – Both courts upheld the respondent-plaintiff's claim and dismissed the State's appeal – Held that the discharge was not legally sustainable and granted all service benefits to the respondent-plaintiff. [Para 2-3, 8]

Legal Framework – Rule 12.21 of PPR – Allows for the discharge of a constable found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer within three years of enrolment – No appeal against an order of discharge under this Rule. [Para 11]

Supreme Court Precedents – Cited various judgments to distinguish between simpliciter termination and punitive termination – Emphasized the need to examine the "nature" and "purpose" of the enquiry leading to termination. [Para 12-18]

Case Facts – Respondent-plaintiff was absent from training without intimation – Recommendation for discharge made by the Superintendent of Police of the Training Centre – No formal departmental inquiry held. [Para 18]

Decision – Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and lower courts – Held that the discharge was simpliciter and not punitive in nature – Suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff dismissed. [Para 21]

Detention Order – Challenged - Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, issued Detention Order under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1986, categorizing the Detenu as a ‘Goonda’ for his habitual criminal activities. The Commissioner opined that ordinary law was insufficient to curb his activities. Representation and Advisory Board – Appellant submitted a representation under section 10 of the Act, which was reviewed by the Advisory Board. The Board found “sufficient cause” for detention, and the Government confirmed the Detention Order for a period of 12 months. Detention order - challenged – High Court of Telangana upheld the Detention Order dated 24th March 2023 against the appellant’s husband, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.  [Para 1-4]

High Court’s Dismissal – High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition after hearing both parties, leading to the current appeal in the Supreme Court. [Para 5]

Preventive Detention – Scope and Purpose – Discussion on the constitutional and legal framework governing preventive detention in India – Emphasis on the need for strict compliance with procedural safeguards. [Para 1-15]

Constitutional Law – Article 22 – Examination of the constitutional safeguards under Article 22 of the Indian Constitution in the context of preventive detention – Importance of procedural compliance for the validity of detention. Constitutional provision limiting preventive detention to 3 months unless extended by an Advisory Board [Para 16-20, 59]

Preventive Detention – Advisory Board’s Role – The role of the Advisory Board in preventive detention laws as a safeguard against abuse of power – Emphasis on the need for the detaining authority to specify the duration of detention rather than routinely extending it to the maximum permissible period. [Para 58-64]

Public Order – Distinction from Law and Order – Elaboration on the difference between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ – Criteria for preventive detention based on activities affecting public order. [Para 21-30]

Evidence – Reliability and Sufficiency – Scrutiny of the evidence presented by the detaining authority – Court finds the evidence insufficient to establish a threat to public order. [Para 31-45]

Procedural Lapses – Non-Compliance with Safeguards – Identification of procedural lapses in the detention order, including failure to provide materials relied upon – Detention order found unsustainable. [Para 46-57]

Discretionary Power – Exercise of discretion by the detaining authority to fix the period of detention – Critique of a mechanical approach that treats the maximum period as the standard duration. [Para 60-63]

Fundamental Rights – Article 14 – Discussion on the need for the detaining authority to exercise discretion in a manner that meets the test of Article 14, ensuring fairness and reasonableness. [Para 70]

Decision – Detention Order Quashed – The Court found the Detention Order unsustainable and quashed it along with the impugned judgment of the High Court – Detenu to be released forthwith. [Para 81-82]

Civil Appeal – Workmen Compensation Act – Appeal against High Court’s decision to set aside the Commissioner’s award of compensation to the legal representatives of a deceased employee – Appellants are the mother and wife of the deceased. [Para 1-2]

Employment Status – Deceased was allegedly an employee of Kutch Carrier, drawing a salary of ₹4000 per month – Employment denied by insurer due to lack of documentation. [Para 3-4]

Commissioner’s Order – Eight issues framed, including the employment status, liability for compensation, and penalty – Commissioner awarded ₹3,94,120 as compensation, 9% interest, and a 50% penalty amounting to ₹1,97,060 against the employer. [Para 6-7]

First Appeal – High Court set aside Commissioner’s order, concluding that the deceased was not an employee at the time of the accident. [Para 10-11]

Jurisdiction and Law – Discussion on Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, which allows appeals only on substantial questions of law – High Court failed to frame any such question. [Para 14-19]

Perversity in Findings – High Court did not indicate that the Commissioner’s findings were perverse – Difference between the two judgments was on the point of establishing the employer-employee relationship. [Para 21-22]

Merits of the Case – Supreme Court finds that the Commissioner’s conclusions were “a possible view,” thereby negating any perversity – Act being a social welfare legislation should be given a beneficial construction. [Para 25-30]

Decision – High Court’s judgment set aside – Commissioner’s order restored – Appeal allowed. [Para 32-33]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Accused convicted by Judicial Magistrate for cheque dishonour – Sentenced to pay cheque amount with interest – Appeals filed against conviction. [Para 3]

Appeals – Suspension of Sentence – Sessions Court grants relief subject to 20% deposit of compensation amount under Section 148 of N.I. Act and Section 389 of Cr.P.C. – High Court confirms Sessions Court's order. [Para 3-4]

Interpretation of Law – High Court relies on Surinder Singh Deswal case to interpret word "may" in Section 148 of N.I. Act as "shall" – Obligation to deposit a minimum of 20% of compensation amount deemed mandatory. [Para 4-5]

Judicial Discretion – Supreme Court notes that appellate courts have discretion to waive 20% deposit requirement in exceptional cases – Reasons for such exception must be recorded. [Para 6-7]

Failure to Plead Exception – Appellants did not plead for an exception to the 20% deposit requirement – Supreme Court disagrees with contention that courts had no reason to consider plea. [Para 8-9]

Erroneous Presumption – Both lower courts assumed 20% deposit was an absolute rule with no room for exceptions. [Para 10]

Appeals Allowed – Supreme Court sets aside High Court orders – Restores revision petitions for reconsideration – Directs High Court to re-examine in light of this judgment. [Para 12-13]