Facts:

The appellant, Mohd. Inam, challenged an order declaring the premises vacant under Section 16(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act. An inspection report indicated that the tenant was residing with his family members, challenging the subletting claim. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the premises vacant. The High Court granted the tenant liberty to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order under Section 16.

Issues:

Whether the tenant could challenge the vacancy order along with the final order.

Whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer's exercise of jurisdiction was lawful.

Whether the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 was justified.

Held:

The High Court erred in not allowing the challenge to the vacancy order along with the final order, contrary to established judicial propriety and a binding precedent (Para 16).

The tenant had the right to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order, as granted by the High Court (Para 11, 13, 14, 33).

The Rent Control and Eviction Officer's finding of subletting under Section 12(1)(b) was contrary to law, as family members were residing with the tenant (Para 28, 29).

District Judge was justified in reversing the Rent Control and Eviction Officer's order due to incorrect interpretation of the law (Para 25, 26).

High Courts should exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 sparingly and not convert into courts of appeal. In the result, the appeal is allowed. (Para 32, 33).

The appeal has been granted, leading to the overturning of the High Court's order dated 26.10.2017. No costs shall be imposed in this matter. (Para 34)

Facts:

The case involves an appeal by the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (the appellant) against an interim order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. The appellant had issued a tender for warehouses under a PPP model, and certain queries were raised by the respondents regarding a specific clause (clause 5(5)(i)) in the bid notice. After dismissal of writ petitions challenging tender conditions, successful bidders were identified and issued a letter of intent. The High Court passed an interim order of status quo, allowing other formalities but restraining contract signing without Court permission.

Issues:

Whether the interim order passed by the High Court was valid, given the completion of the bidding process.

Whether the conditions for eligibility set by the appellant in the bidding process were justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, set aside the interim orders passed by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the grant of an interim order restraining successful bidders from executing the contract was not in the public interest. It noted that such an order was passed without recording reasons, impacting state revenue. The Court referred to previous judgments and principles on interim orders in contractual matters, highlighting the need to balance conflicting public interests. The Court clarified that the grant of the contract would be subject to any orders passed by the High Court in pending intra-court appeals.

Facts:

The Court issued a notice on 12.06.2020 in a Suo Motu writ petition to address deficiencies in patient care for COVID-19 in hospitals across Delhi and other states.

Union of India, Delhi Government, and other states filed affidavits in response to the notice.

Various applications for intervention were submitted highlighting different aspects of the issue.

Remedial steps were taken by Union of India as mentioned in its affidavit, including a high-level meeting held on 14.06.2020.

Certain decisions were taken in the meeting, including the constitution of expert teams of doctors to inspect hospitals, increase testing, and regulate rates of COVID-related facilities/tests.

Affidavits from Union of India and Delhi Government outlined guidelines for COVID patient treatment and handling of dead bodies.

Affidavit from LNJP hospital, Delhi, mentioned the installation of CCTV cameras in wards.

The need for proper supervision and monitoring of hospitals' functioning was emphasized.

Issues:

Deficiencies and lapses in patient care for COVID-19 in hospitals.

Ensuring proper supervision, monitoring, and adherence to guidelines for COVID patient care.

Held:

The Court directed the Union of India to constitute Expert Committees consisting of doctors from various hospitals to inspect and supervise COVID facilities.

These committees were mandated to visit hospitals weekly, conduct surprise visits, and issue instructions for improvements.

All states were instructed to form similar expert teams for supervision and guidance of COVID facilities, reporting to the government.

Hospitals were required to install CCTV cameras, and footage should be available for inspection.

COVID-dedicated hospitals were mandated to permit one attendant per patient and establish helpdesks for patient inquiries.

States and Union Territories were directed to uniformly follow the revised discharge policy for COVID-19 patients.

Guidelines for reasonable rates of COVID-related facilities/tests were to be issued, ensuring uniform implementation across states.

Facts:

The Gujarat Maritime Board filed a complaint alleging various financial irregularities against Aatash Norcontrol Limited (ANL), including inflation of costs, non-execution of works, creation of shell companies, siphoning of funds, etc.

Disputes arose between the parties regarding capital costs incurred by ANL, leading to an expert committee's assessment and subsequent arbitration proceedings.

Meanwhile, the Gujarat Maritime Board lodged a complaint against ANL, accusing it of criminal breach of trust and financial misconduct.

Issues:

Whether the criminal charges against the appellant were of a purely civil nature.

Whether the potential threat to national security was a valid ground for denial of bail.

The impact of ongoing arbitration proceedings on the case.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the release of the appellant on bail. The Court observed that:

The alleged offences, despite their gravity, appeared to stem from financial matters and did not inherently pose a threat to national security.

The ongoing arbitration proceedings, including interim measures, indicated that the state's economic interests were being safeguarded. Therefore, the national security argument did not hold ground.

The Court considered the age and health conditions of the appellant, along with the fact that the trial had not commenced despite the passage of time.

Facts:

The appellant-accused was arrested under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, the accused remained in judicial custody for over 73 days without the filing of a charge sheet by the police. The appellant invoked Section 167(2) of the CrPC and applied for default bail before the High Court. The High Court, relying on a Supreme Court order dated 23.03.2020 issued in Suo Moto W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020, extended the period for filing a charge sheet prescribed under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, due to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Issues:

Whether the Supreme Court's order dated 23.03.2020 extended the period for filing a charge sheet by the police under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.

Whether the lockdown imposed during the pandemic is akin to a proclamation of Emergency, affecting an accused's right to default bail.

Held:

The Supreme Court clarified that its order dated 23.03.2020 was intended to protect litigants and lawyers unable to file proceedings due to the pandemic, but it did not intend to extend the period for filing a charge sheet by the police under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The investigating officer could have submitted the charge sheet before the Magistrate even during the lockdown.( Para 17)

The Court emphasized that the right of prosecution to file a charge sheet after the stipulated period is not barred. However, the prosecution cannot detain an accused beyond the prescribed period if a charge sheet is not filed, and the accused seeks default bail. The right of prosecution to submit a charge sheet is distinct from an accused's right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 167 of the CrPC.( Para 18)

The Court rejected the notion that the lockdown is equivalent to a proclamation of Emergency. The Single Judge's view that lockdown restrictions curtail an accused's right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC was erroneous and not in accordance with law.( Para 25)

The Court concluded that its order dated 23.03.2020 did not eclipse the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The lockdown restrictions did not restrict an accused's right to default bail under Section 167(2).( Para 26)

Facts:

The complainant alleged police excesses during custody in connection with an investigation. The appellant (police officer) sought the quashing of the proceedings through an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issues:

whether the alleged acts of the police officer required sanction under Section 197 r/w Section 170 and if an application under Section 482 was maintainable to quash proceedings based on the lack of sanction.

Held:

The purpose of prosecution sanction under Section 197 and Section 170 is to protect public servants/police officers from frivolous criminal proceedings.

Sanction from the government is imperative to protect police officers from vindictive retaliation when discharging official duties.

The protection under these sections is not absolute and applies only when the act is reasonably connected to official duty.

An act entirely outside the scope of duty does not require sanction, but an act reasonably connected to official duty does, even if it's in excess of duty.

The language of these sections makes it clear that sanction is required for acts done under color of duty or authority.

The test for sanction necessity is whether the act is reasonably connected to official duty.

Section 482 allows quashing proceedings that are ex facie bad for want of sanction or are frivolous.

In this case, the complaint pertains to an act under color of duty, thus requiring sanction.

Decision: The High Court erred in not exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the complaint. Instead of remitting the case for discharge, the High Court should have quashed the complaint based on the legal requirement of sanction. The appeal was allowed.

Facts:

The prosecution's case revolved around the appellant and another accused riding a motorbike and shooting the victim, who was in his car, resulting in injuries. The victim's statement was recorded, and both accused were arrested. The Trial Court convicted them under relevant sections and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment.

Issues:

The Court included the identification of the appellant, the credibility of witnesses, the sufficiency of evidence, and the validity of the conviction.

Held:

The Trial Court had established beyond doubt the occurrence of the incident and the severity of injuries sustained by the victim. The defense's argument regarding the severity of injuries was rejected based on medical expert testimony. The Forensic Science Laboratory's evidence confirmed the offense under Section 307 of the IPC.

The recovery of the weapon and its connection to the appellant were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Minor irregularities in the investigation did not undermine the prosecution's case.

The appellant's identification by the victim, complainant, and pancha witness, both in the Test Identification Parade and in court, was deemed reliable. The Court held that the victim's testimony alone was sufficient for conviction.

The motorbike's pillion rider, the first accused, was identified by witnesses as the person handling the weapon. The appellant's involvement in driving the motorbike was confirmed by both eye-witnesses.

The evidence presented, including the ballistic report and FSL expert testimony, linked the bullet to the recovered weapon and thus established the appellant's connection to the crime.

The Sessions Court's finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's involvement in a larger conspiracy targeting prominent leaders was upheld.

Facts:

The case involved a motor vehicle accident where a bus hit a horse cart, leading to the death of individuals including a housewife and her daughter. The claimants sought compensation for their loss.

Issues:

The court included the assessment of compensation for the deceased, considerations of contributory negligence, future prospects, and other relevant factors.

Held:

The court found that the deduction on account of contributory negligence was unjustified and unsustainable. The court also determined the notional income and potential future prospects for both the deceased housewife and the deceased child.

In assessing the compensation for the deceased housewife, the court referred to previous cases that recognized the multifarious services rendered by housewives and held that her notional income should be considered at Rs.5000 per month at the time of death. With a deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses and a multiplier of 17, the court assessed the compensation at Rs.7,65,000. The court further allowed for future prospects at the rate of 40% in addition to the loss of consortium and future expenses.

Regarding the deceased child, the court emphasized the emotional impact of her premature death and granted compensation for loss of prospective happiness and future prospects. The court did not find it necessary to enhance the compensation further under the separate head of "future prospects."

Decision: The court allowed the appeals and adjusted the compensation based on its assessments and conclusions regarding notional income, contributory negligence, loss of consortium, future prospects, and other factors.

Facts:

Appellant no.1 and respondent were married as per Muslim rites. Appellant no.2, a son, was born out of the wedlock. Alleging cruelty against appellant no.1, the appellants filed a petition under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Family Court treated it as an application under section 3 of the 1986 Act and directed the respondent to pay maintenance. The High Court set aside the order converting the petition.

Issues:

whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to convert the petition under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. into an application under section 3 of the 1986 Act and decide the matter.

Held:

R. Banumathi, J.:

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 does not deviate from the purpose of maintenance provisions under the Cr.P.C. The Act provides remedies beneficial to divorced Muslim women, including maintenance, reasonable and fair provision, recovery of dower, and return of marital gifts.

Section 3 of the 1986 Act confers rights notwithstanding other laws. Section 5 of the Act provides an option for divorced couples to be governed by provisions of the Cr.P.C.

The Family Court lacks jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act and the 1986 Act to entertain applications under sections 3 and 4 of the 1986 Act. The Act does not refer to the Family Court's jurisdiction.

The application under section 3(2) of the 1986 Act must be filed before the competent Magistrate. The Family Court cannot convert the maintenance petition.

Indira Banerjee, J. (Dissenting):

The Family Courts Act applies to matters irrespective of religion. Family Courts have jurisdiction over maintenance claims, including those by divorced Muslim women.

The Family Court, established under section 3 of the Family Courts Act, has jurisdiction and powers similar to a District Court or Civil Court. The 1986 Act should not deprive divorced Muslim women of Family Court access.

The Family Court can entertain applications under sections 3 and 4 of the 1986 Act. The Act is civil in nature, and the Family Court has jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act.

A strict interpretation to exclude divorced Muslim women from Family Court access violates Article 14. The Family Court can convert the maintenance petition.