Facts:

The dispute arose over whether the Respondent-Jagirdar or his legal representatives were entitled to claim compensation for land acquisition after the abolition of jagirs by the Abolition Act, 1953. The land had already vested in the State, was not under personal cultivation, and the respondents had received compensation under the Abolition Act and the Ceiling Act, 1972.

Issues:

Whether the Respondent-Jagirdar or his legal representatives were entitled to claim compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after the land had vested in the State and compensation had been received under other statutes.

Whether the actions of the respondent in claiming compensation under multiple statutes constituted an abuse of the legal process.

Held:

The Court found that the disputed land had been declared surplus and compensation had been received under the Ceiling Act, even though it had already vested in the State under the Abolition Act.

It was established that the respondent had received compensation three times for the same land: firstly under the Abolition Act, secondly under the Ceiling Act, and thirdly under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court deemed this an abuse of the legal process and tantamount to fraud.

The Court held that the respondent or his legal representatives were not entitled to claim compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for the disputed land. The compensation received under the LA Act was impermissible and illegal, as the land had already vested in the State and compensation had been received for it under other laws.

The Court directed the respondent to refund the compensation withdrawn under the LA Act to the appellant-State. It emphasized that fraud vitiates every solemn proceeding, and no right can be claimed by a fraudster based on technicalities.

Decision: The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the respondent's claims for compensation under the LA Act were unjustified and constituted an abuse of the legal process. The Court ordered the respondent to refund the compensation received under the LA Act and emphasized the principle that fraud undermines legal proceedings.

Facts:

M.L. Singla, an employee of Punjab National Bank (PNB), was dismissed from service based on charges of consuming liquor on duty and being responsible for a cash shortage of Rs. 35,000.

The bank conducted a departmental inquiry, found Singla guilty on both charges, and dismissed him from service.

Singla's appeal against dismissal was rejected, and he sought relief under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, leading to the matter being referred to the Labour Court.

The Labour Court ruled in Singla's favor, ordering his reinstatement with 50% back wages, but the High Court overturned this decision, upholding Singla's dismissal.

Issues:

Whether the domestic enquiry against Singla was legal and proper.

Whether the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the gravity of the charges.

Whether the Labour Court and the High Court erred in their respective approaches to the case.

Held:

The domestic enquiry against Singla was legal and proper, as he was given full opportunity to defend himself, and no procedural lapses were observed.

The punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the gravity of the charges, considering the serious nature of both charges.

The Labour Court committed errors in failing to determine the legality of the domestic enquiry, prematurely calling for evidence on all issues, and improperly evaluating the evidence. The High Court erred in focusing on the merits of the charges rather than addressing procedural errors. Therefore, the dismissal was upheld.

Facts:

Phool Chand, an employee of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, was dismissed from service due to dereliction of duties.

He challenged his dismissal, leading to proceedings before the Labour Court, which modified the punishment and ordered his reinstatement with full back wages.

The appellant appealed against this decision in the High Court, which upheld the Labour Court's decision. The appellant then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the award of full back wages to the deceased workman's legal representatives was justified.

Whether the Courts below considered the principles governing the award of back wages.

Whether the workman or the employer presented evidence regarding the employment status of the workman after dismissal.

Held:

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and while modifying the impugned order award 50% back wages to the deceased workman (his legal representatives) in place of full wages.

In our considered opinion, the Courts below completely failed to see that the back wages could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent upon setting aside of his dismissal/termination order.

However, having regard to all facts and circumstances of the case such as period and money spent in litigation by the deceased workman and on his death by his legal representatives coupled with the fact that the workman Phool Chand has since expired, we consider it just and proper and in the interest of justice to award to the respondents (legal representatives of Late Phool Chand) 50% of the total back wages.

In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above.

Facts:

The appellant challenged the decision of the High Court of Bombay affirming his conviction and sentence for offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act). He was convicted by the Special Judge and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fines for different offenses.

Issues:

The appellant argued that the cumulative default sentences imposed on him for non-payment of fines were excessive, especially considering his family's financial condition.

He also contended that all default sentences should run concurrently with each other since the trial court had ordered that all substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

Held:

The court rejected the appellant's plea for concurrent running of default sentences. However, considering the appellant's financial condition, the court reduced the quantum of default sentences. The default sentences for non-payment of fines were reduced to one month each for certain offenses under the IPC and to one year each for offenses under the MCOC Act. Even if the appellant failed to pay the fines, the total default sentence would be three years and four months, out of which the appellant had already served three years. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the default sentences were modified as per the court's directions.

Referred Cases in the above Judgment:

2017

Facts:

Sudarsan Puhan filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal awarded compensation to Sudarsan Puhan.

Both Sudarsan Puhan and the Insurance Company filed appeals in the High Court challenging the Tribunal's award.

The High Court partially allowed the Insurance Company's appeal, reducing the compensation awarded to Sudarsan Puhan.

Sudarsan Puhan appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order.

Issues:

Whether the High Court properly considered all submissions and evidence before reaching its decision.

Whether the High Court provided adequate reasons for reducing the compensation awarded to Sudarsan Puhan.

Whether the principles governing the duties of a First Appellate Court were followed by the High Court in this case.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court failed to adequately address the issues raised in the case and did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision to reduce the compensation awarded to Sudarsan Puhan. The Court reiterated the principle that a First Appellate Court must consider all issues and evidence before providing reasoned findings. Since the deficiencies in the High Court's judgment were apparent, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded Sudarsan Puhan's appeal back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to decide Sudarsan Puhan's appeal on its merits, including the question of further enhancement of compensation, within six months.

The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the case but had only decided to remand it to the High Court for proper consideration. It also noted that since the Insurance Company did not appeal against the High Court's order, Sudarsan Puhan alone would have the right to prosecute his appeal before the High Court after remand.

Facts:

The Una Nagar Palika (Municipality) denied pension benefits to five of its employees upon their reaching the age of superannuation.

The employees filed petitions in the High Court of Gujarat, seeking pension benefits, which were granted by the Single Judge. The Municipality appealed this decision before the Division Bench, which upheld the Single Judge's decision.

The Municipality contended that employees directly appointed by it should not be entitled to pension benefits, unlike those who were originally working with the Panchayat and later became municipal employees.

The High Court relied on a previous judgment in Chief Officer vs. Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and Others, which held that municipal employees are eligible for pension benefits.

Issues:

Whether municipal employees, directly appointed by the Municipality, are entitled to pension benefits.

The relevance of the distinction made by the Municipality between employees who were originally working with the Panchayat and those directly appointed by the Municipality.

Held:

The Court held that the distinction made by the Municipality between different categories of employees was insignificant. The employees were deemed eligible for pension benefits based on their qualifying service. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by Una Nagar Palika and directed the Municipality to finalize the pension cases of the respondents and release the pension amounts within four months from the date of the order.

Facts:

Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed.

Trial court dismissed the suit, upheld by the first appellate court and the High Court.

Parties reached a compromise during the legal proceedings, leading to the disposal of the second appeal.

One defendant challenged the compromise, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.

High Court proceeded to decide the second appeal on its merits without thoroughly examining the compromise's genuineness and legality.

Issues:

Interpretation of the Supreme Court's remand order.

Examination of the genuineness and legality of the compromise petition.

Proper procedural steps to be followed in dealing with the compromise petition.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court erred in not considering the genuineness and legality of the compromise petition as directed by the remand order. The failure to do so caused prejudice to the parties' rights. Consequently, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the High Court with specific directions. The High Court was instructed to reconsider the genuineness of the compromise and, if necessary, to refer the matter to the trial court for recording evidence.

Depending on the determination of the legality of the compromise, the second appeal would either be disposed of accordingly or heard on its merits. The Supreme Court urged the High Court to expedite the process and dispose of the matter within six months.

Facts:

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit against the respondents (defendants) seeking various reliefs including a declaration of title, permanent injunction, and possession of the disputed property.

The respondents contested the suit, arguing that it was barred by limitation.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the suit was filed within the applicable limitation period.

However, the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the suit was indeed barred by limitation.

Issues:

Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation.

Interpretation of Article 65 of the Limitation Act in the context of the facts of the case.

Held:

The plaintiffs filed the civil suit within 12 years from the date of the attachment order dated 23.12.1966, which was issued during proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC.

The cause of action for the plaintiffs arose when the defendants asserted their rights over the property during the Section 145 CrPC proceedings, leading to the attachment order.

Therefore, the suit was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

The plaintiffs had rightly filed the suit for declaration and possession in response to the defendants' assertions of rights over the property.

The High Court erred in its interpretation of the law regarding limitation, and its judgment on the question of limitation is legally unsustainable.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment on the question of limitation, and restored the Trial Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Jharkhand, which upheld the reinstatement of 37 workmen with full back wages by setting aside their dismissal orders for contravening Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issues:

Whether the lower courts were justified in awarding full back wages to the workmen after setting aside their dismissal orders.

Whether the principles established in previous cases regarding the awarding of back wages were properly applied in the present case.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the decision of the lower courts. It was held that back wages cannot be awarded as a matter of right to the workmen solely based on setting aside their dismissal orders. The workmen must demonstrate with evidence that they were not gainfully employed during the period of dismissal. The employer also has the opportunity to prove otherwise.

The court awarded 50% of the total back wages to the workmen, considering the circumstances of the case and aiming to achieve substantial justice. This decision was made under the powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India.