Guardianship and Custody – Contact Rights – Courts should ensure that the parent denied custody of the child should have the right to communicate with the child for 5 to 10 minutes daily via video call or other means – This helps maintain and improve the bond between the child and the non-custodial parent, facilitating easier transitions during visits and vacations [Para 22].

Visitation Rights and Contact Rights – The child has a fundamental human right to love, affection, company, and protection from both parents, regardless of parental conflicts – Courts must provide clear guidelines on visitation rights to ensure the child does not lose social, physical, and psychological contact with either parent – Only in extreme circumstances should a parent be denied contact with the child, and reasons must be documented [Paras 20 and 22].

Welfare of the Child – Primary and paramount consideration in custody matters – Court must weigh all circumstances carefully to determine the best interest of the child, considering the need for contact with both parents – Factors such as age of the child, nationality, and previous court orders must be considered – In this case, shared custody arrangements and specific visitation rights were detailed to ensure both parents remain involved in the child's life [Paras 1-37].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Directions provided for custody arrangements, including provisions for daily video calls and biannual visits to India – Custody of the child determined with provisions for both parents’ involvement [Para 37].

Benami Transactions – Nature and Burden of Proof – Appellant contested the claim on the grounds that the money involved was part of a benami transaction, thus barred under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Court held that the plaintiff did not seek recovery based on a benami transaction nor claimed any property as benami – The burden of proving a transaction as benami lies on the person asserting it, which the appellant failed to do [Paras 17-18].

Loan Repayment – Evidentiary Support – Plaintiff alleged that the appellant had borrowed Rs. 80,000/- which was not repaid – Appellant contended the amount was returned the next day, a claim unsupported by evidence – High Court found in favor of the plaintiff, noting inconsistencies in the appellant's defense and affirming the existence of the loan with substantial evidence, including unreturned post-dated cheques and acknowledgment of receipt of money [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the High Court upheld – Appellant directed to pay Rs. 80,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from 16.02.1990, failing which the interest rate will be 12% p.a. [Para 22].

Consumer Protection Act – Agricultural Debt Waiver – The appellants, categorized as 'small farmers', sought a full waiver of their loan under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 – District Forum and State Commission ruled in favor of the appellants – NCDRC reversed the decision citing the non-inclusion of the appellants' district in Annexure-I of the Scheme – Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to a full waiver as per clause 5 of the Scheme which does not refer to Annexure-I – Appeals allowed, NCDRC order set aside [Paras 1-21].

Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 – Clause 5 and Clause 6 – Distinction between debt waiver for small and marginal farmers under clause 5 and one-time settlement for other farmers under clause 6 – Explanation of the definitions and applicability of Annexure-I – Appellants' entitlement confirmed under clause 5 for a full waiver as small farmers, without reference to Annexure-I [Paras 10-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC judgment set aside – District Forum's order directing loan waiver restored – Appellants awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 [Para 21].

Insurance Claim – Repudiation – Interpretation of Insurance Policy – Appellant's showroom collapsed due to excavation work on an adjacent plot – Insurance claim repudiated by insurer based on policy exclusion clause VIII(e) – Supreme Court held that exclusion applies only to excavations carried out by the insured on their property, not third-party excavations – NCDRC's order set aside, and claim allowed [Paras 1-13].

Consumer Protection Act – Section 23 – Jurisdiction – NCDRC reversed concurrent findings of District and State Commissions – Supreme Court emphasized beneficial interpretation for insured in case of ambiguity – Policy exclusions to be construed reasonably, not to include third-party actions unless explicitly stated [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC judgment set aside – District Forum’s order allowing insurance claim restored – No order as to costs [Para 13].

Employees' Provident Fund – Applicability – Contractual employees of the appellant company sought provident fund benefits – High Court directed that benefits be extended under the EPF Act – Supreme Court modified the direction, holding that benefits should be provided under the Pawan Hans Employees Provident Fund Trust Regulations for uniformity in service conditions – Appeals allowed in part, direction to deposit contributions from the date of eligibility till the date of remittance modified [Paras 1-8].

Definition of 'Employee' – Inclusive definition under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act – Includes any person engaged directly or indirectly in connection with the work of an establishment and paid wages – PF Trust Regulations also cover contractual employees directly paid by the company [Paras 6.3-6.5].

Government Control – Establishment owned or controlled by the Central Government – Appellant company holds 51% shares by Central Government and is managed by Board of Directors – Exemption under Section 16 not applicable as PF Trust Regulations did not cover all employees [Para 6.2].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgment modified – Contractual employees to receive provident fund benefits under the PF Trust Regulations from January 2017 – Contributions and interest to be computed and deposited as directed – Costs of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded to respondent union [Para 8].

Environmental Law – Judicial Review – Environmental Clearance – Supreme Court directed the EAC to revisit its recommendations for the EC granted for the Mopa airport project – EAC required to assess the environmental impacts considering the specific concerns highlighted by the Supreme Court – Upon revisiting, additional environmental safeguards were imposed – Appeals allowed, and the EC conditions were mandated to be strictly followed [Paras 1-46].

Environmental Protection Act – Compliance – Project proponent directed to ensure the implementation of stipulated conditions for environmental protection – Compensatory afforestation, preservation of natural water channels, and mitigation measures for flora and fauna were emphasized – Public consultation concerns addressed through an updated Environmental Management Plan (EMP) [Paras 5-15, 41-45].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application allowed – EAC's additional conditions incorporated into the EC – EC granted with comprehensive safeguards to protect the environment – Conditions imposed by EC, NGT, and EAC to be cumulatively observed [Para 46].

Industrial Disputes Act – Jurisdiction – Civil suits filed by workmen challenging fines imposed by management – Plea to dismiss suit under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the matter should be dealt with under the Industrial Disputes Act – Suit dismissed by lower courts – Supreme Court reaffirmed that disputes arising from the general law of contract can be adjudicated in civil court unless they involve rights created exclusively by the Industrial Disputes Act – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-13].

Order VII, Rule 11 CPC – Dismissal of Suit – Criteria – Application to reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC – Civil court jurisdiction not ousted if the dispute arises from general contractual obligations – Civil court appropriate forum for disputes not exclusively covered under the Industrial Disputes Act [Paras 4-13].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Civil Judge directed to expedite the trial of the suit and complete it within six months [Para 12].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Jurisdiction – Appeal against High Court order which went beyond the scope of Section 439 CrPC – High Court, while granting bail, constituted a committee to recommend criminal justice system reforms – Supreme Court held that jurisdiction under Section 439 is limited to granting or denying bail – High Court's additional directions deemed inappropriate and beyond jurisdiction – Appeal allowed, setting aside the High Court's directions for the committee [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Overreach – Scope of Bail Proceedings – High Court's act of retaining the file post granting bail and issuing directions for systemic reforms deemed overreach – Jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC does not extend to administrative reforms – Supreme Court emphasizes judiciary's role limited to legal and constitutional issues, not policy-making [Paras 5-11].

Relevant Precedents – Inherent Jurisdiction – Court reiterates that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC or other judicial tools must not be used to bypass established legal procedures – Refers to past judgments underscoring limits of judicial intervention in policy matters and criminal procedure [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order constituting committee for criminal justice reforms set aside – Directions beyond scope of Section 439 CrPC deemed unsustainable [Para 12].

Service Law – Direct Recruitment vs. Promotion and Deputation – Appellants challenged direct recruitment to posts of Administrative Officer/Assistant Assessor and Collector, arguing promotion should be attempted first – Recruitment Rules mandate 50% by promotion and 50% by deputation, failing which direct recruitment can be resorted to – High Court found respondents did not attempt promotion or deputation before advertising for direct recruitment – Supreme Court examined compliance with Recruitment Rules and found Municipal Bodies adhered to the rules by filling promotion quota and attempting to fill deputation quota [Paras 2-11].

Right to Appointment – Candidates' Right – Candidates responding to advertisement do not have an indefeasible right to appointment – Mere appearance in merit list does not guarantee appointment – Municipal Bodies must fill posts as per statutory rules – Direct recruitment only after exhausting promotion and deputation quotas – Appellants' challenge to recruitment process without merit as recruitment rules followed [Paras 12-13].

Judicial Review – Adherence to Recruitment Rules – Supreme Court upheld High Court's view that recruitment process must adhere to recruitment rules – Municipal Bodies followed statutory requirements by filling promotion and attempting to fill deputation quota – Direct recruitment permissible only after such attempts – Appeals dismissed [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Recruitment by direct recruitment upheld after promotion and deputation quotas addressed – Appellants have no vested right to appointment merely by appearing in merit list – Recruitment process in compliance with statutory rules [Paras 13-14].