Facts:

The respondent was employed by Bharat Coking Coal Limited.

The date of birth in the respondent's service record was recorded as March 4, 1950.

The respondent indicated the same date of birth in various official forms.

In 2009, just before retirement, the respondent requested a change in his date of birth in the service records.

The appellant company verified the date of birth with the Bihar School Examination Board, which confirmed a different date of birth in the school records.

Issues:

Whether the respondent's request to change the date of birth in the service records is valid.

Whether the delay in making the request is justifiable.

Held:

The Court held that changing the date of birth in the service records after a delay of over 30 years, especially at the end of one's service, is not sustainable.

The Court cited previous decisions emphasizing that such corrections should not be entertained late in one's career unless there is irrefutable proof and a real injustice has occurred.

The Court also noted that the respondent had multiple opportunities to correct the date of birth earlier but did not avail those opportunities.

The High Court's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The Government of India requisitioned land for defense purposes in 1943 under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939.

A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued in 1975 to acquire the same land.

The landowners challenged the acquisition, claiming that there was no due publication of the Section 4 notification, which they argued was a mandatory requirement.

A previous case, Kulsum R. Nadiadwala vs. State of Maharashtra (2012), had quashed a similar Section 4 notification on the grounds of non-compliance with mandatory requirements.

Issues:

• Whether the delay in challenging the Section 4 notification should be a bar to the petition.
• Whether the Kulsum R. Nadiadwala judgment was applicable to the present case, given the delay and other circumstances.
• Whether the Section 4 notification was valid, considering the historical requisition of the land for defense purposes.

Held:

The Supreme Court acknowledged the previous Kulsum R. Nadiadwala judgment's applicability to the present case, given the similar facts.

It was clarified that the delay in challenging the acquisition, which was filed in 2002, should not be a bar to the petition, as the Kulsum R. Nadiadwala case had not considered the delay as a decisive factor.

The "per incuriam" argument regarding the 1984 Amendment Act was rejected, as the requirement of public notice was always present under the Land Acquisition Act.

The court upheld the principles established in the Kulsum R. Nadiadwala case, emphasizing the mandatory requirements of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

It reiterated the distinction between a declaration of law binding future cases and an order made in the facts of a specific case.

Given the similar facts and the defense project nature of the land acquisition, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Union of India, upholding the findings of the Kulsum R. Nadiadwala case.

Facts:

The Government of India requisitioned land for defense purposes in 1943 under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939.

A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued in 1975 to acquire the same land.

The landowners challenged the acquisition, claiming that there was no due publication of the Section 4 notification, which they argued was a mandatory requirement.

A previous case, Kulsum R. Nadiadwala vs. State of Maharashtra (2012), had quashed a similar Section 4 notification on the grounds of non-compliance with mandatory requirements.

Issues:

Whether the delay in challenging the Section 4 notification should be a bar to the petition.

Whether the Kulsum R. Nadiadwala judgment was applicable to the present case, given the delay and other circumstances.

Whether the Section 4 notification was valid, considering the historical requisition of the land for defense purposes.

Held:

The Supreme Court acknowledged the previous Kulsum R. Nadiadwala judgment's applicability to the present case, given the similar facts.

It was clarified that the delay in challenging the acquisition, which was filed in 2002, should not be a bar to the petition, as the Kulsum R. Nadiadwala case had not considered the delay as a decisive factor.

The "per incuriam" argument regarding the 1984 Amendment Act was rejected, as the requirement of public notice was always present under the Land Acquisition Act.

The court upheld the principles established in the Kulsum R. Nadiadwala case, emphasizing the mandatory requirements of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

It reiterated the distinction between a declaration of law binding future cases and an order made in the facts of a specific case.

Given the similar facts and the defense project nature of the land acquisition, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Union of India, upholding the findings of the Kulsum R. Nadiadwala case.

Facts:

Ladhabhai Thakarsibhai Bhanderi held an account with Saurashtra Gramin Bank.

The bank had an agreement with Oriental Insurance Company Limited for a group individual accident policy for its account holders.

To avail of this insurance cover, account holders were required to submit an application form to the bank, which would then deduct the premium and forward it to the insurer.

Ladhabhai submitted the insurance form to the bank but tragically met with an accident and subsequently passed away.

The insurer rejected the insurance claim, citing non-payment of the premium by the bank.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found the bank negligent and awarded the appellant Rs. 5 lakhs in compensation.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the District Forum's order.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also found the bank guilty of a deficiency of service but reduced the compensation amount to Rs. 2 lakhs.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

• Whether the bank's failure to forward the insurance application form and deduct the premium constituted a deficiency of service.
• What is the appropriate compensation amount owed to the appellant?

Held:

The NCDRC confirmed that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the bank. The bank's defense that the deceased had withdrawn and resubmitted the form was rejected by the District Forum and the State Commission. The NCDRC observed that the bank failed to explain the details of the application form mentioned at Serial No. 352. There is a specific finding that the bank's failure to deduct the premium and forward it to the insurer resulted in the repudiation of the claim. No insurance cover came into existence. The court finds no reason to take a different view, especially when the bank did not challenge the NCDRC's judgment. (Paragraph 9)

The court concludes that there was no justification for the NCDRC to reduce the compensation awarded to the appellant from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The ends of justice would be met if the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs, which shall be paid to the appellant within 60 days from the date of the order. (Paragraph 10)

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

Facts:

Ladhabhai Thakarsibhai Bhanderi held an account with Saurashtra Gramin Bank.

The bank had an agreement with Oriental Insurance Company Limited for a group individual accident policy for its account holders.

To avail of this insurance cover, account holders were required to submit an application form to the bank, which would then deduct the premium and forward it to the insurer.

Ladhabhai submitted the insurance form to the bank but tragically met with an accident and subsequently passed away.

The insurer rejected the insurance claim, citing non-payment of the premium by the bank.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found the bank negligent and awarded the appellant Rs. 5 lakhs in compensation.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the District Forum's order.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also found the bank guilty of a deficiency of service but reduced the compensation amount to Rs. 2 lakhs.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

• Whether the bank's failure to forward the insurance application form and deduct the premium constituted a deficiency of service.
• What is the appropriate compensation amount owed to the appellant?

Held:

The NCDRC confirmed that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the bank. The bank's defense that the deceased had withdrawn and resubmitted the form was rejected by the District Forum and the State Commission. The NCDRC observed that the bank failed to explain the details of the application form mentioned at Serial No. 352. There is a specific finding that the bank's failure to deduct the premium and forward it to the insurer resulted in the repudiation of the claim. No insurance cover came into existence. The court finds no reason to take a different view, especially when the bank did not challenge the NCDRC's judgment. (Paragraph 9)

The court concludes that there was no justification for the NCDRC to reduce the compensation awarded to the appellant from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The ends of justice would be met if the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs, which shall be paid to the appellant within 60 days from the date of the order. (Paragraph 10)

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

Facts:

Ladhabhai Thakarsibhai Bhanderi held an account with Saurashtra Gramin Bank.

The bank had an agreement with Oriental Insurance Company Limited for a group individual accident policy for its account holders.

To avail of this insurance cover, account holders were required to submit an application form to the bank, which would then deduct the premium and forward it to the insurer.

Ladhabhai submitted the insurance form to the bank but tragically met with an accident and subsequently passed away.

The insurer rejected the insurance claim, citing non-payment of the premium by the bank.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found the bank negligent and awarded the appellant Rs. 5 lakhs in compensation.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the District Forum's order.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also found the bank guilty of a deficiency of service but reduced the compensation amount to Rs. 2 lakhs.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the bank's failure to forward the insurance application form and deduct the premium constituted a deficiency of service.

What is the appropriate compensation amount owed to the appellant?

Held:

The NCDRC confirmed that there was a deficiency of service on the part of the bank. The bank's defense that the deceased had withdrawn and resubmitted the form was rejected by the District Forum and the State Commission. The NCDRC observed that the bank failed to explain the details of the application form mentioned at Serial No. 352. There is a specific finding that the bank's failure to deduct the premium and forward it to the insurer resulted in the repudiation of the claim. No insurance cover came into existence. The court finds no reason to take a different view, especially when the bank did not challenge the NCDRC's judgment. (Paragraph 9)

The court concludes that there was no justification for the NCDRC to reduce the compensation awarded to the appellant from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. The ends of justice would be met if the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs, which shall be paid to the appellant within 60 days from the date of the order. (Paragraph 10)

The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court examined charges at pre-trial stage – Allegations of obtaining fake loans with the connivance of bank officials – High Court erred in quashing charges when allegations required proof in trial – Beneficiary status of respondents due to father's position as bank president prima facie indicates offenses under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC – Appeal allowed, High Court's order set aside [Paras 5-6].

Corruption – Beneficiary of Fake Loans – Accused obtained cash credit limits improperly while their father was bank president – Allegations suggest offense under Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B IPC – Proper documentation lacking for loan sanctioning – Allegations against other bank officials also supported charge under Prevention of Corruption Act [Para 5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order quashing charges against respondents set aside – Respondents may pursue other legal remedies as available [Para 6].

Town Planning – Demand of Premium – Letter of Intent (LOI) – LOI valid for three months – Delay in obtaining clearance from Coastal Zone Management Authority – Appellants failed to make representation to extend LOI – Premium demand in accordance with Government Resolution dated 16.04.2008 requiring payment of 25% of Ready Reckoner value for Slum Rehabilitation Schemes on government land – High Court's dismissal of writ and review petitions upheld [Paras 11-12].

Procedure – LOI Validity – Representation to Extend – Appellants' failure to extend LOI validity despite delay in obtaining necessary clearances – Government Resolution applies due to non-extension – No illegality in premium demand [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's orders upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Allegations of providing sub-standard materials for a project – FIR filed in 2000, charge sheet in 2004, summons served in 2017 – No specific allegations of fraudulent or dishonest intention from inception – No vicarious liability established against Managing Director and Director – Company not made a party – Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent undue harassment [Paras 6-9].

Corporate Liability – Directors' Liability – No specific allegations of vicarious liability in the absence of company as a party – Inappropriate to proceed against directors alone without requisite allegations [Para 8.2].

Delay – Significant delay in serving summons post charge sheet filing – Contributing to decision for quashing proceedings [Para 8.3].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Criminal proceedings against appellants quashed – Proceedings against other accused to continue as per law [Paras 9-10].

Town Planning – Transferable Development Rights (TDR) – Allotment of Alternative Sites – High Court directed Municipal Corporation to allot alternative tenements to displaced tenants and consider TDR for landowners – Corporation's demolition of structures without due process found high-handed – Corporation's willingness to grant TDR acknowledged but relief of restitution balanced against public interest – Appeal dismissed, High Court's order upheld [Paras 7-8, 15-16].

Demolition without Due Process – High-handed Actions – Findings of High Court and Legal Services Committee – Structures existed prior to 1961, demolition conducted without following due process – High Court’s order granting alternative accommodation to eligible tenants and TDR to landowners upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 7-8, 12-13].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s orders upheld – Corporation to grant TDR and alternative tenements as directed [Paras 19-20].