Custody Dispute - Child's Welfare Paramount - Challenge against High Court's custody order favoring respondent - Matrimonial dispute involving child custody - Importance of child’s welfare as the paramount consideration in such cases [Para 3, 7, 11].

Non-compliance with Court Orders - Appellant failed to comply with the order to hand over the child's custody to respondent - Child custody remained with appellant since the beginning [Para 4].

Child’s Preference and Welfare - Interaction with child in court - Child's reluctance to live with or talk to mother - Importance of child’s preference and psychological state in determining custody [Para 7, 9, 11].

Court's Effort in Facilitating Parent-Child Relationship - Request to Senior Advocate Ms. V. Mohana to counsel and interact with child and parents - Child agreed to monthly meetings and phone calls with mother, indicating gradual improvement in mother-child relationship [Para 8, 8.1, 9, 10].

Final Decision - Maintaining Status Quo with Conditional Visitation Rights - Considering child's age, preference, and welfare, custody remains with father - Respondent granted rights to call and monthly visits with child [Para 11, 12].

Regulatory Jurisdiction – Application for review based on the discovery of new evidence – Letter dated 24.05.2011 indicating a ‘new and important piece of evidence’ – Alleged error apparent in previous judgment regarding the calculation of Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB) – Contention that HRAB should be computed on the basis of ‘single till’ mechanism – Categorization of fuel throughput charge (FTC) as an aeronautical service – Prayer for modification of the judgment or remittal to the TDSAT for fresh consideration of HRAB computation – Court’s reluctance to re-appreciate evidence and facts when TDSAT has not opined on it – Direction to examine the impact of the new evidence on HRAB computation by the TDSAT – TDSAT to determine whether ‘single till’ mechanism should be the basis of computation – Parties to have a remedy before the Court in either situation. [Para 1-16]

Service Law - Falsification of Date of Birth Allegation – Dismissal of Ram Lal, a constable, for allegedly altering his date of birth in educational documents – Charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and departmental proceedings initiated. [Paras 2-4]

Departmental Enquiry and Criminal Trial – Inconsistencies in findings – Departmental enquiry proved charges, leading to dismissal; Criminal trial initially convicted but was later acquitted in appeal. [Paras 5-6, 23-24]

Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings – Supreme Court scrutinized enquiry process, noting material evidence omission by Disciplinary Authority. Acknowledged limited scope of judicial review but found enquiry vitiated due to ignored crucial evidence. [Paras 11, 19-21]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and crucial evidence (original 8^th class marksheet) ignored in departmental enquiry, which showed no alteration in date of birth. [Paras 14, 17-18]

Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings – Examination of enquiry process, evidence, and witness statements – Acknowledgement of limited power of judicial review, yet consideration of material evidence ignored by Disciplinary Authority. [Paras 11, 19-21]

Acquittal in Criminal Case – Impact on departmental proceedings – Similarity in charges and evidence in both proceedings; the appellate judge in criminal case found prosecution evidence failed to prove the charge. [Paras 23-27]

Discrepancies in Evidence – No alteration found in the 8^th class marksheet, which was the basis for employment; discrepancies in 10^th class certificate irrelevant as employment was based on 8^th class qualification. [Paras 14, 17-18, 28-29]

Decision – Supreme Court’s reversal of disciplinary action – Reinstatement of appellant with 50% back wages, seniority, notional promotions, and other benefits. [Paras 30-32]

Criminal Appeal – Accused charged under Section 306 of IPC for alleged abetment to suicide – Allegations of instigation, assault, and threats made by the appellants against the deceased – Suicide note and complaint by the third respondent – Analysis of Section 107 of IPC regarding abetment – Lack of mens rea and proximity to suicide – Offence under Section 306 IPC not made out – Prosecution found to be an abuse of process of law – Quashing of summoning order in Criminal Case No. 454 of 2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, District Dehradun – Appeal allowed. [Para 7-13]

Challenge to Legal Validity – Appellants questioned the validity of the High Court's order rejecting their criminal appeal and affirming the Special Judge's order to frame charges under IPC and SC/ST Act. [Para 2]

Admitted Evidence Review – Supreme Court focused on whether the admitted evidence met the necessary ingredients for the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. [Para 4-6, 12, 16-17]

Political Rivalry Context – Acknowledged that the incident's backdrop involved political rivalry. The prosecution's case on gun shot allegations was deemed inconsistent with medical findings. [Para 15]

Insufficient Ground for SC/ST Act Charge – Found no adequate basis from the prosecution's case to frame charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act against the appellants. [Para 17]

Partial Quashing of Charges – Impugned orders quashed to the extent of charges framed under the SC/ST Act. Remaining charges under IPC to continue in the Sessions Court. [Para 18]

Transfer of Trial – With the quashing of SC/ST Act charge, the trial of the case was transferred from the Special Court to the Sessions Court. [Para 18]

Decision: Appeal partially allowed – Charges under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act quashed. Trial for other charges under IPC to continue in the appropriate Sessions Court.  [Paras 18-20]

Conviction for Murder with Common Intention – Appellant Ram Naresh convicted along with others for murder of Ram Kishore under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Appeal challenging the application of Section 34 regarding common intention. [Paras 3-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15-16]

Evidence and Eyewitness Testimonies – FIR and testimony of Balram (PW-1) critical – Witnessed assault by appellant and others with weapons leading to Ram Kishore's death – Consistency in testimony despite cross-examination. [Paras 5, 9]

Trial Court and High Court Findings – Both courts affirmed that appellant and co-accused acted with a common intention to kill Ram Kishore – Evidence showed collective, simultaneous attack with weapons at the crime scene. [Paras 10, 11, 14]

Application of Section 34 IPC – Not necessary for premeditated conspiracy – Common intention can form during the incident – Shared intention inferred from collective action and circumstances. [Paras 8, 12-13, 14]

Supreme Court Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 34 IPC upheld based on evidence and findings of lower courts – Appellant’s active participation in the crime established. [Para 16]

Jurisdictional Overreach of Lokayukta – Upa Lokayukta’s order for correction in revenue records and tax collection – Held as exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 12 of the 1999 Act, which only allows recommendations to remedy injustice or hardship, not issuing direct orders. [Paras 5, 7, 9-11, 13]

Revenue Record Correction – Original complaint by respondent No. 1 for correction of error in revenue records – Request declined by Additional Tehsildar, no further legal remedy pursued by respondent before approaching Lokayukta. [Paras 4, 8, 12]

Precedent on Lokayukta’s Powers – Reference to Kerala High Court judgments in Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector and District Collector v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, affirming Lokayukta’s recommendatory jurisdiction, not supervisory or appellate authority over statutory bodies. [Para 9, 10]

High Court and Upa Lokayukta Orders Set Aside – Supreme Court sets aside orders of High Court and Upa Lokayukta, deems them legally unsustainable due to jurisdictional overreach. Respondent No. 1 advised to seek appropriate legal remedy for correction of revenue records under relevant statutes. [Paras 13, 14]

Property Dispute - Challenge to Sale Deed - Suit filed by the appellant's predecessor-in-interest against the first sale deed registered in favor of another party - Allegations of minor's property being sold without court permission and for the minor's need and welfare - Trial Court decreed the suit, which was upheld by the first Appellate Court, but reversed by the High Court in Second Appeal. [Para 1-4]

Date of Birth - Discrepancy in the appellant's date of birth - High Court relied on oral evidence, while the appellant produced a certificate from Doon School showing the date of birth as 16.08.1951 - Suit's timeliness under Section 80 C.P.C. disputed - High Court's reliance on oral evidence questioned. [Para 9-10]

Ownership of Property - Lack of documentary evidence to establish the appellant's right to the property in question - Challenge to a sale deed registered in 1956 after 16 years - Absence of transfer in the appellant's name - Suggestion of a possible attempt to extract additional money from the State, which had purchased the property from the first buyer. [Para 10-11]

Property Sale Consideration - Property potentially sold for the child's education and welfare - Consideration mentioned in the second sale deed at ₹14,784/- - Burden of proof on the plaintiff challenging a sale transaction entered into 16 years prior. [Para 11-12]

Protection of Sale Transaction - Reference to Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the State's claim of due diligence in the sale transaction - Lack of evidence presented by the plaintiff to rebut the State's position. [Para 13]

Dismissal of Appeal - No grounds for interference in the present appeal found - Appeal dismissed. [Para 15]

Lease Agreement and Wrongful Occupation – The property, originally leased to the appellants by predecessors of ATM Constructions, was subject to legal disputes post lease expiry on 31.12.1997. ATM Constructions sought possession and later, damages for wrongful occupation from 01.01.1998 till 31.12.2019, and future damages from 01.01.2020 till possession was handed over in June 2022. [Paras 3, 5, 9]

Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. – The appellants sought rejection of the plaint claiming the suit for damages was not maintainable as it was filed after a suit for possession without claiming damages. The High Court dismissed this application. [Paras 2, 6, 10]

Distinct Causes of Action – The Court held that suits for possession and for damages for use and occupation are based on distinct causes of action. The second suit for damages is therefore maintainable. [Paras 16-17]

Time-Barred Claims – The appellants can contest if part of the claim in the suit is time-barred, but the entire claim cannot be deemed as such. [Para 17]

Distinguishing Previous Judgments – The Court distinguished the case from Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited, noting the difference in the causes of action in both scenarios. [Para 18]

Decision – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and holding that the suit for damages for wrongful occupation is maintainable. [Para 19]