FACTS:

The minor daughter was born on 21.08.2007 and was over 12 years old.

The father filed a Guardianship Petition, seeking custody, citing the mother's Paranoid Schizophrenia and cruelty towards the child.

The mother resisted, accusing the father of sexual abuse, making it unsafe for the child to be in his custody.

Various counsellors' reports indicated the child's comfort with the father, and the mother's video clippings did not support her allegations.

ISSUES:

Custody determination based on the welfare and well-being of the child.

Validity of the allegations of sexual abuse by the mother against the father.

HELD:

The Court, considering parens patriae jurisdiction, emphasized the welfare of the child. After individual interviews, the minor girl, over 12 years old, expressed a definite desire to reside with her father. The Court affirmed the Family Court's Order granting custody to the father and specified visitation rights for the mother.

In Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr. vs. Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413, the Court established that while exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. The Court is not bound by statutes, rules of evidence, procedure, or precedent.

The Order is prima facie in nature and made at an intermediate stage of the proceedings.

This Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Referred C:ases

Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr. vs. Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413 : 2008 (11) SCALE 437

Facts:

Appellants were appointed on an ad-hoc basis in the Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship.

Initial appointment for a period of three months extended from time to time.

Advertisement for direct recruitment in 2001 led to writ petitions and a subsequent selection process.

Selection process canceled, appellants continued in service on an ad-hoc basis.

Committee recommended regularization in 2012, and the District Judge regularized appellants' services.

Successor District Judge annulled regularization orders in 2014, leading to termination in 2017.

Issues:

Validity of the regularization of ad-hoc appointments.

Cancellation of regularization orders by the successor District Judge.

Violation of principles of natural justice.

Applicability of amended Rules in 2016 with a cut-off date of 31.12.2001.

Held:

The appellants are entitled to regularization under the exception carved out in the Umadevi case.

The cancellation of regularization orders without giving an opportunity of being heard violates principles of natural justice.

The amended Rules in 2016 with a cut-off date of 31.12.2001 should have been considered by the High Court.

The appellants are entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service, but not entitled to back wages.

Facts:

The case pertains to the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge conducted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Out of 1195 candidates, only 9 cleared the exam. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the entire selection process, alleging discriminatory and malafide practices, and sought the quashing of the result.

Issues:

Whether there were discriminatory or malafide practices in the selection process and evaluation method.

The appropriateness of disclosing Main Exam marks before viva-voce.

The validity of the plea for re-evaluation by an Independent Expert Committee.

Held:

Justice Sikri critically examined the selection process and evaluation method, concluding that the procedure was 'uniform.' The method of evaluation, with one evaluator examining and marking one question in all answer scripts, ensured uniformity. Adequate security measures were in place, and no discriminatory or malafide practices occurred.

Considering the strict marking but non-discriminatory nature, the court discusses the remedy of moderation. The court distinguishes the use of scaling and moderation, favoring the latter to remove the effect of examiner variability. It refers to Sanjay Singh's case, where scaling was considered inappropriate for Judicial Services Examinations.

Justice Sikri's report suggests alternatives for awarding grace marks. The court adopts Alternative II, awarding 20 marks in Civil Law–I and 10 marks in Civil Law–II. The court rejects the plea for 50 grace marks, emphasizing the need for reasonableness.

The court acknowledges the need for viva–voce and rejects the alternative plea for re-evaluation by an Independent Expert Committee. It cites the delay in filling vacant posts and the absence of provisions for re-evaluation in the Recruitment Rules.

Regarding the plea to disclose Main Exam marks before viva–voce, the court rejects the practice, stating it may invite bias or favoritism, affecting impartial evaluation during the viva–voce.

The court directs the respondents to award 20 grace marks in Civil Law–I and 10 grace marks in Civil Law–II to all candidates, prepare fresh results of the Main (Written) Examination of Civil Judge, and complete the selection process within a stipulated period.

Facts:

The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notifications for acquiring land for the Hubli Ankola Broad Gauge Railway Line. The Land Acquisition Officer's initial award was contested by the appellant(s), leading to a Reference Court enhancing compensation. The High Court later reduced the compensation, citing the nature of the acquired land as 'dry land' and applying an annual depreciation of 15%.

Issues:

Validity of the High Court's decision reducing compensation.

Delay in filing the appeal by the present appellant(s).

Entitlement to interest during the period of delay.

Held:

The Court, relying on prior judgments, held that identically situated appellants should not be treated differently due to delays in filing appeals. It emphasized a pragmatic approach in compensation matters, condoning the delay in filing and restoring parity in compensation. The appellant(s) were entitled to the same compensation awarded by the Reference Court, but not to interest for the period of delay.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the High Court's decision, restoring the Reference Court's award, but denying interest for the delay in filing the appeal.

Facts:

Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a pharmaceutical supplier, participated in a tender process initiated by the State of U.P. to supply pharmaceutical products to various hospitals. Despite winning the bid, the State, on the basis of a criminal case against the former director, Mr. Surender Chaudhary, issued an order directing a halt to local purchases from Daffodills.

Issues:

Legality of the State's decision to stop local purchases from Daffodills.

Violation of principles of natural justice in not providing Daffodills with an opportunity to be heard before the decision.

Held:

The court identified the impugned order as a debarring and preventing directive against Daffodills for an indefinite duration, surpassing the typical finite lifespan of blacklisting orders.( Paragraph 13)

Citing precedents, the Court emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing before proposing drastic adverse actions like debarring or blacklisting.( Paragraph 14)

The Court criticized the State's assumption of complicity by Daffodills and stressed that unilateral action without giving an opportunity of hearing was a violation of principles of natural justice.( Paragraph 15)

The Court acknowledged the limited scope of judicial review in public contract matters but highlighted the flagrant violation of natural justice by the state's action.( Paragraph 16)

Considering the time elapsed since the impugned order, the Court quashed the directive and set aside the High Court's judgment in the overall interest of justice.( Paragraph 17)

Facts:

Multiple rounds of litigations between the parties involving several suits.

Settlement agreement in Suit No. III 509 of 2001 between Ruias and MGG.

MHL filed Suit No. IV-2410 of 2008 challenging the settlement and claiming ownership of shares.

Appellants raised a preliminary issue of limitation under Section 9A CPC.

Dispute reached the Supreme Court in Nugen Machineries Limited vs. Minal A. Goswami & Anr.

Issues:

Whether Suit No. IV-2410 of 2008 filed by MHL is barred by limitation?

Effect of the settlement agreement between Ruias and MGG on the ownership of shares.

Held:

The judgment emphasized the repeal of Section 9A CPC (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1977, and the subsequent interpretations in Nusli Veville Wadia vs. Ivory Properties & Ors. (2019) 13 SCALE 620. The court held that the question of limitation should be considered along with other issues in Suit No. IV-2410 of 2008, and the trial should proceed independently on its merits. The orders of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench on the limitation issue were set aside.

Facts:

The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, particularly the last seen together theory and an extra-judicial confession, to convict the appellants under various sections of the IPC, Arms Act, and Explosives Act. The trial court acquitted the accused, citing doubts in witness testimonies and inconsistencies in evidence. The High Court reversed the acquittal, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Reliability of the last seen together theory.

Credibility of the extra-judicial confession.

Adequacy of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond doubt.

Time gap between last seen together and the alleged time of death.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, emphasizing the importance of a complete chain in circumstantial evidence cases. The court highlighted the unexplained contradictions in witness testimonies, the time gap between last seen together and the alleged time of death, and the questionable extra-judicial confession. The judgment reinforced the need for a conscientious approach in cases based on circumstantial evidence and reiterated the principle that extra-judicial confessions are weak pieces of evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Facts:

The appellant purchased a fire and special perils policy, including coverage for spontaneous combustion.

The factory was closed, and upon reopening, the appellant reported damage due to spontaneous combustion.

The respondent-insurer repudiated the claim, citing non-occurrence of fire as stipulated in the policy.

The appellant filed a complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

Issues:

Whether the insurer waived the condition of delayed intimation by appointing a surveyor.

Whether the insurer, having not mentioned delay in intimation in the repudiation letter, can raise it as a defense.

Held:

The appointment of a surveyor does not automatically waive the conditions of the insurance policy, as per the decision in Sonnel Clocks.

The insurer cannot introduce new grounds, such as delayed intimation, at the consumer complaint stage if not mentioned in the repudiation letter.

The NCDRC erred in rejecting the claim based on delayed intimation.

The appeal is allowed, directing the respondent-insurer to pay the assessed amount with interest.

Facts:

There were 72,825 vacancies for the post of Assistant teachers.

43,077 were appointed, and 15,058 were undergoing training.

In pursuance of interim orders, a total of 66,655 teachers were appointed.

Contempt Petitions filed in 2018 alleged non-compliance with State representations.

Issues:

Discrepancy in the State Government's calculation of 66,655 appointments.

Alleged violation of Supreme Court orders in not appointing Contempt Petitioners.

Incorrect representation by the State regarding qualified persons' appointments.

Held:

The exercise of selecting eligible candidates resulted in 12,091 individuals, subject to verification.

The list of these 12,091 candidates, including Contempt Petitioners, was published.

Out of 12,091 candidates, only 391 were appointed due to various reasons, as detailed in the Affidavit dated 01.10.2016.

The State published additional advertisements to consider any candidates left out.

The reasons for not appointing all 12,091 candidates were on record from October 2016 onwards.

No grievance was raised until the matter was disposed of in July 2017, granting permanency to those appointed.

The grievances were raised almost a year after filing the contempt petitions.

The court observed that the challenge was raised more than a year after the final Judgment.

The State Government clarified that no fresh appointments were made after 2016, and all appointments adhered to the court's orders.

Decision: The Contempt Petitions were directed to be closed, as the court found nothing wrong in the process undertaken by the State Government in compliance with various interim orders passed by the Supreme Court.