Facts:

The case involves a matrimonial dispute where the husband, the complainant, accuses the wife and her family members of various offenses. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed, and the husband later sought to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court initially dismissed the application, but the High Court set aside the order and directed the appellants to be impleaded as accused.

Issues:

Whether the allegations in the FIR were sufficient to summon additional accused under Section 319.

Whether there was strong and cogent evidence supporting the summoning of the appellants.

Whether the High Court's order was justified in light of the legal principles governing Section 319 proceedings.

Held:

Explains that the case is essentially a matrimonial dispute, and the husband made vague allegations against the wife and her family members. The FIR and statements recorded during investigation did not disclose the names of the appellants or provide sufficient details to identify them. The court emphasizes that summoning additional accused under Section 319 requires more than a prima facie case, and there must be strong and cogent evidence. The judgment cites the importance of exercising this power sparingly and not in a casual manner. The High Court's order is set aside, and the trial court's decision to dismiss the application under Section 319 is restored.

Facts:

Beniram Gond, a member of a notified Scheduled Tribe, executed a sale deed of agricultural land in 1964 in favor of Dhaniram, a non-tribal.

Section 170B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was inserted in 1980, allowing reversion of land transferred fraudulently from a tribal member.

Legal proceedings initiated by Beniram's son under Section 170B resulted in the Collector's order reverting the land to Beniram.

Issues:

Validity of the order under Section 170B challenged by Dhaniram, leading to a writ petition dismissed by the High Court in 1987.

Subsequent suit by Dhaniram challenging the Collector's order, barred by Section 257 (L-1) introduced in 1995.

Held:

The High Court erred in allowing the suit challenging the Collector's order when a prior challenge was decided in 1987. The civil court cannot arrive at a conclusion contrary to the High Court's final judgment.

The appeal is allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the suit.

Facts:

The State acquired land for the construction of Satluz-Yamuna canal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The appellant, a landowner, contested the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO).

The Civil Court, on appeal, enhanced the compensation.

The High Court, in a lead appeal (Hari Singh's case), partly allowed appeals by landowners, enhancing compensation for lands in 9 villages, including Bhago Majra.

The appellant challenged this decision, seeking further enhancement.

Issues:

Whether the appellant is entitled to claim additional compensation for the land acquired.

Whether the High Court erred in determining the market value of the land in question.

Held:

The appellant failed to demonstrate that Courts below overlooked crucial evidence or that the High Court committed fundamental errors.

The High Court considered all aspects, including location, distance from Chandigarh, and land quality, in determining compensation rates for each village.

The appellant's argument for additional compensation for Bhago Majra was dismissed.

The High Court's approach, examining each village's potential from various angles, was deemed just and proper.

No grounds were found to further enhance compensation beyond the High Court's decision.

The appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

Tiruchanur village is a minor Inam village under the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956.

The entire land in Survey No. 234 of Tiruchanur village is classified as "Peddacheruvu Poramboke" (Tank Poramboke).

The Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984 notified Survey No. 234 as "Peddacheruvu Poramboke."

Issues:

Whether the land in Survey No. 234 is available for grant of ryotwari patta under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act.

Challenge to the Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984.

Held:

Per R. Banumathi, J.:

Tiruchanur village falls under the Inams Abolition Act, and the entire land in Survey No. 234 is classified as "Peddacheruvu Tank."

Communal government poramboke lands fall under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act, making them unavailable for ryotwari patta.

The Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984 was not challenged, and the High Court rightly declined to quash the District Collector's order.

Per Indira Banerjee, J. (Concurring):

The Inams Abolition Act aims to abolish Inam lands, and Section 2-A vests certain lands in the government.

The appellants did not challenge the Gazette Notification, and the decision was based on materials, not warranting interference.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the District Collector's order.

Facts:

Respondent appointed as Assistant Teacher in 1994, promoted to Trained Graduate Teacher in 2007.

Granted Assured Career Progression (ACP) on April 25, 2008, with upgraded pay scale from August 10, 2006.

6th Central Pay Commission enforced on August 29, 2008, with Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

Respondent's pay revised on November 18, 2009, under Rules of 2008, but fixation disputed.

Issues:

Applicability of Rule 7 or Rule 11 for pay fixation under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

Discrepancy in the manner of pay fixation as per respondent's representation.

Held:

Provisions of Rule 11 are applicable since the respondent opted for revised pay scale from August 10, 2006, the date of ACP upgradation.

Rule 7 deals with the initial pay in the revised pay structure as per the 6th Central Pay Commission, while Rule 11 deals with pay fixation after January 1, 2006, when a government servant continues to draw pay in the existing scale.

Noteworthy that Note 2A of Rule 7, relied upon by appellants, is not applicable in cases of upgradation under ACP scheme, as was the situation in this case.

The decision in Union of India Vs. K.V. Rama Raju, (2018) 2 SCALE 239, is distinguishable, as it did not deal with the specific scenario of exercising the option from the date of upgradation under the ACP.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, and pay revision under Rule 11 is ordered. Arrears, if any, to be paid within three months.

FACTS:

Land oustees displaced due to the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Tribunal issued directions for the rehabilitation of land oustees, criticizing the Railway Administration for selection processes and filling of vacancies.

ISSUES:

Validity of the Tribunal's directions regarding the rehabilitation of land oustees.

Preferential treatment for employment of land oustees in Group 'C' and 'D' posts in the Railways.

HELD:

Tribunal's directions found to be faulty; Railway Administration criticized for selection processes.

Policy for preferential treatment in employment subject to specific conditions, including fulfillment of qualifications and suitability.

Tribunal exceeded its authority by substituting its own directions for the government's policy.

Rejection of claims based on technicalities deemed inappropriate.

Directed re-verification of rejected claims, allowing fresh applications within three months, and coordinating with local administration for due verification.

Age relaxation of 15 years granted to applicants.

Appeals allowed, judgments of the High Court and Tribunal set aside.

Facts:

The respondent, Lehna Singh (original plaintiff), filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the appellants (original defendants), claiming ownership and possession of a disputed land. The defendants contested, asserting a will in their favor executed by the deceased Bhagwan Singh. The Trial Court found in favor of the plaintiff, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision. The High Court, in a second appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment and reinstated the Trial Court's decree.

Issues:

Jurisdiction of the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence in a second appeal.

Validity of the Will in favor of defendants.

Held:

The Trial Court held the Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances, while the First Appellate Court, through re-appreciation of evidence, deemed it genuine. The High Court, in a second appeal, exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence. The Court refers to the limitations under Section 100 CPC, emphasizing that the High Court's interference is only permissible if substantial questions of law are involved.( Para 13)

The High Court's interference with the First Appellate Court's findings on the Will, which were based on a proper appreciation of evidence, was unwarranted. The Court cites Kondiba Dagadu Kadam to assert that the High Court cannot substitute its opinion unless the findings are contrary to law or based on inadmissible evidence.( Para 15)

The substantial questions of law framed by the High Court are deemed inadequate and irrelevant. The Court reiterates the importance of adhering to the limits set by Section 100 CPC.( Para 15.1)

Quoting Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojappa, the Court emphasizes the duty to intervene when the High Court contravenes the limits prescribed by Section 100 CPC.( Para 16)

The appeal is allowed, the High Court's judgment is set aside, and the First Appellate Court's judgment is reinstated. The plaintiff's suit is dismissed.( Para 17)

Facts:

Respondent obtained a Shipment Policy valid until 31 July 2002.

Approval granted by ECGC for covering shipments to SICOREP.

Buyer's bank changed from Credit Lyonnais to BHCI.

BHCI released documents without buyer's acceptance, leading to non-payment.

First respondent unable to pay own banker (PNB), who claimed under its policy.

ECGC made provisional payment to PNB, later rejecting the first respondent's claim.

State Commission and National Commission ruled against ECGC, stating it admitted liability by honoring commitment to PNB.

ECGC appealed, claiming exclusion due to the default of the collecting bank.

Issues:

Whether ECGC is liable for the loss arising from the buyer's non-payment due to the change in the nominated bank.

Whether honoring the commitment to PNB under a different policy constitutes an admission of liability to the first respondent.

Held:

Court invokes Article 142, directing no recoveries from the first respondent.

Loss attributed to the buyer's actions, and no evidence of first respondent's complicity.

ECGC not liable under the exclusionary provision as the collecting bank defaulted.

Honoring commitment to PNB under a different policy doesn't imply liability to the first respondent.

Appeal allowed, setting aside the National Commission's judgment.