Facts:

The Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior, issued an order externing the respondent for one year.

The respondent challenged the order, contending that the Additional District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to pass such orders under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

Issues:

Whether the Additional District Magistrate had the jurisdiction to pass orders under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990?

Held:

The statutory scheme of the Adhiniyam, 1990 allows orders under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 to be passed by an Additional District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

The Constitution Bench Judgment in Ajaib Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh (AIR 1965 SC 1619) is not applicable to the present case as it dealt with a different statutory scheme.

The High Court erred in relying on Ajaib Singh's judgment, and the impugned judgment is unsustainable.

The Notification dated 05.03.2003, empowering the Additional District Magistrate, was not challenged in the writ petition.

The period of externment being one year has already expired, making consideration of other grounds unnecessary.

The appeals are allowed, and the impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside.

Facts:

The appellant claimed rights to agricultural land after the death of Mangalram and Rukma Devi.

Allegations of collusion were made against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for recording the land in the name of respondent No. 3.

A gift deed was executed, leading the appellant to file a civil suit challenging its validity.

Issues:

Whether the relief sought falls under the jurisdiction of a revenue court, as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Whether a civil court has jurisdiction when khatedari rights are pending adjudication in a revenue court.

Held:

The Trial court dismissed objections to its jurisdiction, stating a conclusive decision can only be made after framing preliminary issues and recording evidence.

The High Court allowed revision, citing that the suit fell under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and was, therefore, barred under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The relief sought, involving khatedari rights, was held to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts.

The civil court cannot grant the relief until khatedari rights are decreed by the revenue court.

The High Court's decision was upheld, dismissing the appeals.

Facts:

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession, relying on a rent note from 1967.

A fire incident in 1967 was alleged as the cause for the land being vacant, leading to a claim of dispossession in 1972.

The defendant asserted possession based on sale deeds, and the dispute revolved around the ownership and possession of the property.

Issues:

Whether the plaintiff had better title over the property?

Whether the plaintiff was in settled possession of the property, justifying dispossession?

Held:

The plaintiff lacked documentary proof of possession and title.

The Court emphasized settled possession as a prerequisite for possessory title and found the evidence of the plaintiff insufficient.

The sale deeds presented by the defendants indicated ownership and possession over the disputed property.

The High Court's interference with the First Appellate Court's findings was deemed unjustified.

The appeal succeeded, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court was restored, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

Facts:

An advertisement was issued for direct recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (UPHJS). The petitioners applied but were debarred on grounds of age, not complying with the age limit prescribed in Rule 12 of the 1975 Rules.

Issues:

The constitutional validity of Rules 8(1) and 12 of the 1975 Rules was challenged. The contention included the impact of these rules on candidates who exceeded the age limit between the last recruitment and the present recruitment.

Held:

The directions in Malik Mazhar Sultan, which aim to fill vacancies in the district judiciary, do not override the prevailing rules governing selections to the HJS. These directions do not create an enforceable right in any candidate for selection or the right to assert age relaxation in violation of the rules.

The validity of both Rules 8 and 12 has been upheld by Division Benches of the Allahabad High Court in separate judgments.

The power to fix a cut-off date or age limit is incidental to the regulatory control over the selection process. A cut-off is not arbitrary if it has a rational basis and is not manifestly unreasonable, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Rolling back the date for the upper age limit is impermissible. The determination of cut-off dates lies in the realm of policy, and it is the rule-making authority's function, not the court's, to discharge that duty.

No merit in the grievance of discrimination as the cut-off dates for distinct requirements, such as practice years and age criteria, serve different purposes.

No case of discrimination or arbitrariness is established by comparing the Higher Judicial Service Rules with the Rules governing Nyayik Sewa, as they cater to different cadres.

Decision: The writ petitions and the appeal challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 8(1) and 12 of the 1975 Rules are dismissed.

Facts:

The appellant, a landlord, challenged the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which set aside the eviction order passed by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The dispute involved the arrears of rent demanded by the landlord and the tenant's contention that the rent paid was sufficient.

Issues:

Whether the tenant could unilaterally revise the rent based on Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001?

Whether the tenant's payment covered the demanded arrears, preventing eviction under Section 9(a)?

Held:

The Court examines the statutory scheme of Act 2001, noting changes from the previous Act of 1950. Section 6 is highlighted, emphasizing the landlord's right to seek revision of rent under this section.( Para 7)

The Court considers the tenant's argument to re-determine the rent as per Section 6, concluding that the tenant cannot unilaterally revise the rent and must follow the procedure outlined in Section 6.( Para 14)

Addressing the High Court's observation, the Court reaffirms that the landlord cannot claim a revision of rent exceeding 5% after the enforcement of Act 2001.( Para 18)

The Court clarifies that if the landlord does not invoke Section 6, the agreed rent between the parties remains, and the tenant cannot unilaterally reduce it.( Para 20)

The Court criticizes the High Court for not appreciating the true import of Sections 6 and 7, stating that the tenant is, indeed, in default.( Para 21)

Analyzing Section 9(a) of the Act, the Court explains that the tenant's payment must cover the arrears demanded by the notice for the last four months to avoid eviction.( Para 23)

Reiterating the tenant's default, the Court asserts that the demanded arrears, despite partial payment, establish a valid ground for eviction under Section 9(a).( Para 24)

Facts:

The respondent (landlord) sought the eviction of the appellant (tenant) based on the bona fide need for personal residence and family.

The appellant argued that the execution of an agreement to sell terminated the landlord-tenant relationship.

Issues:

Whether the execution of an agreement to sell between a landlord and tenant automatically severs the lessor-lessee relationship.

Whether the landlord's claim for eviction based on bona fide need is justified.

Held:

Examines the applicability of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and the intention of the parties regarding the termination of the lease.Discusses the legal principle established in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors. regarding the surrender of lease .( Para 24-26)

Evaluates the Agreement to Sell dated 13.05.1993 to determine if it contains provisions indicating the surrender of tenancy rights.Concludes that the agreement does not manifest an intention to surrender the tenancy.( Para 33-38)

Affirms that the tenancy remains unaffected by the execution of the agreement to sell.Grants three months for the appellant to vacate the premises, subject to certain conditions.( Para 39-41)

Facts:

The case involved the challenge to the validity of certain High Court Rules (rr. 14A to 14D) inserted in 2016, which conferred the power on the High Court to debar an advocate from practicing. The rules were questioned on the grounds that they impinged upon the independence of the Bar and exceeded the powers conferred by Section 34 of the Advocates Act.

Issues:

Validity of High Court Rules granting power to debar advocates.

Whether Section 34 of the Advocates Act authorizes the High Court to frame rules for disciplinary control.

Implications of the rules on the independence of the Bar and encroachment on the powers of Bar Councils.

Held:

The Advocates Act, 1961, emphasizes the independence of the Bar, ensuring the autonomy of Bar Councils to maintain the rule of law. The judiciary relies on an independent Bar for a strong judicial system. The High Court Rules in question were challenged as exceeding the powers granted by Section 34, and it was asserted that the Act never intended to confer disciplinary powers on the High Court.( Para 1-13)

The significance of an independent Bar in upholding fundamental rights, rule of law, and ensuring the proper functioning of various institutions was highlighted.( Para 16)

The Bar is integral to judicial administration, and the mutual reverence between the Bar and the Bench is essential for the effective functioning of the judiciary. Independent Bar and Bench form the backbone of democracy.( Para 18-21)

The Advocates Act entrusts the ethical standards of the legal profession to Bar Councils. The power to discipline lawyers is vested in the Disciplinary Committees of Bar Councils, and an appeal lies to the Supreme Court under Section 38 of the Act.( Para 31-32)

A bar association is considered independent when it is mostly free from external influence, ensuring the regulation of the legal profession and the right of lawyers to join the association.( Para 36)

Section 34 of the Advocates Act does not confer disciplinary powers upon the High Court. The High Court may prescribe conditions to practice, but disciplinary control is beyond its purview.( Para 40)

The High Court has the authority to regulate practice under Section 34, but disciplinary control, including the framing of rules for debarment, is not within its ambit.( Para 44-51)

The High Court faced a grave situation necessitating security measures due to advocates' misconduct. The Court acknowledged its power under the Contempt of Courts Act to address such situations.( Para 66-70)

The Disciplinary Committee of Bar Councils is urged to improve its functioning to maintain the independence of the Bar, as its failure could be supervised by the courts.( Para 71)

In case of Bar Council inaction, the High Court can entertain writ petitions to issue appropriate directions for disciplinary action, but it cannot assume the disciplinary control envisioned under the Advocates Act.( Para 72)

Contempt of court must be used sparingly, and the judiciary should ensure fair administration of justice. Advocates should adhere to professional ethics and refrain from denigrating the judiciary in the media.( Para 74)

The separation of powers must be maintained, and attempts to malign the judiciary through unscrupulous means are detrimental to the independence of the system.( Para 75)

The Bar Council's duty to protect the nobility of the legal profession is highlighted, and the Court may supervise the Bar Council's non-performance or delayed performance of its duties.( Para 76)

The High Court's powers under the Contempt of Courts Act are emphasized, and it is urged not to assume disciplinary control, as it may compromise the independence of the Bar.( Para 77)

Facts:

The appellant, Satya Raj Singh, was accused of murdering Bhaiya alias Narendra.

The incident occurred on 19.09.1999 around 7 p.m. in village Imaliya.

The Additional Sessions Judge convicted Satya Raj Singh under Section 302/34 IPC, while the other two accused were acquitted.

Issues:

The appellant challenged the judgment on the grounds of the delayed lodging of the FIR and the credibility of eyewitness testimony.

Held:

The High Court rightly rejected the argument that the delayed FIR made the prosecution case doubtful.

The evidence of eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-3, PW-2, PW-6, PW-4) established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant assaulted the deceased.

No major contradictions were found in the witnesses' testimony, and their accounts were consistent.

The delay in lodging the FIR was deemed reasonable due to the circumstances of the incident occurring at night, and the Police Station being 25 KM away.

The appellant's appeal was found devoid of merit, and the conviction was upheld.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed.

Facts:

Dispute arises from a civil suit for specific performance filed in 1982.

Plaintiffs allege breach of agreement by defendant No.1 (Amar Nath).

Legal representatives involved due to deaths during the pendency.

Trial court dismissed the suit, finding Amar Nath incompetent to sell joint family property.

First Appellate Court reversed, decreeing plaintiffs' suit.

High Court upheld the decision.

Appeal before the Supreme Court challenges these findings.

Issues:

Competence of Amar Nath to sell joint family property.

Validity of sale to defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

Readiness and willingness of plaintiffs to perform the agreement.

Inclusion of all legal representatives in the appeal.

Held:

The finding on readiness and willingness is crucial; once recorded, it's binding unless proven against pleadings or evidence. No challenge raised during the first appellate stage.( Para 19)

Majority of legal representatives already on record, no conflict of interest. No objection raised in the first appeal, making inclusion unnecessary.( Para 26)

Legal representatives failed to challenge the concurrent finding that the sale to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was collusive. Conclusive finding binds this Court.( Para 34)

Amar Nath's agreement was binding on legal heirs; no objection raised, indicating consent.( Para 43)

Decree modification for justice. Return of Rs. 48,000 to defendants, execution of sale deed, and deposit of Rs. 41,000 to plaintiffs.( Para 48-49)

Appeal disposed with directions for enforcement; parties entitled to execute decree in case of default.( Para 54)