Facts:

The South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) challenged an order passed by the High Court of Delhi in favor of SMS AAMW Tollways Private Ltd under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The dispute arose from an agreement between SDMC and SMS AAMW regarding the collection of toll tax. An issue emerged concerning expenses incurred by SMS AAMW due to the dismantling of a toll plaza.

Issues:

Whether Clause 16.3 of the Agreement between SDMC and SMS AAMW constitutes an arbitration clause or merely provides for a departmental appeal.

Held:

In analyzing the clause, the Court determined that it did not constitute an arbitration clause but rather a departmental appeal. The Commissioner's role was administrative oversight, not that of an impartial adjudicator.

The Court referred to legal principles and precedents to support its interpretation. As Clause 16 did not contain a provision for reference to an arbitrator, the Court concluded that it did not constitute an arbitration clause.

Therefore, the Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal.

Facts:

Rajendra Prasad, a 25-year-old, was a passenger in a bus when it collided with a truck, resulting in his death.

Legal proceedings were initiated, including criminal proceedings against the truck driver and civil proceedings for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Issues:

The claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the loss sustained due to Rajendra Prasad's death.

The sufficiency of evidence to prove the accident and the involvement of the truck.

Held:

The Court held that the approach of the lower courts in dismissing the claim petition was not in accordance with law. Despite procedural lapses, the claimants provided sufficient evidence to prove the accident and the negligent driving of the truck driver. The failure of the truck driver, owner, and the Insurance Company to contest the claim or adduce evidence led to an adverse inference. Therefore, the claimants were entitled to compensation. The Court awarded compensation based on the deceased's income, deducting personal expenses, and factoring in loss of future prospects.

Additionally, amounts were awarded for funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of spousal and parental consortium. The total compensation awarded was Rs. 11,27,920, along with 6% interest per annum. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the awarded sum with the Claims Tribunal within three months for payment to the claimants. The appeal succeeds and is allowed.

Facts:

The case involved a complaint against Gurvinder Singh, a Chartered Accountant, regarding the sale of shares in 1999, which were transferred to his own name. The Disciplinary Committee found him guilty of 'Other Misconduct' under Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Issues:

The interpretation of Sections 21(3), 21, and 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949,

Whether the actions of the Chartered Accountant, not related to his professional work, could be considered as professional misconduct.

Held:

The Court pointed out that the High Court had failed to correctly interpret Section 21(3) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, which includes provisions regarding professional misconduct. The Disciplinary Committee was entitled to find the Chartered Accountant guilty of misconduct, even if it was not related to his professional work, if it brought disrepute to the profession.

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, leaving all contentions open to both parties.

Facts:

Suits for specific performance were filed by the appellants against Charanjeet Singh Rekhi and his wife, Manjit Kaur. Two individuals from Moradabad and Uttarakhand, claiming to be Charanjeet Singh Rekhi and his wife, filed intervention applications (I.As.), asserting their identity as the actual defendants in the suits.

Issues:

Whether the individuals claiming to be Charanjeet Singh Rekhi and his wife from Moradabad and Uttarakhand should be considered as necessary parties in the specific performance suits.

Whether the question of mistaken identity can be addressed in a specific performance suit.

Held:

The Court held that the individuals claiming to be Charanjeet Singh Rekhi and his wife from Moradabad and Uttarakhand were not necessary parties in the specific performance suits.

The suits were based on the identification of Charanjeet Singh Rekhi and Manjit Kaur from Delhi as defendants. If it turns out that the defendants named in the suits are not the actual parties, the suits would fail, and the plaintiff would bear the consequences.

Therefore, the individuals in the I.As. were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suits, and their claims should be addressed separately.

Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the Division Bench's judgment was set aside, restoring the judgment of the single Judge.

Facts:

The plaintiff trust filed a suit seeking possession of a property claimed to be trust property, alleging that it was occupied by the defendants' predecessors.

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

The first appellate court reversed the trial court's decision after re-evaluating the evidence.

The High Court, in a second appeal, restored the trial court's decree.

Issues:

Whether the disputed property is owned by the plaintiff trust.

Whether the procedures outlined in the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, have been complied with.

Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of evidence.

Held:

The factum of existence of the trust and its property falls under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner as per Sections 21(2), 22(3), 26, 36, 41(2), 51(4), and 79(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.

The suit property is not established to be owned by the plaintiff trust, as the prescribed procedures under Sections 50 and 51 of the Act have not been followed.

The plaintiffs failed to produce evidence demonstrating their title over the disputed property. The registration application and property schedule of the trust do not mention the disputed property.

The High Court's reliance on selective admissions by the defendants and misinterpretation of evidence was erroneous.

Lack of documentary evidence supporting the trust's title renders the suit devoid of merit.

The admission by the defendants regarding occupation of the property originally owned by Haridas Baba does not establish the property as belonging to the plaintiff trust.

Facts:

The appellant, along with two others, was prosecuted for an offense under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The Additional Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lakh. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the jail sentence to three years and maintained the fine.

Issues:

Whether there is a case for interference in the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant under the Abkari Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had already served around one year and three months of the sentence. Considering the incident occurred in 2007 and the lack of a prior criminal record, the Court found grounds for interference in the sentence. While the minimum fine of Rs.1 lakh was mandatory, the Court had discretion to enhance it based on the circumstances. Therefore, the Court modified the High Court's order, reducing the jail sentence to "already undergone" and enhancing the fine to Rs.1,50,000. The appellant was directed to pay the enhanced fine, failing which he would undergo an additional year of imprisonment.

Facts:

The appellant, Mahendra Pratap Dubey, challenged the decision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding the validity of a sale certificate issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. Respondent No.3, Mainmum Nissa @ Kumani, claimed ownership of the suit property, which was accepted by the Managing Officer, Evacuee Property, Board of Revenue, Lucknow.

Issues:

Whether the appellant had a causal connection with the suit property.

Whether the jurisdiction of the Managing Officer to issue the sale certificate in favor of respondent No.3 could be challenged.

Held:

The Court held that the appellant failed to establish any causal connection with the suit property. Despite opportunities, he could not produce the original sale certificate purportedly issued in favor of respondent No.4. On the other hand, respondent No.3 provided documents supporting her claim of ownership, including a certificate of sale issued by the Managing Officer.

The Court observed that the appellant's challenge to the jurisdiction of the Managing Officer was untenable without evidence substantiating the issuance of a sale certificate in favor of respondent No.4. Without such evidence, the validity of the sale certificate issued to respondent No.3 by the Managing Officer could not be questioned.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the decision of the authorities and the High Court, dismissing the appeal with costs.

Facts:

Dr. Sunil Purushottam Bhamre was transferred from the post of Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon, to Assistant Director, AIDS Control Society, Wadala, Mumbai.

Various allegations were made against Dr. Bhamre regarding his functioning, including financial irregularities and insubordination.

Past instances were noted where Dr. Bhamre did not join transferred positions promptly.

Dr. Nagorao Shivaji Chavan was transferred to replace Dr. Bhamre as Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon.

The transfer order was challenged before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in favor of Dr. Chavan.

Issues:

Whether the transfer order of Dr. Bhamre was valid.

Whether the statutory provisions related to transfers applied in this case.

Held:

The Court held that while the normal tenure for a post was three years according to Section 3, Section 4 allowed for departures from this norm in cases of administrative exigencies. It emphasized that transfer is an incident of government service and must be exercised reasonably and in public interest.

The Court found no absolute bar on transfer, especially in cases of exceptional circumstances or administrative exigencies. Considering the allegations against Dr. Bhamre and his past record of not joining transferred positions promptly, the Court found no grounds for interference with the transfer order.

Consequently, the Court allowed Dr. Chavan's appeal, setting aside the orders of the tribunal and the High Court. It directed Dr. Bhamre to join his new post in Mumbai within 15 days, failing which the state government would initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.

Facts:

The case revolved around disputes arising from a development agreement dated 03.06.1993 between the appellants and the complainant, Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. The appellants were accused of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC for allegedly retaining a sum of Rs. One crore advanced by the complainant. The dispute primarily concerned contractual obligations and ownership of the property.

Issues:

Whether the dispute between the parties constituted a criminal offense under Section 406 IPC or a civil dispute?

Whether the FIR and charge sheet filed against the appellants should be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC?

Held:

The court quashed the FIR and charge sheet against the appellants, emphasizing that the dispute was civil in nature and did not constitute a criminal offense. It found that the amount in question was paid as a deposit under the development agreement and was subject to specific conditions regarding its refund. The court held that there was no prima facie case of criminal breach of trust against the appellants and characterized the criminal proceedings as mala fide and intended to harass them.

The court emphasized the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. It held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appellants' petition under Section 482 of the CrPC and emphasized the need to prevent criminal proceedings from being misused as a tool for harassment.