Facts:

The case involved the death of Pravin while he was in police custody at Vajirabad Police Station, Nanded.

The deceased's parents and daughter filed a Criminal Writ Petition alleging that Pravin's death was unnatural.

The High Court directed the State of Maharashtra to pay compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs to the petitioners and recover it from the Investigating Officer-In-charge of the relevant crime.

The Investigating Officer-In-Charge appealed against this direction, disputing liability before it was established.

Issues:

Whether the State should be directed to pay compensation before liability for the crime is established.

Whether the Investigating Officer-In-Charge can be held liable for compensation.

Held:

The Court modified the direction of the High Court and stated that the State would be at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the concerned erring officials once the liability for the crime in question is established. This decision was made in consideration of the pending proceedings to determine liability in connection with Pravin's death. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the modified direction.

Facts:

The dispute involved a property in Brahminwadi, Jagtial, wherein the plaintiffs claimed ownership and sought a declaration to that effect, along with a permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiffs presented documentary and oral evidence to support their claim, including permissions from the municipality and records from the Endowment Department. However, contradictions arose regarding the history and ownership of the property.

Issues:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of ownership of the suit property.

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction.

Whether the suit is barred by res judicata.

Whether the court fee paid is correct.

Held:

The Supreme Court found that the burden of proof lay with the plaintiffs to establish ownership, which they failed to do convincingly. Despite relying on certain documents, such as permissions from the municipality and records from the Endowment Department, these were deemed insufficient to establish ownership. Moreover, contradictions in the evidence presented by the plaintiffs further weakened their case. Thus, the High Court's decision to decree the suit in favor of the respondents-plaintiffs was overturned.

The court restored the trial court's order dismissing the suit, allowing the appeal without any order as to costs. Pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

The case involved the State of Uttar Pradesh appealing against the acquittal of the accused (Wasif Haider and others) by the High Court. The accused were initially convicted by the trial court but were later acquitted due to multiple investigative lapses and flaws. The prosecution's case relied heavily on witness testimonies and the identification parade, among other evidence. However, the High Court found contradictions in witness statements, lack of corroboration, and significant investigative deficiencies, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Issues:

Whether the investigative flaws and lapses in the prosecution's case warranted the acquittal of the accused.

Whether the benefit of doubt should accrue to the accused due to an inefficacious prosecution.

Held:

The Court concurred with the High Court's decision to acquit the accused. The Court highlighted several investigative deficiencies, including the inordinate delay in conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP), doubts regarding the genuineness of the TIP process, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, contradictions in evidence, and failure to establish charges under relevant sections of the law.

The Court reiterated the presumption of innocence and the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasized that suspicion cannot substitute for proof and held that the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused due to the inefficacious prosecution and investigative deficiencies. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the acquittal of the accused, affirming the High Court's decision.

Facts:

The respondent was appointed as a driver on a contract basis and faced a disciplinary inquiry.

Following the inquiry, his service was terminated, but he was later re-engaged on a contract basis.

The respondent approached the High Court seeking continuity of service from the date of termination until re-engagement.

The High Court granted his petition based on a previous judgment dealing with similar cases.

Issues:

Whether continuity of service could be granted to the respondent without challenging the termination or re-engagement orders.

Whether the principles of natural justice were followed in the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.

Held and Decision:

The Court observed that continuity of service could only be granted when an order of termination is set aside. Since neither termination nor re-engagement was challenged, the grant of continuity of service was unwarranted.( Paragraph 7)

Granting continuity of service to an employee found guilty of misconduct would be unfair and place him on the same footing as other employees with a clean record.( Paragraph 10)

The Court criticized the High Court for issuing a blanket direction without considering the specific facts of each case and emphasized the need for individual assessment.( Paragraph 12)

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The respondent's seniority was to be counted from the date of his fresh appointment.( Paragraph 13)

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. No costs. .( Paragraph 14)

Facts:

The respondent was appointed as a contract driver by the appellant corporation.

He underwent a departmental enquiry due to alleged misconduct.

Following the enquiry and rejection of appeals, his service was terminated.

The respondent challenged the termination in legal proceedings, ultimately approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issues:

Whether continuity of service can be granted to an employee found guilty of misconduct.

Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases to the present situation.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to grant continuity of service to the respondent was erroneous. The Court emphasized that continuity of service cannot be granted to an employee found guilty of misconduct unless the termination order is set aside.

Furthermore, the Court noted that such a decision would unjustly place the employee on the same footing as other contractual employees with a clean record. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.

FACTS:

The suit involved a dispute over the ownership of a property auctioned under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act 1976. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent-plaintiffs, declaring a previous order by the competent authority as null and void and granting an injunction against the defendants. The appellate court overturned this decision, citing lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and failure to comply with notice requirements under Section 80 of the CPC.

ISSUES:

Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in light of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973?

Whether proper notice under Section 80 of the CPC was served before filing the suit?

HELD:

The court addresses the issue of jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. It states that every order made under the Act is final, and no Civil Court can entertain a suit challenging such orders. The Court held that the suit was barred from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court due to the provisions of Section 16.

The court discusses the failure to comply with notice requirements under Section 80 of the CPC. The Court agrees with the appellate court's finding that the suit was not maintainable due to this procedural lapse.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court, and consequently dismissing Civil Suit No. 496 of 1985.

REFERRED CASES:

State of Haryana and Others vs. Vinod Kumar and Others, (1986) 1 PLR 222

Facts:

The insured's property was demolished by the Municipal Corporation, leading to a claim under an insurance policy. The insurer denied liability based on an exclusion clause stating that destruction by a lawfully constituted authority is not covered.

Issues:

Whether the exclusion clause in the insurance policy applied to the demolition carried out by the Municipal Corporation.

Held:

The Court analyzed the language of the exclusion clause and the circumstances surrounding the demolition. It found that there was no dispute that the demolition was carried out under the authority of the Municipal Corporation, which is a lawfully constituted authority under the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act 2000. Therefore, the destruction was by order of a lawfully constituted authority, and the exclusion under the insurance policy was attracted.

The Court referred to principles of insurance law from various cases, both Indian and international, to support its interpretation of the exclusion clause. It emphasized the duty of insurers to clearly define exceptions to their liability in insurance policies and the need to construe such clauses strictly against insurers.

Consequently, the Court held that the State Commission and the High Court were in error in allowing the insured's claim under the policy of insurance. The appeal filed by the insurer was allowed, and the insured's appeal was dismissed. The Court clarified that its decision in this case did not affect the merits of the pending suit filed by the insured against the Municipal Corporation.

Facts:

An advertisement campaign for the sale of apartments in a housing project called "Aravali Heights" was initiated by Dwarkadhish Projects Pvt Limited in 2006-2007. Several buyers entered into builder-buyer agreements, expecting possession within three years. However, possession was not delivered by the stipulated time, and various infrastructure deficiencies were observed in the project. Subsequently, a group of 19 allottees filed a joint complaint before the National Commission seeking redressal for delayed possession and other grievances.

Issues:

Whether a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act filed on behalf of or for the benefit of only some of the numerous consumers having a common interest or grievance is maintainable.

The procedural requirements for filing a joint complaint under the Act.

The interpretation of relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Civil Procedure Code regarding class actions.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the view taken by the National Commission, which held that a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act must be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all consumers having a common interest or grievance against the same service provider.

The Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the statutory provisions and rejected arguments for a broader interpretation to facilitate an easier redressal mechanism.

However, the Court allowed the appellants to approach the concerned State Commission, provided they comply with the procedural requirements under Section 13(6) of the Act and Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC. The matter would not be proceeded de novo but from the stage at which it was before the National Commission.

Facts:

A petition was filed to modify the judgment dated 17.7.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 895-896/2018.

The accused no. 2/respondent no. 1 was incorrectly stated as a government servant in the judgment.

Currency notes of Rs.500/- were recovered from the accused, along with signs of anthracene powder from his shirt pocket.

Issues:

Whether the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, should be modified based on the recovered currency notes.

Held:

The accused no. 2/respondent no. 1 was not a government servant, but the recovery of currency notes from him established the elements of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was modified to a conviction under Section 8 of the said Act.

The sentence of one year imposed was reduced to six months.