Transfer Petition - Transfer of Family Court Case - Petitioner seeking transfer of HMA case to District Family Court in Nagpur, Maharashtra - Case allowed for transfer. [Para 1-4]

Video Conferencing - Liberty reserved for respondent to appear through video conferencing facility if requested - Court to provide video conferencing facility if needed. [Para 5]

Order - Transfer petition allowed, and HMA case transferred to District Family Court at Nagpur, Maharashtra - Pending application(s) disposed of. [Para 6]

Employment Compensation – Applicability of the 1923 Act to a Constable of Railway Protection Force (RPF) – Interpretation of Section 2(1)(n) – Whether a Constable of RPF is a "workman" despite being a member of the Armed Forces of the Union as per amended Section 3 of the 1957 Act – Consideration of the legislative intent and definitions. [Para 20(i)]

Alternative Remedy – Availability of compensation under Sections 124 and 124-A of the 1989 Act – Whether a claim under the 1923 Act is maintainable – Examination of the existence of an alternative remedy. [Para 20(ii)]

Workers' Compensation – Applicability of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 to Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel – Interpretation of statutory provisions – Legislative intent – RPF personnel claimed compensation under the 1923 Act for injuries sustained in the course of their employment – Question of whether RPF personnel fall within the purview of the 1923 Act – Examination of relevant statutory provisions, including the 1923 Act, the Indian Railways Act, 1890, the Railways Act, 1989, and the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 – Definition of "workman" and "employer" under the 1923 Act – Historical changes in definitions – Impact of the change from "His Majesty’s naval, military or air forces" to "Armed Forces of the Union" – Analysis of the definition of "Railway Servant" under the 1989 Act – Legislative amendments to Section 3, Section 10, and Section 19 of the 1957 Act – Examination of Section 128 of the 1989 Act – Whether RPF personnel are excluded from the purview of the 1923 Act – Held - RPF personnel remain within the scope of the 1923 Act – Maintenance of claims under the 1923 Act despite alternative remedies under the 1989 Act – Section 128 preserves the right to claim compensation under the 1923 Act – The appeal is dismissed, and the interim order stands discharged. [Para 50-64]

Alternative Remedy - Availability of alternative remedy under the 1989 Act - Section 128 of the 1989 Act saving the right to claim compensation under the 1923 Act - Claim under the 1923 Act not barred by the existence of an alternative remedy. [Para 62-63]

Consumer Protection – Medical Negligence – Blood Transfusion – Appellant, a former Indian Air Force employee, contracted HIV through a blood transfusion in a military hospital during his service – Allegations of negligence and reckless disregard for patient safety – Refusal to provide medical records and conduct of Court of Inquiry – Appellant claims compensation – Commission dismisses the complaint – Appellant appeals to the Supreme Court – Controversy regarding negligence, informed consent, and liability of the medical authorities – Medical records destroyed – Disputed findings of Medical Boards – Expert opinions questioned – Burden of proof in cases of medical negligence – Denial of employment opportunities due to HIV status – Mental agony and loss of confidence – Compensation sought. [Para 1-31]

Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum – Whether the appellant's case falls under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA 1986) – Consideration of various regulations governing medical services for armed forces personnel – Application of CPA 1986 to services provided in government hospitals – Precedents highlighting the applicability of CPA 1986 to services provided by government or employer-funded institutions – Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to provide a remedy for contravention of fundamental rights – Role of the court in reaching out to injustice and ensuring justice according to law. [Para 43-55]

Medical Negligence and Liability – Appellant claimed negligence in blood transfusion resulting in HIV infection – Duty of care and standard of care in medical negligence cases – Application of res ipsa loquitur – Failure to prove adherence to safety standards – Vicarious liability of Indian Air Force and Indian Army established – Appellant entitled to compensation for injuries suffered. [Para 56-73]

Damages in Medical Negligence Case – Assessment of Compensation – Various Heads for Compensation Consideration – Mental Agony Compensation – Denial of Information and Premature Retirement Aggravating Factors – Appellant entitled to ₹50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) for mental agony. [Para 74-84]

Medical Negligence - Compensation - Future Care - HIV Positive Condition - Duty of State Functionaries - Compensation awarded for medical negligence suffered by the appellant. [Para 88-94]

Medical Negligence - Compensation awarded to the appellant for medical negligence suffered, totaling ₹ 1,54,73,000/-, with joint and several liability imposed on the respondent organizations (IAF and Indian Army). Arrears related to disability pension to be disbursed within six weeks. [Para 92]

HIV Act - Directions issued to Central and State Governments for effective implementation of the HIV Act, including provisions related to diagnostic facilities, treatment, welfare schemes, property protection, information and education programs, and safe working environments. [Para 93]

Duty of State Functionaries - Acknowledgment of the duty of state functionaries, including the armed forces, to maintain high standards of safety, well-being, and medical fitness for personnel. Lack of dignity, honour, and compassion highlighted in the appellant's treatment. Compensation cannot fully restore dignity and honour. [Para 91]

Appreciation - Acknowledgment of the valuable assistance provided by the amicus, ASG, and the appellant's perseverance in seeking justice. Costs awarded to the appellant and honorarium to the amicus. [Para 94]

Decision - Appeal allowed, and pending applications disposed of in accordance with the provided directions. [Para 95]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Part I of Section 304 and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Acquittal by Trial Court – High Court's interference – Principles governing appeals against acquittal discussed. [Para 1-7]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Duty of the Appellate Court in appeals against acquittal – Re-appreciation of evidence – Possibility of the Trial Court's view – High Court's failure to record reasons and findings – Appellate Court's duty to consider the reliability of prosecution witnesses and their demeanour. [Para 8-10]

Investigation – Failure to investigate the grievous injury suffered by one of the accused – Serious lacuna in the prosecution's case – Prior complaint leading to anticipatory bail for certain witnesses – Property dispute between accused and complainant's family. [Para 11-14]

Decision – Impugned judgment set aside – Trial Court's conclusions deemed possible – Appellants directed to be set at liberty unless detained in connection with another case. [Para 15-16]

Arbitration – Interpretation of contract clause – Petitioner challenged the interpretation of Clause XII of the agreement by the learned Arbitrator – Reliance on a prior decision of the Supreme Court - Argument that the decision was ignored by the Courts dealing with remedies under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Examining the relevant clause and facts, the Court found that the Arbitrator's interpretation was a possible view based on the material on record – Special Leave Petitions dismissed. [Para 5-14]

Civil Appeal – Delay in payment of privilege leave encashment to retired employees – High Court's order directing payment of interest – Special leave petitions challenging High Court's orders – Petitioners' delay in releasing amounts payable – Division Bench dismissing Special Appeal – Affidavit filed by petitioners found unsatisfactory – Compliance with the impugned order – Special leave petitions dismissed with a clarification that it doesn't affirm the view of the learned Single Judge.

Criminal Appeal – Further Investigation – Appellant, widow of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, seeks further investigation into her husband's murder – Allegations of police abandonment and involvement of specific individuals – Special Magistrate orders further investigation – High Court's hyper-technical approach in distinguishing re-investigation from further investigation criticized – High Court's order set aside, confirming Special Magistrate's directive for further investigation. [Para 1-11]

Trial Proceedings – Trial court directed to continue proceedings in Session Trial No. 239 of 2014 related to the same incident – Final order to be deferred until completion of further investigation – Disposal of special leave petition in accordance with the above terms. [Para 12-13]

Anticipatory Bail – Appellant accused of offenses under Section 376(2)(n) and 406 IPC – Denial of anticipatory bail by lower courts – Appellant cooperated with the investigation – Charge sheet filed – Case for trial – Appellant granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial Court. [Para 1-3]

False Complaint – Allegation of false complaint by the respondent-complainant due to a failed marriage proposal – Appellant's cooperation with the investigation considered – Observations made in the order only for the purpose of considering anticipatory bail. [Para 4-5]

Release on Anticipatory Bail – Appellant released on anticipatory bail – Conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. [Para 6]

Income Tax Appeal – Challenge to Settlement Commission's decision – High Court remanded matter to Settlement Commission for reconsideration of immunity from penalty and prosecution – Appellant aggrieved by High Court's decision – Appeal filed. [Para 2.11]

Settlement Commission – Jurisdiction to entertain application – Preliminary objection raised by Revenue – Settlement Commission upheld maintainability of the application – Order passed by Settlement Commission challenged before High Court – High Court remanded matter to Settlement Commission for reconsideration of immunity – Appellant challenges High Court's decision. [Para 2.11]

Immunity from Penalty and Prosecution – Settlement Commission granted immunity to appellant – High Court found fault with the reasoning of the Settlement Commission – Remanded the matter for reconsideration of immunity – Appellant contests the High Court's decision on immunity. [Para 2.13]

Legal Framework – Interpretation of Sections 245C and 245H of the Income Tax Act in the context of granting immunity from prosecution and penalty for income disclosure before the Settlement Commission. [Para 5-7]

Discretionary Power – The Settlement Commission's discretionary power to grant immunity is based on the assessee's full and true disclosure of income and cooperation with the Commission, without a strict requirement for material different from that discovered by the Assessing Officer. [Para 7-7.2]

Scope of Judicial Review – The scope for judicial review of the Commission's orders is narrow, limited to contravention of the Act's provisions, causing prejudice to the opposite party, fraud, bias, or malice. [Para 10-11]

Avoiding Frequent Interference – Frequent interference with Settlement Commission's orders should be avoided to maintain confidence among bonafide assessees and prevent unnecessary litigation. [Para 13-14]

Decision – The High Court erred in interfering with the Settlement Commission's order, and thus, the Commission's order granting immunity to the appellant from prosecution and penalty is restored. [Para 14]