Facts:

The appellants filed an appeal against the High Court's order dated September 5, 2018, which dismissed their application under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The appellants sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them under Section 498A of the IPC in Complaint Case No. 537/2018.

The proceedings were pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, JP Nagar.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants' application under Section 482 of the CrPC without adequately considering the factual background of the case.

Held:

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had failed to address the factual matrix of the case before dismissing the appellants' application.

The Court noted that the High Court did not provide essential details such as the nature of the complaint, the allegations made, and the grounds for challenging the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Justice Sapre, delivering the judgment, emphasized the importance of outlining the factual background of the case before applying legal principles. Without understanding the facts, it becomes difficult to assess the validity of the legal arguments presented.

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration.

The High Court was directed to examine the application afresh on its merits after issuing notice to the respondents.

The Supreme Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case itself, leaving it to the High Court to decide uninfluenced by any observations made in the Supreme Court's order.

Facts:

The appellants filed an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which dismissed their application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The application sought to quash proceedings in a complaint case filed against them under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants' application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments and examining the record, held that the High Court erred in its judgment by failing to discuss the factual matrix of the case adequately. The High Court focused solely on legal principles without considering the specifics of the case. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to reconsider the appellants' application on its merits, taking into account the observations made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case itself, as its primary concern was the procedural lapse in the High Court's judgment.

Facts:

Appellant entered into an agreement to sell property with the respondent.

Despite the agreement, possession of the property was not transferred.

Appellant filed for registration of a complaint when the transaction wasn't completed.

Economic Crime Cell concluded the dispute was civil.

FIR was registered under various sections of IPC.

Chargesheet filed, and charges framed against the respondent.

High Court quashed proceedings citing lack of criminal intent.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to quash proceedings was justified.

Whether the allegations made in the FIR establish criminal intent.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings. The Court noted crucial aspects emerging during the investigation, suggesting potential criminal intent on the part of the accused. It emphasized that the decision to quash criminal proceedings should not be taken lightly, especially after charges have been framed and the trial has commenced.

The Court reinstated the criminal proceedings, clarifying that its decision did not imply an opinion on the merits of the accusations, as they are to be determined through the trial process. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

Facts:

The case involves the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) as the appellant and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and others as respondents. The dispute centers around the determination and fixation of tariff for electricity and specifically focuses on the computation of interest on capital under Section 38 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948.

Issues:

The applicability of Section 38 of the DVC Act concerning interest on capital.

Whether interest due from DVC on the capital employed by participating governments, ploughed back into the capital, should be considered under Section 38 of the DVC Act.

The complaint raised by the appellant regarding the calculation of interest on the basis of cumulative depreciation reducing the loan component.

Held:

The Appellate Tribunal noted the retention and ploughing back of interest due from DVC on the capital employed by participating governments. While initially providing for this under Section 38 of the DVC Act, the Tribunal later directed its application under the same section. However, the appellant failed to adequately raise this aspect, and the particulars were not provided.

The complaint raised by the appellant primarily concerned the calculation of interest based on cumulative depreciation reducing the loan component, which was deemed unsustainable. However, the respondents argued that this contention was not raised in the initial litigation before the appellate tribunal.

The Court observed that the procedure for calculating interest, including the consideration of cumulative depreciation, had been established in previous litigation and had become final. Therefore, the appellant could not raise the same issue in the subsequent litigation.

Judicial precedents related to depreciation rates for power companies were discussed, but it was concluded that they did not support the appellant's argument.

Ultimately, the Court ruled against the appellant, holding that they were not entitled to consider the point regarding the calculation of interest on the loan.

Decision: The Court ruled against the appellant, denying their request for reconsideration of the calculation of interest on the loan based on cumulative depreciation.

Facts:

The case involved appeals against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The High Court allowed the revision petitions filed by the respondents, which led to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether there were sufficient grounds to interfere with the remand order issued by the High Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel and examining the case record, found no substantial ground to interfere with the impugned order. The High Court had only remanded the case to the first Appellate Court to decide the first appeal and cross-objection afresh on merits in accordance with the law. The Court opined that such an order of remand did not warrant any interference, especially considering that the High Court found it necessary. However, the Court noted that the High Court's decision was overly verbose, devoting 60 pages to writing the impugned order. The Court emphasized the virtue of brevity and suggested that the examination should have been limited to the issue of remand without citing several decisions in detail. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeals in limine.

Facts:

Manimaran, the respondent, was accused of running a medical shop without a valid drug license.

Drugs Inspectors seized drugs stored without a valid license during an inspection of Manimaran's shop.

Manimaran was charged under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The trial court convicted Manimaran based on his admission in a memo where he confessed to not having a valid license.

Manimaran appealed, but the appellate court upheld his conviction.

Manimaran filed a revision petition before the High Court, which acquitted him based on non-examination of key witnesses.

Issues:

Whether the non-examination of certain witnesses was fatal to the prosecution's case.

Whether the admission made by Manimaran in the memo was sufficient evidence to convict him.

Whether the carbon copies of documents were admissible as evidence.

Whether Manimaran's claim of signing blank papers was credible.

Held:

The Supreme Court reinstated Manimaran's conviction, emphasizing the importance of his admission in the memo.

Non-examination of certain witnesses was not fatal to the prosecution's case, as Manimaran's admission was sufficient evidence.

Carbon copies of documents were admissible evidence under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Manimaran's claim of signing blank papers lacked credibility, as he failed to provide evidence to support it.

The Supreme Court reduced Manimaran's sentence from one year to three months considering factors such as the passage of time since the offense, lack of prior convictions, and his admission of ignorance regarding the need for a license.

Facts:

The fifth respondent filed a PIL before the Allahabad High Court seeking the construction of a new tehsil building for Tehsil Hasanpur.

The High Court directed the State Government to take steps for the construction based on the petition.

The appellant challenged this order, alleging that the PIL was filed to serve the personal interest of the fifth respondent, as the proposed land belonged to his family.

Issues:

Whether the PIL filed by the fifth respondent was genuinely in the public interest or intended to serve personal interests.

Whether the decision regarding the construction of government buildings is within the jurisdiction of the judiciary or the executive.

Held:

The Supreme Court found that the PIL was not genuinely in the public interest but was intended to serve personal interests, as the proposed land belonged to the fifth respondent's family (Paragraph 8).

The Court emphasized that decisions regarding the construction of government buildings are administrative matters and should be left to the executive. It highlighted the misuse of PILs for extraneous and motivated purposes (Paragraph 9).

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's directions to construct the new Tehsil office and clarifying that the State Government should make the decision in accordance with the law (Paragraph 11).

Facts:

The High Court allowed a post-award application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, requiring the appellant to release the amount covered by the arbitral award along with interest, subject to the respondent furnishing a Bank Guarantee equal to the awarded amount for one year. The appellant argued that the High Court's order was premature as the period for challenging the award under Section 34 had not yet expired.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was premature given the pending period for challenging the award under Section 34.

Held:

The Court set aside the High Court's order dated 22 August 2016. It clarified that its judgment should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the correctness of the High Court's order, particularly considering the submission that the High Court might have exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Civil Appeal was disposed of with no costs, and all rights and contentions of the parties concerning the challenge to the arbitral award were kept open to be argued in accordance with the law.

Facts:

The writ petitioners were employed in various capacities within the State of Bihar.

Their appointments were found to be irregular or illegal due to violations of recruitment procedures and the use of false or forged documents.

The State Government initiated proceedings to terminate their services based on these irregularities.

The matter was challenged before the High Court, leading to a series of appeals and legal proceedings.

The Supreme Court of India heard the case and considered the findings of the State Committee regarding the legality of the appointments.

Issues:

Whether the appointments of the writ petitioners were legal and valid.

Whether the termination of their services was justified.

Held:

The Court upheld the findings of the State Committee, which concluded that many of the appointments were illegal and void ab initio. The Court emphasized the importance of adherence to recruitment rules and procedures, particularly in public employment, to ensure fairness and equality. It cited the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and others, which established that appointments made without following due process do not confer any right on the appointees. The Court also clarified that regularisation or permanent employment cannot be granted to individuals whose initial appointments were illegal or irregular.

Based on these findings, the Court dismissed the civil appeals filed by the writ petitioners and allowed the appeals filed by the State of Bihar. The orders of the High Court directing reinstatement of the writ petitioners were set aside, and their writ petitions were dismissed.