Facts:

The appellant, R.R. Parekh, a judicial officer, faced disciplinary proceedings related to his conduct in two criminal cases.

Charges were brought against Parekh for awarding sentences below the prescribed minimum in cases involving offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Disciplinary Committee initially exonerated Parekh but, upon reconsideration, found him guilty of misconduct, leading to his dismissal.

Issues:

Whether the charges of misconduct against the appellant were valid.

Whether the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the established misconduct.

Held:

The High Court upheld the finding of misconduct, noting that the appellant, being an experienced judicial officer, should have been aware of statutory provisions and failed to provide convincing explanations for his actions. However, the Supreme Court, while confirming the finding of misconduct, substituted the punishment of dismissal with compulsory retirement, considering the appellant's unblemished service record.

Facts:

The case involves a government contract and tender process for the construction of a dam in the State of Jharkhand.

The government, citing lack of competition, decided to cancel the tender and invite fresh tenders to enhance competitiveness.

The highest bidder challenged the decision in court, arguing that the cancellation was arbitrary.

Issues:

Whether the cancellation of the tender was arbitrary and against public interest.

Whether the government had the authority to reject tenders without assigning specific reasons.

Held:

The court held that the government's decision to cancel the tender was within its rights, emphasizing the lack of a vested right for the highest bidder until the bid is accepted. The court highlighted the importance of judicial restraint in administrative matters, stating that the court's role is to review the decision-making process for any infirmity, mala fide, unreasonableness, or arbitrariness. It reiterated the government's right to refuse the lowest or any tender and the freedom of contract for the government.

Facts:

The second respondent sought a mandamus to stop the operation of Saniem Sacorda Iron Ore Mine and compensation for environmental damage.

Appellant initially granted environmental clearance for mine expansion for two years (25.11.2005 to 25.11.2007).

Subsequent order (18.10.2007) deleted the two-year restriction.

High Court held the clearance valid for five years, directing the appellant to seek an extension within three months.

Issues:

Validity of environmental clearance beyond the initial two-year period.

Alleged illegal mining activity after clearance expiration.

Adherence to environmental protection laws and public interest.

Held:

In considering the validity of the environmental clearance, the Division Bench observed that the order dated 18.10.2007 lacked due regard for environmental protection and public interest. The Court set aside the High Court judgment and directed the first respondent to reconsider the clearance, adhering to relevant procedures, including notifying State Level Authorities, conducting public hearings, and considering the hydrogeological report. The entire process was to be completed within three months. The Court clarified it did not delve into the merits of the contentions. The Transfer Petition (No. 1843/2013) was deemed not to survive in light of the Supreme Court's judgment and was transferred and dismissed.

Facts:

The case involves irregularities in the transfer of shares during the IPO of Jet Airways India Limited and Infrastructure Development Finance Company Limited.

Serious irregularities/illegalities were reported, where shares meant for Retail Individual Investors (RIIs) were allegedly acquired through benami/fictitious demat account holders.

Investigations by SEBI revealed that the respondents engaged in off-market transactions, violating SEBI Act and Regulations.

Issues:

Whether the transfer of shares complied with the requirements of Section 13 or Section 2(i) of the SCRA?

Whether the Whole Time Member of SEBI was justified in imposing penalties on the respondents?

Whether the SAT correctly set aside the orders of SEBI's Whole Time Member and Adjudicating Officer?

Held:

The Court held that the off-market trading indulged into by the Respondents was rightly held to be per se illegal by the Whole Time Member.

The respondents were found to have engaged in a scam, obtaining shares through benami/fictitious demat account holders, violating SEBI Act and Regulations.

The Court quashed and set aside the SAT's order, upholding the penalties imposed by SEBI on the respondents.

The judgment emphasized the need for SEBI to independently act upon its findings, even without a specific complaint, to ensure the proper functioning of the securities market.

The Court concluded that the transactions were fishy in nature, and the respondents had gained undue benefits through illegal means.

The appeals is allowed.

Facts:

Rekhaben, the deceased, was admitted to a hospital with severe burn injuries.

Two dying declarations were recorded - one before the police officer and another before the Executive Magistrate.

The deceased did not name her husband or in-laws in both dying declarations.

The father of the deceased (PW-1) testified about the involvement of the respondent-accused and in-laws in the incident.

Issues:

Reliability of the dying declarations as evidence.

Consistency between the statements made before the police officer and the Executive Magistrate.

Credibility of the evidence provided by the father of the deceased.

Held:

The court underscored the importance of a dying declaration being voluntary and truthful, free from influence or imagination.

Emphasis was placed on the court's duty to scrutinize the dying declaration, considering its nature and the circumstances in which it was recorded.

The court acknowledged the burden of proof in criminal law to be beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence.

The judgement reiterated that the court should adopt a view favorable to the accused when two views are possible based on the evidence.

After considering the evidence, the court held that the dying declarations did not implicate the respondent-accused and the evidence provided by the deceased's father was not reliable.

The appeal was dismissed based on the lack of confidence in the evidence to justify the conviction.

Facts:

The Ministry of External Affairs had formulated an approved policy for the registration of PTOs facilitating Haj pilgrims for the period 2013-2017. The policy classified PTOs into Category I and Category II, further divided into Class-I and Class-II. Specific documents, including proof of payments for tickets and accommodation, were required for registration under stipulation (vii).

Issues:

The relevance and applicability of stipulation (vii) for PTOs seeking registration under Category I or Category II, especially regarding the production of specified documents for subsequent years.

Held:

Stipulation (vii) does not impose a substantive obligation on PTOs seeking consideration for the allotment of Haj quota. It serves as a rule of evidence to establish whether a PTO had conducted Haj programs in the past. (Para: 25)

The division of PTOs into Category I and Category II is based on the number of Haj operations conducted. Stipulation (vii) is relevant only for PTOs seeking registration for the first time under Category I or Category II. (Paras: 27, 28, 29)

Once registered under Category I or Category II, insisting on the production of documents specified in stipulation (vii) for each subsequent year is not supported by the text of the approved policy or logic. ( Paras: 30, 31, 32, 33)

The approved policy is not limited to Haj 2013 but applicable until 2017. The requirement to furnish documents for every subsequent year contradicts the text of the policy.(Para: 30)

The court emphasized that the approved policy did not specify the experience of conducting 7 Haj programs in consecutive years. Once registered under Category I or Category II, requiring proof for each subsequent year is inconsistent with the approved policy.(Para: 30, 34, 35)

The government has the power to deregister PTOs for valid reasons. However, the insistence on furnishing documents for each subsequent year is illogical and contrary to the approved policy.( Paras: 36, 37, 38)

PTOs seeking consideration for Haj 2016, falling under Class-II of Category-II, should be considered based on their previous year's qualification unless valid grounds for disqualification exist.(Paras: 39, 40)

Decision: The respondents are directed to consider the cases of all PTOs for allotment of quota in the light of the court's orders, specifically regarding stipulation (vii), and subject to the eligibility of PTOs according to the approved scheme.(Para: 42)

Facts:

The case involves allegations against the Manipur Police and armed forces for their role in extra-judicial executions and human rights violations. The petitioners, representing the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM), approached the court seeking relief. The context includes a prolonged internal disturbance in Manipur, with victims facing difficulties accessing legal remedies. Additionally, the filing of FIRs against victims' next of kin by local police further limited their legal recourse under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

Issues:

The maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Whether the ordinary criminal law remedy adequately addresses the situation, considering the prolonged internal disturbance in Manipur and the challenges faced by ordinary citizens in seeking justice.

Held:

The court finds the writ petition maintainable, emphasizing the extraordinary nature of the case involving allegations against law enforcement authorities for human rights violations. Denying access to constitutional remedies would result in grave injustice to the victims' families.

The judgment discusses constitutional provisions related to internal disturbance, public order, and the deployment of armed forces. It clarifies the distinctions between armed rebellion, internal disturbance, and the circumstances under which emergency powers can be invoked.

The court examines statutory provisions, including the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and the Army Act, 1950. It analyzes the powers granted to the armed forces in disturbed areas and the interplay with civilian jurisdiction.

The court dismisses the notion of a war-like situation in Manipur, emphasizing the existence of an internal disturbance for nearly 60 years. It highlights the importance of differentiating between acts of violence and a full-scale war.

The judgment delves into the use of excessive force and retaliation, emphasizing the distinction between self-defense and retaliatory force. It underscores the need for scrutiny in cases of alleged extra-judicial killings, irrespective of the status of the victim.

The court discusses the concept of an 'enemy' and the necessity of a thorough inquiry before branding a person as a militant, terrorist, or insurgent. It emphasizes the duty of care and the applicability of the rule of law, even in dealing with alleged enemies.

The judgment refers to the guidelines issued by the Chief of Army Staff, emphasizing the use of minimum force even against terrorists, militants, and insurgents. It underscores the need for proportional responses and the applicability of international law principles.

The court clarifies that Army personnel are not immune from trial by criminal courts, and the decision to try an alleged offender lies with both the Army and civilian courts in certain circumstances.

The judgment addresses the issue of limitation under the Army Act and emphasizes the circumstances triggering the commencement of the limitation period.

The court expresses concern about the effectiveness of Magisterial Enquiries, highlighting deficiencies in their conduct. It stresses the need for judicial inquiries or inquiries by bodies like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for a more comprehensive examination of cases.

Further steps involve preparing a detailed tabular statement for documented cases, distinguishing between judicial inquiries and administrative ones. The court plans to address the NHRC's effectiveness and the nature of its guidelines in subsequent proceedings.

Facts:

The case involves a limitation issue related to the filing of a suit by Ajay Gupta against Raju @ Rajendra Singh Yadav.

The trial court disposed of the application under Order 7, Rule 11, based on the assumption that 01.01.2011 was a non-working Saturday.

The last date for filing the suit was 31.12.2010, the last day of winter vacation for the court.

Issues:

Whether filing a suit on a non-working Saturday due to confusion constitutes a bona fide mistake that can save limitation.

The applicability of Sections 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act to suits.

The correctness of the trial court's decision regarding the working status of 01.01.2011.

Held:

The court emphasizes that no court or tribunal can extend the period of limitation for filing a suit.

Even if there is a cause beyond the control of the plaintiff, the only extension allowed is under Section 4 of the Limitation Act, related to court holidays.

The trial court and the High Court erred in understanding the law of Limitation.

The impugned order is set aside, and the appellant's application under Order 7, Rule 11 is allowed.

Recovery Suit No. 1/2011 on the file of the ADJ, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh is dismissed.

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The incident occurred on 01.02.2011 near Mohammadabad Crossing in Shahjahanpur Division, State of Uttar Pradesh.

The recruitment drive by Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) resulted in a large gathering in Bareilly, leading to chaos and violence.

Hundreds of aspirants climbed atop Himgiri Express, leading to an accident at Hathaurda Railway Over Bridge, causing deaths and injuries.

Enquiry Report revealed the train's speed, infringement in vertical clearance at the bridge, and the Administration's attempt to disperse the crowd.

The Report concluded that the primary responsibility rested with the roof riders violating Section 156 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989.

Issues:

Responsibility for the railway accident involving deaths and injuries.

Assessment of damages and compensation for victims.

Implementation of safety measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Held:

The Railway Administration was not free from blame, and reasonable care should have been taken to prevent the accident.

Compensation awarded to the next of kin of the deceased and injured:

Rs. 5 lakhs for each death.

Rs. 1.5 lakhs for permanent disability.

Rs. 75,000 for grievous injury.

Rs. 25,000 for a simple injury.

The Committee, headed by a senior officer, to assess infringements and create an action plan to remove them within two years.

Copies of the order sent to the Minister of Railways and Secretary, Railways, for compliance.

Central Police Organisations directed to issue guidelines similar to ITBP's Standing Orders, limiting the number of candidates in recruitment cycles.

The petition was disposed of with these directions.