Facts:

The case involved the divestment of the Director, CBI, Alok Kumar Verma, of his powers, functions, duties, and supervisory role by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Government of India.

Issues:

The authority of the CVC and the Government to take such actions without obtaining prior consent from the Committee under s.4A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act.

Held:

The legislative intent behind the CVC Act, 2003, and the amendments to the DSPE Act was to ensure the independence of the Director, CBI. Parliament followed the directions of the court in Vineet Narain and further amended the DSPE Act through the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, emphasizing the need for a High Power Selection Committee for the Director's appointment.( Para 32)

Sections 4A and 4B of the DSPE Act aim to completely insulate the Director, CBI, from extraneous influences, upholding the integrity of the CBI. The requirement of "previous consent of the Committee" in Section 4B(2) is crucial to prevent arbitrary interference with the Director's functioning.( Para 34)

Orders divesting powers from the Director, CBI, were set aside. The Committee under Section 4A(1) of the DSPE Act will reconsider the matter. Until then, the Director is directed to refrain from major policy decisions, limiting activities to routine functions.( Para 39-41)

Facts:

M/S Paulbro Leathers Private Limited defaulted on a loan from Punjab Financial Corporation.

The matter was settled as per the one-time settlement policy on 01.04.2003, with a Chartered Accountant determining the outstanding balance.

A dispute arose post-settlement regarding the precise liability and the amount paid by the respondent.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the demand raised by Punjab Financial Corporation.

Whether the dismissal of the application for review by the High Court was justified.

Held:

The appeals are allowed, and the case is remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on the writ petition. (Paragraph 13)

Disagreement with the High Court's reasoning for allowing the writ petition, emphasizing the need to examine the dispute arising from the settlement terms. (Paragraph 14)

Suggestion that if there are disputes or ambiguities in the Chartered Accountant's report, they should be addressed separately. (Paragraph 17)

Emphasis on examining the issue on its merits before quashing the demand, highlighting the necessity for a categorical finding on how the respondent fulfilled the settlement terms.( Paragraph 18)

Facts:

The appellant filed a civil suit seeking recovery of Rs.74,66,107, under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code, claiming indigence and inability to pay ad valorem court fees.

Issues:

The respondents contested, asserting the appellant's ability to pay court fees. The Trial Court rejected the plea for indigence. Subsequent appeal to the High Court affirmed the decision.

Held:

Upon examination of Orders 33 and 44, the Court found the appellant's case falling under Order 33 Rule 11 read with Order 44 Rule 3(2). The rejection by the Trial Court didn't bar the appellant from filing an appeal under Order 44 Rule 1.

Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the case for an inquiry under Order 44 Rule 3(2). The Appellate Court must determine if the appellant became indigent since the decree appealed from.

Facts:

Raj Kumar worked as a daily wager in the State PWD Department from June 1986 to May 1987.

The State terminated his services without following due procedure.

Raj Kumar filed a petition in the Labour Court, Haridwar, challenging the termination after almost 25 years.

The Labour Court awarded Rs. 30,000 in compensation.

The High Court modified the award, directing reinstatement without back wages.

The State appealed, contesting the modification.

Issues:

Legality and correctness of Raj Kumar's termination.

Whether reinstatement without back wages is appropriate.

Held:

The Court, after hearing both parties, decides to allow the appeals in part and modify the impugned order.( Para 9)

The Court relies on Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 and District Development Officer vs. Satish Kantilal Amerelia (2018) 12 SCC 298, establishing the principle that reinstatement with full back wages isn't automatic, especially in cases of daily-wage workers.( Para 10)

The Court cites Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, stating that in cases of procedural defects like violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, automatic reinstatement may not be appropriate, and monetary compensation should suffice.( Para 11)

Given that Raj Kumar worked as a daily wager for a short period, had no right to regularization, and raised the dispute after 25 years, the Court finds his case aligns with the principles laid out in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited.( Para 12)

The Court deems it just, proper, and reasonable to award Rs. 1,00,000 to Raj Kumar in full and final satisfaction of his claim, modifying the Labour Court's award from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 1,00,000.( Para 14)

The State is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to Raj Kumar within three months from the date of the judgment.( Para 16)

Conclusion: The appeals succeed in part. The impugned orders of the High Court are set aside, and the Labour Court's award is modified as indicated above.

Facts:

The State and its authorities (appellants) are defendants, and Gram Vikas Samiti, Shivdaspura (respondent) is the plaintiff in a civil suit for permanent injunction.

Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, granting permanent injunction against the appellants.

The first Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court's decision, leading to the filing of the Second Appeal by the State in the High Court.

Issues:

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal in limine, stating that it does not involve any substantial question of law.

Lack of discussion and reasoning in the High Court's order.

Held:

The High Court's dismissal without assigning reasons and without discussing the case on facts or in law is deemed inappropriate.

The second appeal involves substantial questions of law related to State land, title, possession, and legal implications.

Remand the case to the High Court for a fresh decision, directing the High Court to admit the second appeal by framing proper substantial questions of law.

The High Court is instructed to issue notice of the appeal along with the framed substantial questions of law to the respondent and decide the second appeal on its merits.

The High Court should decide questions related to ownership, possession, and legality in light of legal principles, pleadings, and evidence.

The decision is made without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, leaving it to the High Court's unbiased consideration.

Facts:

Partition suit (154/1985) filed by Smt. Saroja Rani in Ranchi, challenged on jurisdiction.

Preliminary decree passed on 13 June 1990; final decree on 5 April 1991.

Respondent raised objections to execution based on lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Issues:

Whether an objection to territorial jurisdiction can be entertained in execution proceedings?

Application of Sections 21A and 47, Order 7 Rule 11, and Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC.

Held:

Jurisdiction objection doesn't go to inherent lack but must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

Conditions for raising jurisdiction objection: earliest opportunity and consequent failure of justice.

Execution court cannot go behind the decree; objections must be raised before the court of first instance.

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the High Court's judgment is set aside. The executing court is directed to conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously.

FACTS:

Two workers, Santosh Kumar and Hira Singh, filed claim petitions under the Minimum Wages Act against the appellant, alleging non-payment of wages for the period from 01.01.1991 to 30.10.1992.

The competent authority allowed the claim petitions, directing the appellant to pay determined wages along with a penalty.

The appellate authority affirmed the order, and the appellant approached the High Court through writ petitions, which were subsequently dismissed.

The Division Bench of the High Court, in intra-Court appeals, upheld the dismissal, leading to the present appeals.

ISSUES:

The factual question of whether the workers were employed by the appellant, the validity of the penalty, and procedural matters related to impleadment.

HELD:

The judgment states that the case involves a pure question of fact, which cannot be re-examined in the appeals.

The findings of the competent and appellate authorities, regarding the workers' employment and wages, were considered binding by the High Court.

The writ petitions were dismissed on the ground that the workers, in whose favor orders were passed, were not impleaded, and the Division Bench rightly rejected a belated application for their impleadment.

The workers had passed away, and their legal representatives were not made parties, further justifying the dismissal of the appeals.

The appellant's challenge regarding the adequacy of the opportunity and the quantum of penalty was rejected. The authorities were deemed justified in imposing the penalty considering the nature of breaches committed by the appellant.

The appellant was directed to calculate and pay the awarded sum to the legal representatives of the deceased workers within three months.

Facts:

The respondent worked as a daily wager in the R & B Department of the State for approximately 18 years.

The State terminated the respondent's services without following the due procedure prescribed in law.

The respondent raised a dispute almost 15 years after his alleged termination before the Labour Court.

Issues:

Whether the termination of the daily-wage worker was illegal, and if so, what relief is appropriate, considering the nature of the employment and the circumstances surrounding the termination.

Held:

After hearing counsels, the court is inclined to allow the appeal in part and modify the impugned order.( Paragraph 8)

The court determines that the case falls within the parameters set by previous decisions in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Bhurumal and District Development Officer vs. Satish Kantilal Amerelia.( Paragraph 9)

The court quotes the rationale from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, emphasizing that automatic reinstatement with back wages is not applicable when the termination is due to procedural defects, such as the violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.( Paragraph 10)

Highlights reasons for the decision: respondent worked as a daily wager for a few years, had no right to claim regularization, no right to continue as a daily wager, and raised the dispute after a significant gap.( Paragraph 11)

Concludes that lump sum monetary compensation is just, proper, and reasonable in full and final satisfaction of the claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.( Paragraph 13)

Specifies the amount of compensation as Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid by the appellant (State) to the respondent within three months.( Paragraph 14)

The appeal succeeds, and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The Labour Court's Award is modified accordingly.( Paragraph 15)

Facts:

The appellant was granted permission under Rule 11C of the Cable Television Network (Amendment) Rules, 2012, to operate as an MSO in the DAS notified areas.

The permission was revoked on 03.09.2014, citing denial of "security clearance" by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The appellant challenged the cancellation through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the cancellation of permission was justified based on the denial of "security clearance"?

Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing prior notice before the cancellation?

Held:

The cancellation order was passed in conformity with Rule 11C of the Rules, as security clearance was a mandatory requirement for permission.

The principles of natural justice were not violated, and the appellant was not entitled to claim prior notice before the cancellation.

The appeal was found devoid of merit and dismissed. The appellant was given the liberty to apply for fresh permission in accordance with the law.