FACTS:

Jyoti Sharma committed suicide by consuming poison.

Dying declaration recorded stating harassment by the Respondent, alleging molestation and termination from employment.

Allegation of fraudulent loan in the name of the deceased and subsequent altercations.

ISSUES:

Validity of the charges framed against the Respondent.

High Court's decision to discharge the Respondent.

HELD:

The appeal arises from the High Court's judgment discharging the Respondent.

Charges were framed against the Respondent under Section 306 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Dying declaration points to harassment, molestation, and termination from employment by the Respondent.

Several complaints were filed by the deceased, including a recent one before her suicide.

Allegation of fraudulent loan in the name of the deceased and subsequent altercations between the Respondent and the deceased.

The High Court, in discharging the Respondent, relied on the absence of evidence regarding provocation, incitement, or encouragement for suicide.

Court refers to Amit Kapoor v Ramesh Chander, emphasizing limited revisional jurisdiction, stating that it should only be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a gross error.

Principles outlined for exercising revisional jurisdiction: no meticulous examination needed, interference only if there is a gross error, and the court is not to examine facts, evidence, and materials on record to determine sufficiency.

Refers to Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) to establish the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide, emphasizing the need for mens rea.

Cites Rajbir Singh v State of U.P., highlighting the purpose of framing charges is not to ascertain guilt but to establish a strong suspicion of the accused committing the offence.

The High Court's decision to discharge the accused was not justified; it ignored material emerging during the investigation.

Material indicates multiple complaints by the deceased, alleged fraudulent loan, and actions leading to harassment and termination.

The judgment clarifies that it doesn't affect the merits of the trial.

REFERRED CASES:

Amit Kapoor v Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460

Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605

Rajbir Singh v State of U.P., (2006) 4 SCC 51

Ramesh Kumar, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088

State of Rajasthan v Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198

Facts:

The original plaintiff and his brother executed a registered deed of gift in favor of the appellant (original defendant) in 1981.

The appellant filed a partition suit in 2001, and the respondent (original plaintiff) was a party to it.

The respondent, after the death of his brother, filed a suit in 2003 challenging the gift deed, alleging it to be showy and sham.

The appellant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint, citing the bar of limitation.

Issues:

Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation.

Whether the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is justified.

Held:

The court observed that the plaintiff admitted to the execution of the gift deed in 1981, and for approximately 22 years, there was no challenge to its validity.

Despite being a party to the partition suit in 2001, the plaintiff alleged awareness of the gift deed only in 2003 when filing the present suit.

The court held that by clever drafting, the plaintiff sought to bring the suit within the limitation period, which, otherwise, was barred.

The absence of a prayer to set aside the gift deed was noted, indicating an attempt to avoid the bar of limitation.

Referring to various decisions, the court emphasized that if the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless, it should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11.

The court concluded that both the trial court and the High Court erred in not rejecting the plaint, and the suit was barred by the law of limitation.

The impugned orders were set aside, and the application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 was allowed. The plaint was rejected.

Facts:

The appeals arise from the judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 09.03.2012, concerning the implementation of Rule 5(g) and Annexure-III, item(ii) of TNRSS Rules. The issue pertains to the preference given to Direct recruit Assistants over Promotee non-graduate Assistants in the promotion process.

Issues:

The interpretation and implementation of the amended rule, considering the judgment in M. Rathinaswami, which upheld the amendment while reading it down to exclude Promotee graduate Assistants.

Held:

The Court framed the question around the implementation of the amended rule and the judgment in M. Rathinaswami.( Para 10)

The Court examined the State's issuance of G.O. Nos. 884 and 133, retrospectively amending Rule 5(g) and Annexure-III, item(ii), and the subsequent challenges in courts.( Para 11)

The Court highlighted the Supreme Court's decision in Rathinaswami, which upheld the amendment but limited its application to Promotee non-graduate Assistants.( Para 12)

The Court discussed the absence of specific directions in Rathinaswami regarding the mode of implementation and the subsequent confusion in the orders issued by District Collectors.( Para 13)

The Court noted the State's letter (MS) No. 392 dated 30.12.2011, accepting the recommendation to dispense with the graduation requirement for the post of Deputy Tahsildar.( Para 14)

The Court criticized the High Court's reliance on the letter dated 30.12.2011 and highlighted the error in directing the State to treat all categories as one group for promotion, which contradicted the Supreme Court's judgment.( Para 15)

The Court discussed the State's stand not to disturb the promotions of Direct recruit Assistants made between 1995 and 2009, in compliance with the amended rule.( Para 16)

The Court emphasized the potential confusion and prejudice to Direct recruit Assistants if the implementation is made retrospective from 04.12.1978.( Para 17)

The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and provided specific directions for the prospective implementation of the judgment in Rathinaswami.( Para 18)

Facts:

The State of U.P. referred an industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the legality and correctness of the termination order of the appellant (workman).

The Industrial Tribunal awarded in favor of the appellant, directing reinstatement with back wages.

The employer filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the award.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Industrial Tribunal's award.

The appellant filed a review petition, which was also dismissed by the High Court.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's orders.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal, specifically regarding the continuous service of the appellant with the employer.

Held:

The Court found no merit in the appeals.

The main question was whether the appellant was in continuous service for one year with the employer, as required under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

The Court held that it cannot examine this factual question de novo, as it was a finding of fact already determined by the High Court.

The decision in Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Mahak Singh & Ors. was cited but deemed distinguishable on facts.

The High Court's order to not recover the substantial amount already paid to the appellant during the litigation was upheld.

The Court affirmed that proceedings under Section 17-B of the ID Act are independent and not dependent on the final order in the main proceedings.

The employer, even if successful in upholding the termination, cannot recover the amount paid during the proceedings.

The appeals were dismissed.

Facts:

The respondent filed a civil suit against the appellants (HUDA) claiming a decree for declaration with consequential relief.

The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed the judgment.

HUDA filed a second appeal in the High Court, which was barred by 1942 days, leading to an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay.

The High Court rejected the application, holding the cause pleaded by HUDA insufficient, resulting in the dismissal of the second appeal.

Issues:

Whether the delay in filing the second appeal was justifiable.

Whether the grounds presented for condonation constituted a sufficient cause.

Held:

The delay of 1942 days was inordinate, not properly explained, and the grounds under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were deemed insufficient.The appellant-HUDA, being a statutory authority with a legal department, was expected to handle legal matters diligently.The duty of the officers-in-charge of the legal cell to promptly file the appeal was emphasized.( Para 14-15)

The appellant-HUDA failed to discharge its duty with due diligence despite having all facilities and infrastructure.Officers-in-charge should be held accountable for the lapse, making good the loss suffered by HUDA.The delay could not be justified by the alleged inaction of the lawyer, and the duty to ensure timely filing rested with HUDA.( Para 16-20)

The delay of 1942 days was deemed wholly inordinate, and the explanation provided did not constitute a sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The High Court's decision to not condone the delay was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.( Para 21-22)

Facts:

The appellant, Mukesh Chand, a consumer of electricity, faced allegations of power theft by BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BSES). BSES filed an FIR under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and sent a bill to the appellant. The parties later settled the matter in a Lok Adalat, wherein BSES agreed to withdraw all cases against the appellant.

Issues:

The compounding of the offense of power theft in accordance with the settlement reached in the Lok Adalat, particularly considering Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Held:

The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR. The High Court dismissed the petition without considering Section 152 of the Electricity Act.

The Lok Adalat settlement played a crucial role, as condition (iii) stated that BSES agreed to withdraw all cases against the appellant.

The court, after hearing arguments, allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order. The case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh examination, emphasizing the importance of considering Section 152 of the Electricity Act in the context of compounding offenses.

The court clarified that it had not applied its mind to the merits of the case and directed the High Court to decide the matter strictly in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by any observations made in their order.

Final Result: Allowed

Facts:

Advocate 'MN' representing the petitioners attempted to browbeat and insult Judges of the Supreme Court. This was not the first instance of such behavior by the advocate, with a history of similar conduct before Tribunals and the Bombay High Court.

Issues:

Contemptuous behavior by Advocate 'MN' and the need for appropriate punishment.

Legitimacy of the writ petition seeking a second review of the judgment.

Held:

When contempt is committed in the face of the Court, judges are empowered to take stern action. Referring to Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, the Court emphasized the authority to address contempt, especially when a judge is personally attacked.( Paragraph 9)

In Leila David (2) v. State of Maharashtra, differing views on summarily dealing with contempt in the face of the Court were resolved in Leila David (6) v. State of Maharashtra. It was established that summary action, without notice, is within the Court's duty. Pasayat, J.'s perspective was affirmed.( Paragraph 10)

Contemptuous conduct deserves severe punishment. Although the Court could have imposed punishment in the order, in the interest of justice, a notice was issued to Advocate 'MN' to determine the appropriate punishment for committing contempt.( Paragraph 13)

Regarding the writ petition seeking a second review, it was held that it is barred by Order XLVII, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Additionally, Article 32 petitions do not lie against the judgment of the Supreme Court. Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 was affirmed as constitutional, stating that the designation of Senior Advocate is not an absolute right.( Paragraph 15)

Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the severity of contemptuous behavior and reserving the determination of the punishment for Advocate 'MN' for a later stage.

Facts:

Pursuant to a court order, Senior Counsels for the Appellant and Respondents inform the court that the Respondents have paid the amount of Rs. 600 crores towards interest by the specified date, satisfying all liabilities under the Settlement Agreement and Further Settlement Agreement.

Issues:

The payment of the specified amount by the Respondents and the satisfaction of all liabilities under the mentioned Agreements.

Held:

The court, exercising powers under Article 136 r.w. Article 142 of the Constitution of India, quashes the proceedings arising from the Settlement Agreement and Further Settlement Agreement.

Specific proceedings quashed include FIR lodged by C.B.I., E.C.I.R. by Enforcement Directorate, Show Cause Notice issued by the High Commission of India, any Look Out Notice against Mr. Pramod Mittal or family, and eleven complaints under S. 420 and 409 I.P.C.

The Appellant, State Trading Corporation of India, declares no further claims against the Respondents arising from the mentioned Agreements.

Winding-Up proceedings initiated by the Appellant against GSHIL (Respondent No. 1) in the Isle of Man Court are not pursued, as the amounts due under the Agreements are satisfied.

Decision: M.A. No. 320/2019 is disposed of with no order as to costs.