Civil Appeal - Municipal Corporation - Power and authority of Commissioner to impose major penalty - Validity of dismissal order - Lapses and negligence on part of officers - Delegation of power - Ratification of decision - Whether Commissioner had power to take action with respect to lapses other than purchases - Whether dismissal order passed by Commissioner was void ab initio - Whether subsequent ratification of decision could save dismissal order – Held -Commissioner was authorized to take action against erring officers with respect to lapses and carelessness with various works in purchases only as per Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998 (Para 7.1) - Dismissal order passed by Commissioner was not per se void ab initio - General Board had power to pass order of dismissal - Ratification of decision by General Board made an invalid act lawful in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules (Para 7.2) - Order of dismissal restored and impugned judgment quashed and set aside - Any amount paid to respondent pursuant to order of this Court not to be recovered. (Para 7.3)

Suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 of the CrPC - Factors to consider - Prima facie satisfaction of fair chances of acquittal - Whether the High Court committed an error in suspending the substantive order of sentence and granting bail to the convicts pending the final disposal of their criminal appeals – Held - the appellate court must record reasons in writing and objectively assess the relevant factors when ordering suspension of sentence and granting bail - Mere absence of misuse of liberty during trial does not warrant suspension of sentence after conviction - In cases involving convictions under Section 302 of the IPC (murder), the benefit of suspension of sentence can only be granted in exceptional cases - The appellate court should not reappreciate evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and should not pick minor lacunas in the prosecution's case - The order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine - The High Court went into issues that should be considered at the time of the final hearing of the appeals - The evidence on record does not support the contention of no case against the convicts or weak evidence - The High Court committed a serious error in suspending the substantive order of sentence and granting bail to the convicts - Impugned order set aside - Convicts ordered to surrender before the Trial Court within three days. Appeal Allowed.                                  Para 29, 30, 31, 33, 34

Constitution of India - Article 32 - Validity of Amendments to Rules - Impugned amendments to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, introduced by the State Government, pertaining to the grant of mineral concessions, auction process, and rejection of pending applications - Challenge on grounds of constitutionality.

Para 3, Para 5, Para 10

Jurisdiction - Civil Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India - Appeal against the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench - Appellants seeking to overturn the declaration of certain Rules as unconstitutional.

Para 15, Para 22

Mining Laws - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 - Validity of Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 4 and Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 - Introduction of auction process and rejection of pending applications - Power conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - No vested right in pending applications - Applicants not having a fundamental right in mining - Legitimate expectation and legal malice - Impugned amendments held valid and constitutional.

Para 30, Para 35, Para 40, Para 42

Criminal Appeal - Quashing of opinion formed in final report - Car accident resulting in multiple deaths - Further investigation conducted and final report submitted stating accident was unavoidable and not due to negligence on part of deceased - Petition filed seeking quashing of final report - High Court quashed the report and attributed negligence to deceased - Appeal filed against quashing of report. [Para 2-7]

High Court's observations and findings - High Court made unnecessary findings beyond the scope of considering the correctness of final report - Incorrect approach adopted by High Court. [Para 8]

Effect of quashing of report on criminal proceeding - Criminal proceeding abated due to death of accused - Quashing of report does not impact criminal proceeding. [Para 7]

Compensation claim petitions - Negligence needs to be proven based on preponderance of possibilities, not beyond reasonable doubt - Claimants must establish negligence of drivers involved in accident. [Para 9-10]

Previous judgments - Culpable rashness and negligence need to be proven in claim petitions - Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt not applicable in compensation claims. [Para 9-10]

Supreme Court's decision - High Court's order set aside - Appeal allowed - Opinion in final report does not affect compensation claim petitions - Each party to bear respective costs. [Para 11]

Criminal Appeal – Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail and direction to surrender before the Court for regular bail – Appellant aggrieved by the High Court’s order – Peculiar nature of the impugned order warranted further consideration – Special leave granted. [Para 1]

Personal Liberty – Importance of personal liberty in the context of applying discretion to grant bail – Emphasis on granting bail ordinarily, with caution in serious cases involving offences carrying long sentences or special offences. [Para 9]

Arrest – Power to arrest not mandatory in every case – Arrest to be made only when essential for custodial investigation, preventing further offences, or avoiding tampering with evidence or witnesses – Courts to consider Section 41A of the CrPC in this regard. [Para 10]

Guidelines for Granting Anticipatory Bail – Reiteration of directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another – Police officers and Magistrates to exercise discretion judiciously while granting anticipatory bail – Checklists to be used, and reasons for arrest to be recorded in writing – Non-compliance may lead to departmental action and contempt of court proceedings. [Para 11]

Importance of Upholding Personal Liberty – History of the Republic and the Freedom Movement highlights the significance of safeguarding personal liberty and preventing arbitrary arrests. [Para 12]

Conclusion – High Court’s casual approach in rejecting anticipatory bail set aside – Appellant granted anticipatory bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court – All courts and police authorities directed to strictly follow the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar and the directions in the judgment within the specified time frame. [Para 13]

Criminal Appeal – Dowry Harassment – Allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty against in-laws by Bhawna – Appellants, Kusum Lata, Abhishek, and Sourabh, accused of subjecting Bhawna to mental and physical harassment – Allegations pertain to the period from 2007 to 2013 – Divorce proceedings initiated by Bhawna’s husband, Nimish. [Para 18-21]

Inconsistencies and Discrepancies – Glaring inconsistencies noted in Bhawna’s allegations, particularly concerning her stridhan jewelry and her animosity towards her brother-in-law, Abhishek. [Para 18]

Timing of Complaint – Complaint filed just before divorce proceedings were initiated by her husband, Nimish. Bhawna parted ways with her in-laws in 2009 but did not file a complaint until 2013. [Para 19-21]

Lack of Specific Instances – Allegations against the appellants were vague and general in nature, lacking specific instances of harassment. [Para 19-21]

Prima Facie Case Not Made Out – The Court concluded that the allegations were insufficient and far-fetched, failing to make out a prima facie case against the appellants. [Para 22]

Decision – Given the totality of the circumstances, the Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings against the appellants. [Para 23]

Property Dispute – Sale Deed – Transfer of Title and Possession – Recitals in Sale Deed – Whether title and ownership passed to the plaintiff on the date of Sale Deed – Validity of unilateral cancellation deed executed by the first defendant – Effect of subsequent Gift Deed – Examination of recitals in Sale Deed to determine the nature of the transaction. (Para 12-17)

Interpretation of Sale Deed – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Consideration and Possession – Whether normal execution and registration of a Sale Deed transfer title in the property subject matter to the purchaser even if consideration is not fully paid – Exception to the general rule under the practice of ta khubzul badlain in Bihar. (Para 13)

Charge for Unpaid Consideration – Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Effect of unpaid consideration on the seller’s right to have a charge over the property – Liability of the plaintiff to discharge the liabilities mentioned in the Sale Deed. (Para 16)

Unilateral Cancellation Deed – Binding on the plaintiff – Validity of the cancellation deed executed by the first defendant without the plaintiff’s consent. (Para 17)

Decree for Possession – Ownership of the plaintiff – Consequences of establishing plaintiff’s ownership over the suit property. (Para 18)

Counter-claim for Unpaid Consideration – Absence of counter-claim by the first or second defendant for the alleged unpaid consideration – Effect on the plaintiff’s ownership and right to possession. (Para 17)

Decision of High Court – Reversal of Trial Court’s decree – Examination of the reasoning adopted by the High Court and its validity – Restoration of the Trial Court’s decree in favor of the plaintiff. (Para 18)

Insurance Law - Insurance claim dispute – Alleged breach of insurance policy conditions – Immediate notice of theft given to the insurance company – Whether a delay in intimating the insurance company about the theft constitutes a fundamental breach of Condition No.1 of the insurance policy – Court’s interpretation of Condition No.1 and reliance on previous judgments to determine its applicability. (Para 9)

Negligence of leaving the key in the ignition during the theft – Whether such negligence amounts to a fundamental breach of Condition No.5 of the insurance policy – Court’s consideration of the facts and circumstances to assess the breach. (Para 15)

Previous judgments – Nitin Khandelwal and Amalendu Sahoo – Their application in determining the proportionate deduction from the assured amount in case of contributory factors affecting the claim – Court’s reliance on these precedents to decide the matter. (Para 19)

Guidelines issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. For settling claims on a non-standard basis – Court’s acceptance of the guidelines as relevant and applicable to the present case. (Para 20)

Court’s ruling on the appeal – Setting aside the judgment of the National Commission and restoring the decision of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission – Awarding 75% of the admissible claim amount to the appellant. (Para 20)

Civil Appeal - Valuation of Suit - Amendment of Plaint - Declaration and Cancellation of Property Documents - Dispute over Ad Valorem Court Fee - Appeal against High Court Order under Article 227 of the Constitution - Directions to Revalue Suit and Pay Court Fee - Trial Court Dismisses Applications for Amendment and Rejects Plaint - Petition before High Court - High Court allows Petition and Orders Framing of Issue on Suit Valuation - Appeal to Supreme Court Challenging High Court Order.

Trial Court's Direction for Proper Valuation of Suit - Appellant contends Substantive Right of Appeal under Section 96, CPC - High Court's Order under Article 227 of the Constitution - Substantial Questions of Law and Valuation remain Unaddressed - Nature of Amendment sought not Clearly Mentioned in High Court Order - Appellants seek Reconsideration.

Supreme Court Remands the Matter back to High Court for Fresh Consideration - High Court Directed to Address all Legally Available Contentions - Emphasizes Expeditious Disposal of the Case within Six Months - Observes No Observations on Merits made - No Order as to Costs.