Civil Law – Property Dispute and Contempt of Court –– legitimacy of a contempt application in a longstanding property dispute involving ancestral lands. The appellant, Shah Enterprises, challenged the dismissal of a contempt petition filed against the respondents for allegedly breaching a consent decree related to the property. [Para 1, 2, 3-10]

Contempt of Court – Filing of Civil Suit as Contempt – Held – The Court held that merely filing a civil suit to assert legal rights over land does not constitute contempt of court, especially when the suit is part of an ongoing legal dispute and includes multiple parties. The Court emphasized that such actions, while perhaps annoying or burdensome to the opposing party, do not meet the criteria for contempt. [Para 10, 25]

Participation in Legal Proceedings – Effect on Contempt Allegations – Noted – The Court noted that the appellant, having actively participated in the civil proceedings, sought preliminary issues and contested applications, which contradicts the claim of contempt. Active involvement in litigation processes indicates acknowledgment of the legal process, thereby negating claims of contempt due to mere filing of a suit. [Para 14, 24]

Distinction from Previous Case Law – Skipper Construction Case – Distinguished – The Court distinguished the present case from the Skipper Construction precedent, noting that the facts and circumstances were markedly different. In Skipper Construction, the actions taken were in clear defiance of the court's direct orders, unlike in the present case where ongoing legal proceedings were involved. [Para 20-22, 23]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the contention that filing of a suit by the respondents amounted to contempt of court. The Court underscored that their observations were limited to the question of contempt and should not influence the ongoing property dispute trial. [Para 26-28]

Civil Appeal – Tender Process and Public Interest Litigation – Evaluation of the tender process undertaken by the Travancore Devaswom Board for procurement of cardamom for Aravana Prasadam at Sabarimala Temple. Examination of the maintainability of a public interest litigation challenging the tender process. [Para 18-23, 25]

Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation – held – not maintainable when filed by an interested party with underlying personal interests. Reaffirmed principles governing judicial review in tender matters, emphasizing restraint in contractual disputes masquerading as public interest litigations. PIL should not serve as a tool for personal gain, private disputes, or business rivalries.  [Para 19-22]

Applicability of Food Safety and Standards Act to Religious Offerings – The question of whether the Travancore Devaswom Board qualifies as a “food business operator” under Section 3(1)(j) of the Act deemed irrelevant following the decision on the maintainability of the PIL. [Para 23]

Disposal of Existing Stock of Prasadam – Directed by the Supreme Court, considering the appellant's decision not to distribute the existing prasadam. [Para 24]

Decision – Supreme Court allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court's orders. Finds no illegality or arbitrariness in the award of the contract to respondent no. 2. [Paras 24-27]

Family Law - Divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown - Supreme Court exercises discretion under Article 142(1) to dissolve the marriage of Jatinder Kumar Sapra and Anupama Sapra - The marriage, solemnized on 14.10.1991, has deteriorated over 22 years of separation - Findings based on non-cohabitation since January 2002, allegations of mutual cruelty, and no possibility of reconciliation - Previous attempts at mediation unsuccessful - Marriage dissolution granted despite unresolved allegations between parties [Paras 2-8].

Alimony - Appellant to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- as permanent alimony - Payment scheduled in five installments from May to September 2024 - Financial stability of appellant, formerly employed in managerial positions at multinational corporations, considered in decision [Para 9].

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, issuing a decree of divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage – Permanent alimony set at Rs. 50,00,000/-, with specific payment schedule [Para 10]. The decree to be issued following proof of full payment [Para 10].

Writ - Constitutionality of Minimum Qualifying Marks in Viva Voce – Judicial Recruitment – Writ Petition challenging Bihar and Gujarat Rules prescribing minimum marks in viva voce for judicial posts – Held, prescribing minimum marks is permissible and does not violate fundamental rights or judicial precedents – Prescriptions aligned with ensuring meritocracy and efficiency in judiciary – Dismissal of challenge justified on legal and constitutional grounds. [Paras 1-102]

Judicial Service Examination – Bihar and Gujarat – Analysis of recruitment processes – Scrutiny of Bihar’s moderation of marks and Gujarat’s consultation process with the Public Service Commission – Both found legally valid – Moderation undertaken to address insufficient qualifying candidates, consultation appropriately managed – Upheld the transparency and legal compliance of recruitment processes in both states. [Paras 69-102]

Discretion in Judicial Recruitment – Addressing non-availability of qualified candidates – High Court’s discretion in mark moderation and interview panel selection discussed – Recommendations for improving recruitment transparency and predictability – Designation of responsible authority for candidate inquiries and clear guidelines for mark moderation suggested to enhance procedural clarity and fairness. [Paras 100-101]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petitions – Supreme Court upholds the prescribed minimum qualifying marks for viva voce in judicial recruitment in Bihar and Gujarat – Confirms legality of recruitment processes and rejects challenges based on constitutional grounds – Recommends procedural enhancements for future recruitments to ensure fairness and transparency. [Para 102]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Sexual Offence – Allegation of Rape Under False Promise to Marry – High Court's Dismissal of Quashing FIR Challenged – Appellant contends FIR is an abuse of process, highlighting discrepancies in complainant's statements and her prior marital status - FIR based on complainant's claim of being raped under false promise to marry. [Para 1, 2, 8]

Consent and Misconception of Fact – Analyzed – The Court deliberated on the nature of consent given by the prosecutrix, who was already married and had a child. It assessed whether the consent was under a misconception of fact and if the accused could be held guilty of rape under Section 375 of IPC in such a scenario. Reliance was placed on the Court's previous judgment in Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi). [Para 8, 9]

Role of Complainant’s Maturity and Understanding – Considered – The Court noted the complainant's age, maturity, and understanding in discerning the moral and immoral aspects of her actions, considering that she was a mature woman, mother of a child, and consented to a relationship during the subsistence of her marriage. [Para 8, 9]

Quashing of FIR and Subsequent Proceedings – Held – The FIR No.52 dated 11.12.2020, registered at Police Station, Mahila Thana, District Satna (M.P.), and all subsequent proceedings were quashed due to the reasons cited, encompassing the nature of consent, discrepancies in statements, and absence of a false promise under misconception of fact. [Para 10]

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court and quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings against the appellant. [Para 10, 11]

Conviction Based on Dying Declaration - Validity Upheld for One Accused - Victim’s declaration deemed cogent, trustworthy, and reliable - Conviction of Pappi @ Mashkoor (accused No.1) upheld based on victim's dying declaration stating he set her ablaze - Dying declaration held as the sole basis of conviction without independent corroboration - Court satisfied with victim’s mental fitness and voluntariness in giving statement [Paras 6-11, 13-14].

Role of Co-Accused in the Offence - Benefit of Doubt to Two Accused - Accused No. 2 (Naeema) and Accused No. 3 (Naeem) acquitted due to lack of specific evidence on their roles in aiding the primary accused - Dying declaration not specifying their explicit involvement in the crime [Para 15].

Dying Declaration – Credibility and Legitimacy – Held – emphasized the necessity for the court to ensure that the dying declaration is true, voluntary, and made by a person in a fit state of mind, not influenced by tutoring, prompting, or imagination. The court observed that a dying declaration, if found reliable, can form the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. [Para 7, 10, 11]

Decision – Acquittal of Co-accused – Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Naeem and Naeema, leading to their acquittal due to insufficient evidence against them in the dying declaration, whereas the appeal of Pappi @ Mashkoor was dismissed, maintaining his conviction. [Para 16]

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Suicide of Data Ram – Alleged abetment by Prabhat Kumar Mishra – Mishra challenged the charges under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act – Based on suicide note of Data Ram alleging pressure and humiliation – High Court rejected Mishra's application under Section 482 CrPC – Appeal to Supreme Court. [Paras 2-10]

Non-Constituent of Offences – Supreme Court observed prosecution under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act to be illegal – No evidence of offence committed on caste basis – Parameters of abetment under Section 306 IPC not met – Relying on similar judgments including Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. and M. Mohan v. State. [Paras 16-21]

Ineffectiveness of Suicide Note – Suicide note did not exhibit acts or omissions by Mishra constituting abetment – Indicated frustration and pressure unrelated to Mishra – Initial closure report by investigating agency supported non-prosecution. [Paras 22-24]

Decision – Supreme Court quashed High Court order and all proceedings against Mishra under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act – Appeal allowed. [Paras 25-27]

Agricultural Produce – Livestock Products – Inclusion of Ghee – The Supreme Court evaluated whether 'ghee' falls under the category of a 'product of livestock' according to The Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. The Court also examined the validity of the Government notification, G.O. Ms. No.286 dated 05.07.1994, which declared 'ghee' as a livestock product. [Para 1-2, 10]

Compliance with Legislative Procedure - Validity of 1994 Notification - The Court affirmed the validity of the 1994 Government notification under Section 4, not Section 3, of the Act, negating the need for a draft notification and public objections process - This notification was for the declaration of a 'notified market area' for "ghee" [Para 11].

Obligation to Pay Market Fees - Appellants Liable for Market Fees - The Court held that appellants must pay market fees from 1994 to 2009, rejecting their argument for exemption - They are allowed to pay the accumulated fee over two years in four equal installments [Para 13].

Dismissal of Appeals - Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the majority decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and lifting interim orders that had restrained collection of market fees [Para 14].

Applicability of Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 - In contracts between buyer and supplier, the buyer must make payments within a timeframe, not exceeding 120 days from the day of acceptance or deemed acceptance - Interest chargeable after this period as per Sections 3 and 4 of the Act - Proviso to Section 3 limits payment date to a maximum of 120 days regardless of the contract terms. [Paras 3, 6-8, 14]

Definition of 'appointed day', 'buyer', and 'supplier' under the 1993 Act - Explanation of these terms critical for determining the start date for calculating interest on delayed payments - Amendments to include National Small Industries Corporation and State Industrial Development Corporations under 'supplier' definition. [Para 4, 5]

Arbitral award dated 30.06.2003 set aside by High Court - Sections 3 to 5 of the 1993 Act require ascertaining the appointed day, acceptance day, or deemed acceptance day for interest calculations - Further proceedings to determine these facts and the consequent interest payable under the Act. [Paras 13, 14]

Consideration of compound interest under Section 5 of the Act - Compound interest treated separately from the principal amount - Need for clarification on whether compounded interest is to be considered as principal for future calculations. [Para 15]

Restitution and enforcement of security by MSSIDCL - MSSIDCL entitled to enforce security or seek restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for payments made to SSPL. [Para 16]

Appeal dismissed without costs - Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. [Para 17]