Transfer Petition under Section 25 CPC - Petitioner seeks transfer of matrimonial case from Karnataka to Maharashtra.

Mutual Consent Divorce - Parties referred to Supreme Court Mediation Centre, leading to settlement agreement for mutual consent divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Settlement Agreement - Agreement detailing dissolution of marriage, financial settlements, property division, and child custody arrangements. Terms include Rs.7,50,000 payment by petitioner to respondent, no claim by son in respondent's property, and division of other assets.

Decree of Divorce - Court accepts the settlement agreement, granting mutual consent divorce and quashing proceedings initiated by each party against the other.

Disposition - Transfer Petition disposed of as per the mutually agreed terms and conditions. Related pending applications also disposed of.

Transfer Petition in Matrimonial Dispute – Settlement and Mutual Divorce – Petition filed under Section 25 CPC for transfer of matrimonial case from Karnataka to Maharashtra. Parties arrive at a settlement during mediation, agreeing to dissolve their marriage via mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution. [Para 1-2]

Settlement Terms – Property and Financial Arrangements – Settlement includes various financial terms: ₹7,50,000 payment by wife to husband, handling of local body taxes and CIDCO transfer charges by husband, and arrangements concerning a gold loan and property transfer. [Para 3-4]

Mutual Divorce Decree – Acceptance of Settlement Agreement – Supreme Court accepts the lawful settlement agreement, allowing the application for divorce by mutual consent. Marriage dissolved under Section 13 B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [Para 5-6]

Disposition – Quashing of Proceedings – All proceedings initiated by the parties against each other quashed, with the terms of the settlement becoming part of the order. Transfer petition consequently disposed of. [Para 6]

Recruitment Process – Interpretation of Recruitment Rules – Issue regarding relaxation of prescribed essential qualifications post-application deadline – High Court's decision to allow relaxation for Post Codes 447 and 556 set aside – Relaxation deemed unsustainable post-application deadline without providing opportunity to similarly situated candidates. [Para 45(i)]

High Court Judgment – Direction in High Court judgment for recasting merit list using relaxed criteria – Direction overturned due to its inconsistency with established legal principles and constitutional mandates – Merit list for Post Code 556 not to be redrawn; recruitment for Post Code 817 to follow extant rules. [Para 45(ii)]

State Government's Relaxation Order – Relaxation/clarificatory order dated 21.08.2017 by State Government for certain recruitment post-codes – Held as legally unsustainable when issued after application deadline – Recruitment to adhere to qualifications specified in original advertisements and extant rules. [Para 45(i), (ii)]

Preservation of Existing Appointments – Appointments under Post Code 447 not to be disturbed despite eligibility gained through later relaxation – Considered decision in light of factors like nature of posts, period of appointments, and absence of specific allegations against appointees. [Para 45(iii)]

Constitutional Principles – Upholding of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in public recruitment – Requirement of adherence to stipulated selection criteria and avoidance of mid-process alterations without due notification and opportunity to all potential candidates. [Paras 26, 34]

Administrative Decision-Making – State's discretion in prescribing qualifications and conducting recruitment – Judicial restraint emphasized unless recruitment policy is malafide, arbitrary, or irrational. [Para 39]

Expeditious Disposal of Criminal Cases Against MPs and MLAs – Directing the establishment of special benches by High Courts to monitor and expedite criminal cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs. Guidelines formulated for prioritized hearing and trial on a day-to-day basis, ensuring speedy justice in line with Article 21 of the Constitution. [Paras 1, 3, 9, 14, 16, 20]

Special Courts and Designated District Courts – Shift from the initial idea of setting up special courts to designating specific courts in each district for handling such cases. Emphasis on prioritized hearing of cases involving serious offenses and those against sitting legislators. [Paras 4-7]

Monitoring and Reporting by High Courts – High Courts to register suo-motu cases titled "In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs" to oversee the progress of trials. Monthly status reports to be sent by designated courts to High Courts for review and necessary direction. [Paras 9, 20(iii), 20(vii)]

Witness Protection and Technology Use – Witness protection deemed essential, and courts directed to use video conferencing technology for witness examination and accused appearances, as far as possible. [Paras 9(iv), 20(vi)]

Stay on Proceedings – Direction to trial courts to proceed with trials notwithstanding any stay granted by High Courts unless a fresh order is passed extending the stay by recording reasons. Special Benches in High Courts to review and vacate stay orders, if necessary, to facilitate speedy trials. [Paras 9(iii), 20(v)]

Allocation of Cases and Infrastructure – Responsibility on Principal District and Sessions Judges to allocate cases effectively and ensure sufficient infrastructure and technological support for designated courts. [Paras 20(iii), 20(vi)]

Disposal of Writ Petition – Writ Petition disposed of with respect to the first prayer for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs. Matter to be listed for hearing on the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. [Paras 21-22]

Murder and Political Rivalry – Conviction of Madan under Sections 302, 148, 449 of IPC – Incident involving indiscriminate firing due to political rivalry leading to six deaths – Madan along with other accused found guilty of firing at victims, resulting in immediate deaths and subsequent fatalities [Paras 2.1-2.16, 26-29, 32-34, 36-37].

Evidence and Witness Credibility – Reliance on testimonies of four key witnesses (Lokendra (PW-1), Irshad Khan (PW-7), Harpal Singh (PW-10), and Sudhir (PW-11)) – Consistency in witness accounts despite cross-examination, establishing the involvement of Madan and co-accused in the brutal killings [Paras 28-30, 32-34, 36-37].

Motivation for Crime – Political enmity as the driving force behind the murders – Previous electoral rivalry cited as a motive for the indiscriminate firing and murders [Paras 30-31, 44].

Nature of Crime and Sentencing – Heinous nature of crime involving multiple murders in a public place – Trial court's award of capital punishment, with High Court commuting Sudesh Pal’s sentence to life imprisonment but maintaining Madan’s death penalty – Supreme Court commuting Madan’s death sentence to 20 years of imprisonment without remission [Paras 57-78].

Judicial Discretion in Sentencing – Supreme Court’s application of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine – Consideration of mitigating factors such as the possibility of reformation, age, and conduct of Madan in prison, leading to commutation of death penalty [Paras 58-77].

Civil Appeal – Interpretation of Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) – Dispute regarding capacity charges and energy charges under the PPA – Whether the appellant is liable to pay fixed capacity charges based on capacity declarations made on RLNG by the first respondent – Appellant's argument based on the need for prior approval under Clause 5.9 of the PPA – Examination of contractual provisions and the intention of the parties – Capacity charges treated as fixed charges under the PPA not subject to the appellant's consent – Commercial document interpreted in line with the original purpose and intent of the parties – Deviation from plain contract terms not warranted in the circumstances – Appeal dismissed. [Para 20-39]

Consumer Disputes - Compensation for Delay in Delivery - Complaint against Kuwait Airways for delay in delivering consignments of handicraft goods - Appellant is an exporter who sent shipments to the USA - Goods were not delivered as per the schedule, causing significant delay - Appellant filed a complaint seeking compensation - NCDRC initially awarded compensation for loss of goods - Appeal led to reconsideration of delay in delivery - NCDRC awarded compensation for the delay in delivering the consignment - Appellant sought a larger compensation amount - The Court upheld NCDRC's decision on compensation - Onus on the airline to prove that the agent had no authority to give the delivery schedule - Carriage by Air Act provisions applied - Appellant's claim limited to the amount initially sought - Civil appeals dismissed. [Para 1-25]

Conspiracy and Supply of Poisonous Substance – Alcohol Poisoning Incident – Conviction of Sajeev (A10) and Roy (A11) under Sections 302, 307, 326 read with Section 120B of IPC, and Sections 55(a), (h), (i), and 57 (A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act – Incident involving alcohol poisoning resulting in deaths and severe injuries – Accused found guilty of mixing methyl alcohol with spirit for illicit sale. [Paras 1-4, 8, 22, 29-30, 34, 37, 48-49]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Reliance on testimonies of multiple witnesses and forensic evidence – PW11, PW18, PW23, PW24, PW26, PW27, PW44, and PW51’s testimonies pivotal in establishing the involvement of A10 and A11 in the conspiracy and act of poisoning – Forensic evidence confirming the use of methyl alcohol in cans supplied by A11. [Paras 18-21, 23-27, 32-34]

Criminal Conspiracy – Legal Principles Applied – Application of legal principles relating to criminal conspiracy – Conviction based on established agreement and joint responsibility of A10 and A11 with A1, the main conspirator – Accused found to have knowledge of the harmful nature of the substance supplied. [Paras 35-37]

Destruction of Evidence and False Records – A11’s attempt to destroy evidence and maintain false records – Burnt plastic materials and soil samples testing positive for methyl alcohol at A11’s residence – False transactions recorded in the firm RR Distributors’ register. [Paras 38-40]

Legal Provisions under Abkari Act – Conviction under Section 57A for mixing noxious substance with liquor – Accused held liable for the resultant grievous harm and deaths – Application of Section 55 for illegal transport, bottling, and sale of methyl alcohol. [Paras 42-43, 47]

Dismissal of Appeals – Appeals of A10 and A11 dismissed – Convictions upheld by Supreme Court – Bail of A11 cancelled and directed to surrender – Appeal of A10 abated due to his demise. [Paras 50-55]

Forfeiture of Properties under SAFEMA – Challenging the High Court's order upholding forfeiture under The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) – Appeals in Civil Appeal No.5500 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2014 dismissed – Provisions of SAFEMA applicable despite revocation of detention order under COFEPOSA. [Para 1, 2, 15, 23]

COFEPOSA Detention and Revocation – Relevance of revocation of detention order under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) in SAFEMA proceedings – Revocation of COFEPOSA detention not falling under specified exceptions in SAFEMA, hence forfeiture upheld. [Para 16, 21-23]

Legal Interpretation of SAFEMA – Applicability of SAFEMA provisions in cases where COFEPOSA detention orders are revoked – Exclusion clauses under Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA not applicable to the present case – SAFEMA proceedings independent of COFEPOSA detention order's subsequent revocation. [Para 17, 18, 21-23]

Dismissal of Criminal Complaint and Penalty Withdrawal – Irrelevance of dismissal of criminal complaint under Customs Act, 1962 and withdrawal of penalty in determining applicability of SAFEMA – Such proceedings independent of SAFEMA. [Para 13, 20]

High Court's Judgment – High Court's dismissal of appeals against forfeiture under SAFEMA upheld – Supreme Court finds no infirmity in the High Court's judgment – Appeals lack merit and are dismissed. [Para 23, 24]