FACTS:

The case arose from an earthquake where a building collapsed, leading to deaths. The appellant was among the accused in an FIR filed for various offenses.

The appellant filed an application to be included as a respondent in the Special Criminal Application challenging the CJM's rejection of an application for further investigation against Shri Bhaumik, a non-charge-sheeted accused.

ISSUES:

Whether the appellant, already charge-sheeted and facing trial, could be included as a party respondent in an application for further investigation against another accused.

HELD:

The High Court rightly rejected the appellant's application as they were already charge-sheeted, and no relief was sought against them in the application for further investigation against Shri Bhaumik.

The judgment referenced legal precedents (Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat, Narender G. God vs. State of Maharashtra, Union of India vs. W. N. Chadha) supporting the principle that even a proposed accused has no standing in a Section 173(8) CrPC application.

The Court ruled that the appellant's locus and say were not applicable due to their status as an accused in progress and the nature of the application, which did not seek relief against them.

REFERRED CASES:

Athul Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 14 SCC 298

Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel, (2017) 4 SCC 177

Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) 4 SCC 626

Narender G. God vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 65

Sri Bhagwan Samardha vs. State of A.P., (1999) 5 SCC 740

Union of India vs. W. N. Chadha, (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 260

Facts:

On December 22, 2009, an information was received about the death of Ratti Ram due to a gunshot. A police team proceeded to the location and subsequently, a complaint was filed by the daughter of the deceased. The accused were charged with offenses under IPC and the Arms Act. The trial court acquitted them due to insufficient evidence, but the High Court reversed this decision and convicted the accused.

Issues:

The validity of the evidence and circumstances presented by the prosecution, the credibility of witness testimonies, the accuracy of recovery of the dead body, and the weapon used in the crime.

Held:

The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found discrepancies in the evidence presented by the prosecution. It noted that the recovery of the dead body and the weapon was not conclusively proven to be in accordance with the statements made by the accused. The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence needed to meet specific criteria, including exclusivity of one hypothesis – the guilt of the accused. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies and unreliability of the evidence. It also highlighted flaws in the investigation and the lack of motive. As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions imposed by the High Court and restored the order of acquittal by the trial court.

Facts:

The dispute revolves around a property situated at D-1090, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The property was originally owned by late Sh. S. L. Sethi and was subsequently passed on to Smt. Krishna Sethi, the mother of the parties, through a will. A subsequent will dated 27.01.2005 specified the distribution of the property among the two sons, with ground and first floors allotted to each and an equal division of the second floor.

Issues:

Whether the respondent-plaintiff had the right to partition the second floor and terrace rights.

Whether the appellant-defendant had a claim over the common areas in the property, despite the suit being limited to the second floor and terrace rights.

Held:

The Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence, ruled as follows:

The appellant-defendant, despite the suit being limited to the second floor and terrace rights, had raised a dispute regarding common areas in the property.

The Trial Court framed relevant issues on the common areas due to the appellant's dispute.

The High Court, while acknowledging that a driveway on the ground floor would typically be a common area, considered the specific layout of the property.

The High Court found that the appellant's portion had a direct entrance from a side lane, reducing the need for access through the driveway.

The High Court ruled that the appellant had no right to use the driveway but could use the water pipes and booster pump/motor in the rear courtyard.

Additionally, the High Court allowed the respondent to use a part of the staircase landing on the second floor for specific access.

Facts:

The Agriculture Department of the Government of Sikkim sought to acquire 8.36 acres of land for a regional center. The land was owned by Man Bahadur Basnett and the acquisition was disputed. Late Man Bahadur Basnett's property fell to the appellant, represented by his two sons, after his death. The appellant alleged wrongful encroachment and trespass by the respondents, claiming they used the land as an agricultural farm without proper acquisition proceedings. The suit was filed in 2002, challenging the acquisition process and seeking possession.

Issues:

Whether the acquisition process had been followed properly under the Sikkim Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1977?

Whether the respondents had acquired possession through adverse possession?

Whether the respondents had established proper acquisition and compensation procedures?

Whether the appellant was entitled to damages for wrongful use and occupation of the land?

Held:

Issue 1: Compliance with Acquisition Process The Court noted that no notification was produced showing intent to acquire the land under Section 4 of the Act. The respondents claimed that the acquisition process was followed and compensation paid, but lacked evidence. The Court emphasized that compliance with due process was essential, citing the importance of strict interpretation. The respondents failed to prove proper acquisition process or compensation, and the appellant's claim was supported.

Issue 2: Adverse Possession The respondents did not claim adverse possession. The Court did not consider this issue relevant and did not engage in a discussion on it.

Issue 3: Proper Acquisition and Compensation Procedures The Court highlighted the significance of evidence and primary/secondary proof for acquisition and compensation. The respondents failed to provide primary evidence of withdrawal of compensation or possession. The letter from the landowner consenting to acquisition did not negate the need for proper acquisition process and compensation proof. The Court held that the state must comply with the procedure for acquisition under Article 300A of the Constitution.

Issue 4: Damages for Wrongful Use and Occupation Citing LAO vs. M. Ramakrishna Reddy, the Court ruled that the owner can claim damages for wrongful use and possession of unacquired land. The respondents were found liable for damages for illegal use and occupation of the land.

Conclusion and Relief: The respondents failed to prove proper acquisition and compensation procedures. The appellant was entitled to possession of the land and damages for wrongful use and occupation. The respondents were given three months to decide whether to properly acquire the land or surrender possession. Mesne profits would be determined by a Court Commissioner.

Facts:

The case involves a challenge to two Constitution Orders issued by the President on August 5, 2019, which applied the Constitution of India in its entirety to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, akin to other states in India.

Issues:

Whether the present matter needed to be referred to a larger Bench due to differing opinions from two different Constitution Benches in the cases of Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir. The conflict centered on the interpretation of Article 370.

Held:

The doctrine of precedents and stare decisis are integral to the legal system, ensuring certainty, stability, and continuity. A judgment comprises the ratio decidendi (essential legal reasoning) and obiter dictum (non-essential remarks), which must be understood in the context of the case's facts.

The decision in Prem Nath Kaul case dealt with the legislative competence of the Yuvaraj in passing an enactment before the formulation of the Constitution of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. It indicated that decisions of the Constituent Assembly of the State under Article 370(2) were final, limited to decisions taken by the State Government before the Constituent Assembly's convening. It did not address the continuation or cessation of Article 370 after the Constituent Assembly's dissolution.

The rule of per incuriam (judgment passed in ignorance of relevant authorities) is an exception to the doctrine of precedents, applicable only to the ratio of the judgment. No conflict existed between the judgments in Prem Nath Kaul and Sampat Prakash cases. No reason was found to refer the present matter to a larger Bench.

Facts:

The appellant challenged a judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala in FAO (RO) No.229/2014. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in AS No.186/2011, and restoring the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S. No.288/2009. The dispute involved property ownership and possession between the plaintiff (respondent) and the defendant (appellant).

Issues:

The property ownership, possession, and the appropriateness of remanding the case for further consideration, especially in the context of producing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

Held:

The lower appellate court's decision to remand the case for reconsideration by the trial court, allowing the defendant to produce additional evidence, was found to be appropriate. The High Court's focus solely on possession in a suit for perpetual injunction was deemed incorrect, as the nature of contentions raised in the suit and the issues framed by the trial court involved both ownership and possession aspects. Therefore, the conclusion of the lower appellate court was upheld, setting aside the judgment of the High Court.

Decision: The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the judgment of the lower appellate court was restored. The parties were to bear their own costs.

The judgment referred to the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 729, which considered the relevance of possession in a suit for perpetual injunction, including adverse possession claims.

Facts:

The case concerned the issue of pension entitlement for employees under the State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) framed in 2000. The central question was whether employees completing 15 years of service were entitled to pension benefits as per the terms of the scheme.

Issues:

Whether the Central Board of Directors' acceptance of the memorandum for pension payment created a binding obligation on the State Bank of India (SBI) to provide pension benefits to employees completing 15 years of service?

Whether the SBI's reliance on its failure to amend the rules and its unilateral decision to deny pension benefits were valid arguments to invalidate its earlier decision?

Held:

The court held that once the Central Board of Directors of the SBI accepted the memorandum proposing pension payment to employees completing 15 years of service, the SBI was bound by a binding obligation to implement the pension scheme. The court criticized the SBI's attempt to invalidate its own decision by claiming a failure to amend the rules. The court emphasized that the SBI could not act unfairly or unreasonably based on misrepresentation.

The court interpreted the contractual nature of the scheme in the context of the facts and decisions made by the Board of Directors. There was no ambiguity regarding the admissibility of pension when considering the memorandum and the scheme together. In case of ambiguity, the court ruled in favor of employees, and any clarification denying pension benefits was deemed unenforceable, illegal, and contrary to the law.

The eligibility clause of the VRS scheme explicitly stated that employees with 15 years of pensionable service were entitled to benefits, including pension. The court rejected the SBI's claim that the draft scheme did not stipulate 15 years of service as eligibility. The court held that various documents and correspondence confirmed that the decision to grant pension benefits upon completion of 15 years of service was well-established.

Facts:

Canara Bank granted a term loan secured by a mortgage on a partnership firm's property and a guarantor's land. The guarantor also created an equitable mortgage through deposit of title deeds. The loan was not repaid, leading to a decree by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The guarantor's subsequent application to set aside the decree was dismissed. Years later, the respondents-plaintiffs filed suits challenging the DRT's decree.

Issues:

Whether the suits filed by the plaintiffs were liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

Held :

The court deliberated on whether the suits filed by the plaintiffs were to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

The court noted that both the DRT's decree and the Recovery Officer's order were appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It cited precedent (O.C. Krishnan) indicating that remedies under the RDDBFI Act must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 227.

The court analyzed the pleadings and allegations, finding that the fraud claims related to the partnership deed, not the mortgage created by the guarantor. It noted that the plaintiffs' claims were based on sale deeds executed after the property had already been mortgaged to the bank.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs' suits were vexatious and filed with malafide intentions to escape the DRT's judgment. It found the allegations of fraud illusory and aimed at evading the DRT's decree. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were factually incorrect and rejected the suits under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

O.C. Krishnan and others (Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) - The court cited this case to emphasize the necessity of exhausting remedies under the RDDBFI Act before approaching the High Court under Article 227.

Facts:

Advocates in the District of Dehradun and several districts of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, were boycotting courts on all Saturdays. The High Court directed the District Bar Associations to end the strike and resume court attendance. The State Bar Council was instructed to take disciplinary action against the office bearers. District Judges were to report non-compliance for possible contempt action.

Issues:

Whether the right to strike/boycott courts is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Whether the strikes/boycotts unjustifiably interfere with the justice delivery system and violate the rights of litigants and the principles of speedy justice.

Held:

The Court noted that despite prior decisions (Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, Common Cause v. Union of India, Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P.) discouraging lawyer strikes, such actions persisted. The advocates were boycotting courts on Saturdays in various districts. The Court highlighted that litigants were the ultimate sufferers and expressed shock at the data showing frequent strikes. The Court opined that working on these days would have served the interest of speedy justice and timely criminal trial completion.

The petitioner's argument that strikes are a form of peaceful expression under Article 19(1)(a) was addressed. The Court ruled that the right to freedom of speech can't detrimentally affect litigants or the justice system. Strikes cannot be justified as an exercise of this right and nobody has an absolute right to boycott courts. Such actions also compromise the rights to speedy justice enshrined in Articles 14 and 21. The Court upheld the High Court's directions and concluded that boycotting courts amounted to contempt.