Dispute Over Promotion to Under Secretary – High Court's Reversal of Promotion of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Under CSIR Rules – Challenged by Appellant CSIR on Grounds of Eligibility Criteria – High Court Judgment Upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 2, 4-8]

Eligibility for Promotion – Requirement of Performing Duties as Section Officer – Contention Regarding Formal Appointment and Experience Certificates – High Court Found Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Ineligible, Accepting Respondent No. 1's Formal Appointment as Section Officer [Paras 5-7]

Merit-Based Promotion Argument – Dismissed by High Court, Focusing on Eligibility Criteria Instead – Supreme Court Agrees, Holding Promotion Denial to Respondent No. 1 as Incorrect [Paras 8, 10]

Dismissal of Appeals – Supreme Court Finds No Ground to Interfere with High Court Judgment – Appeals by CSIR Dismissed [Paras 10-11]

Medical Negligence – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Appellant-complainant loses vision in left eye due to alleged medical negligence by respondent doctor – Initial award of Rs. 2 Lakhs compensation by DCDRC, Faridabad – Series of appeals and revisions leading to the current judgment. [Para 2-6]

Jurisdiction – Territorial Jurisdiction in Consumer Disputes – Dismissal of appellant’s complaint by SCDRC on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction – Matter remanded back to SCDRC by NCDRC for decision on merits. [Para 3-4]

Professional Misconduct – Medical Council of India – Ethics Committee of MCI finds respondent doctor guilty of professional misconduct – Removal of doctor's name from Indian Medical Register for six months. [Para 10-12]

Compensation – Revision of Compensation and Interest Rate – NCDRC’s reduction of interest rate from 12% to 6% – Appellant’s challenge to the reduced interest rate and non-receipt of compensation. [Para 15-16]

Modification of NCDRC Orders – Supreme Court’s modification of NCDRC orders – Appellant entitled to Rs. 2 Lakhs compensation with 12% interest per annum from complaint filing date until payment – Enhanced interest to 15% per annum for delayed payment beyond two months. [Para 17-18]

False Representation and Costs – Imposition of costs on respondent for false representation regarding compensation payment – Rs. 50,000/- costs to be paid to appellant. [Para 19]

Final Decision – Disposal of Appeals – Appellant’s appeals allowed – Respondent’s appeals rejected – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 20-21]

Maintenance Award Enhancement – Enhanced maintenance to appellant, Yagwati @ Poonam, from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 20,000 per month under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Consideration of respondent's financial capacity and pension from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) – Arrears of maintenance to be paid in installments not exceeding 50% of the respondent's pension [Paras 2-3, 8-14].

Marital History and Proceedings – Marriage complications leading to separate living since 1998 and ex-parte divorce decree in 2005, later set aside – Appellant's struggle for maintenance post-divorce and remarriage of the respondent [Paras 4-7].

Financial Circumstances of Respondent – Respondent's significant salary as Assistant Manager in BSNL and pension post-retirement – Appellant's appeal for increased maintenance considering respondent's capacity [Paras 8-10].

Court's Direction – Supreme Court's direction to Family Court, Jaipur, for calculation and payment of arrears in maintenance, ensuring total monthly payment does not exceed 50% of respondent's pension – Direction to BSNL for compliance in disbursing maintenance [Paras 12-14].

Petitioner's Appeal and Reliefs Sought – Invoked Article 32 for mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to create guidelines for medical research approvals, facilitate private medical research growth, revive medical research institutions in stress, and examine irregularities in insolvency proceedings of Frontier Lifeline Private Limited. [Para 1]

Petitioner's Background and Concerns – Dr. K.M. Cherian, a distinguished cardiac surgeon, established Frontier Lifeline Private Limited (FLPL) and faced regulatory delays, financial roadblocks, and issues with insolvency proceedings, leading to the shutdown of Frontier Mediville. [Para 2]

Insolvency Proceedings Against FLPL – Challenges faced by the petitioner due to the conduct of financial creditors and Resolution Professional under IBC, leading to liquidation of FLPL despite potential in medical research and public interest considerations. [Para 2, 4]

Dismissal of Special Leave Petition – The Supreme Court previously dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order related to insolvency proceedings, indicating the personal nature of the current writ petition. [Para 5]

Dismissal of Writ Petition – The Court deemed the petition, filed under the guise of public interest, to be rooted in personal grievances related to insolvency proceedings against FLPL and dismissed the petition accordingly. [Para 6, 7]

Civil Appeal – Impleadment of Legal Heirs and Production of Documents – Appeal against dismissal of revision petitions by High Court – Original defendants, legal heirs of late Shri Ananda Rao, sought to be impleaded and produce additional documents in a suit set ex-parte by Trial Court. [Para 2-4]

Civil Procedure – Rule 1A of Order VIII CPC – Application for production of additional documents – Despite failure to submit documents with written statement or before examination of plaintiffs' witnesses, Supreme Court inclined to accept appeals based on reference to documents in written statement and affidavit explaining delay. [Para 6]

Costs and Expedited Trial – Conditional acceptance of appeals subject to payment of costs and direction for expedited trial – Appeals allowed on condition of appellants paying Rs. 40,000/- as costs to respondents and trial to be completed within six months. [Para 7-8]

Decision – Appeals allowed with directions for payment of costs and expedited trial – Trial Court directed to proceed with trial in accordance with law. [Para 9]

Murder Conviction and Weapon Recovery – Appellant Krishan and co-accused Mahesh convicted for murder and possession of arms – Life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act – Conviction based on recovery of weapon and eyewitness accounts – Recovery deemed suspicious and eyewitnesses unreliable. [Paras 1, 3, 6-8, 11]

Eyewitness Testimony and Hostile Witnesses – Eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-3 declared hostile – Failure to support prosecution’s case – Led to reliance solely on weapon recovery for conviction. [Paras 4, 6, 11]

Recovery of Weapon and Prosecution’s Theory – Recovery made over a month after the incident – Place of recovery an open space accessible to many – Inconsistencies in police witnesses’ statements regarding the recovery – Absence of independent witnesses to the recovery – Rendered recovery theory suspicious and doubtful. [Paras 7, 8]

Alternate Suspects and Lack of Investigation – PW-2 suspected Naresh Yadav’s involvement, but no investigation conducted into this angle – Failure to investigate alternative suspects or motives undermined the prosecution case. [Para 10]

Benefit of Doubt and Acquittal – Due to unreliable recovery and eyewitness testimony, serious doubt cast on prosecution’s case – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant Krishan – Conviction quashed, and appellant acquitted of all charges. [Paras 11, 12]

Directive for Immediate Release – Supreme Court directs immediate release of appellant Krishan unless required in another case. [Para 12]

Default Bail and Chargesheet Filing – Supreme Court considered whether respondents were entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., when a chargesheet was filed within the prescribed time limit, but investigation against some accused was ongoing – Held that default bail was not applicable once chargesheet filed and cognizance taken, even if further investigation pending. [Paras 13, 15, 23-25]

Nature of Chargesheet – Filing a chargesheet with ongoing investigation against other accused does not render it incomplete – The court examines the nature of offences and takes cognizance based on the material presented, irrespective of further investigation status. [Paras 20, 22, 24]

Legal Principles on Bail and Cognizance – Supreme Court elucidated principles governing default bail, relation between filing of chargesheet, ongoing investigations, and the court's power to take cognizance – Emphasized that filing of chargesheet within prescribed time extinguishes right to default bail. [Paras 15, 17-19, 23, 24, 26]

Decision – Supreme Court set aside High Court and Special Court orders granting default bail – Directed respondents to be taken into custody, clarifying that observations in this judgment shall not influence pending proceedings on merits. [Para 26]

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Dissolution of Marriage Granted – The Supreme Court granted a decree of divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage between Prakashchandra Joshi (appellant) and Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah (respondent). The parties had been living separately since February 2011, with no contact for almost 13 years, and the respondent-wife did not respond to court summons, indicating no interest in continuing the marital relationship. The marriage, solemnized on 05.01.2004, was dissolved under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India. [Paras 13, 15-16]

Non-appearance of Respondent – Impact on Judicial Proceedings – The respondent failed to appear in various judicial proceedings, including the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights initiated by the appellant and the present divorce proceedings, despite due service. This non-appearance was considered indicative of her disinterest in continuing the marriage. [Paras 12, 16]

Exercise of Power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution – The Court exercised its power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to do ‘complete justice’ in the case, finding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of the couple staying together. [Paras 13, 15-16]

Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Initial Plea by Appellant – Initially, the appellant filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. However, both the Family Court and the High Court dismissed the appellant's petition, finding no case made out for divorce on these grounds. The Supreme Court did not focus on these grounds but rather on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. [Paras 4-6, 16]

Long Separation – Indicative of Irretrievable Breakdown – The fact that the parties had been separated for approximately 13 years with no communication was a significant factor in determining the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. [Para 15]

Decision – The appeal was allowed, and the marriage was dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. [Para 16]

Criminal Appeal – Murder – Acquittal – Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against conviction and life sentence for murder and conspiracy to destroy evidence. The Supreme Court scrutinized the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Trial Court and the High Court. The main evidence included recovery of items at the appellant’s instance and blood-stained clothes. The Supreme Court found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction. [Para 1, 11-20]

Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence and its Evaluation – The Court reiterated the principles for basing conviction on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the necessity for circumstances to be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and excluding all other hypotheses. The recovered items, including a dagger and rickshaw, were not conclusively linked to the appellant or the crime. The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence. [Para 7, 14-19]

Murder – Absence of Direct Evidence – In cases lacking direct evidence, reliance on circumstantial evidence necessitates a higher degree of proof. The prosecution’s reliance on suspicious circumstances and recovery of items failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. – FSL report insufficient to prove guilt – Contradictions in recovery of murder weapon and other articles weaken prosecution’s case – Discrepancies in evidence regarding the identification of the deceased’s body - The Court highlighted the distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. [Para 9, 12-19]

Inadequate Explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Appellant’s failure to provide explanation in Section 313 statement not a conclusive factor in circumstantial evidence cases – Such non-explanation cannot be used as an additional link in the chain of circumstances [Paras 21].

Decision – Overturning High Court Judgment – The Supreme Court found the High Court and Trial Court’s reliance on circumstantial evidence and recovery of items inadequate for conviction. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and life sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released, overturning the High Court’s judgment. [Para 20-22]