Facts:

The respondent, a Lecturer in Anesthesia, joined Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) without obtaining approval/NOC from the appellant-State.

The appellant rejected the respondent's request for retiral benefits, citing her acceptance of a position at CIMS without proper authorization.

Issues:

Whether the respondent is entitled to retiral benefits from the appellant-State after joining CIMS.

Validity of the orders passed by the appellants rejecting the respondent's claims.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in directing the personal appearance of the Principal Secretary and summoning officers to explain the rejection of the respondent's claims. The practice of summoning officers to court was deemed improper, impinging on public duties. The court emphasized that if an order is not legal, the appropriate course is for the courts to set it aside and issue necessary directions, without summoning officers.

The impugned orders were set aside, emphasizing the impropriety of summoning officers to court and reiterating that the courts have the jurisdiction to set aside illegal orders and issue appropriate directions without requiring personal appearances. The High Court was directed to reconsider the case without being influenced by previous findings.

Facts:

The appeal challenges the High Court's judgment enhancing compensation from Rs. 3,72,620 to Rs. 5,02,620 in a motor vehicle accident case.

The deceased, a 19-year-old bachelor, died due to injuries from the accident caused by the negligence of a bus driver.

The Tribunal and the High Court used a multiplier of '15' based on the age of the deceased's mother.

Issues:

Calculation of compensation considering the age of the deceased, future prospects, and multiplier.

Applicability of the multiplier to a bachelor's age.

Held:

The Constitution Bench's decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 is referred, emphasizing the consideration of future prospects.

The age of the deceased, not the dependents, is crucial in determining the multiplier.

The Court recalculates the compensation, adding 40% of the deceased's established income for future prospects and deducting 50% for personal expenses.

The final compensation is determined as Rs. 6,62,448, from which the High Court's awarded amount of Rs. 5,02,620 is deducted.

The balance compensation payable is Rs. 1,59,868, rounded off to Rs. 1,60,000.

The third Respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit this amount with 7% simple interest from the claim petition date within two months.

The appeal is partly allowed, and the insurance company is directed to deposit Rs. 1,60,000 as compensation with interest. No costs are awarded.

Facts:

The complainant, engaged in the business of cement sheets, filed a complaint in January 2009, accusing the appellant of hosting a group that published a defamatory article. The complaint pertained to an offense allegedly committed from July 31, 2008, onwards.

Issues:

The applicability of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the intermediary status of the appellant, and whether the appellant could be held liable for defamation.

Held:

The Court clarified the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC concerning defamation offenses, distinguishing cases of complaints from police reports. [Paragraph 43]

The judgment discussed the scope of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, both before and after its substitution, emphasizing the conditions for immunity of intermediaries. [Paragraphs 59, 61, 63-64]

The Court declined to decide the question of whether the appellant was an intermediary or if Google LLC, the parent company, played that role. It emphasized the need for evidence to determine such matters. [Paragraphs 80, 81, 83]

An overview of defamation laws highlighted the essential elements of the offense under Section 499 of the IPC and the significance of exceptions. [Paragraphs 98, 99, 101]

The Court considered the effect of the substitution of Section 79 of the Act, emphasizing that the complaint was filed before the substitution, and hence, the case fell under the previous provisions. [Paragraphs 133-135]

The question of whether the appellant, as a subsidiary, could be considered an independent body immune from liability was deemed inappropriate for determination under Section 482. [Paragraph 136]

The judgment critiqued the High Court's finding that the appellant failed to act on notices to remove objectionable content, pointing out flaws in the reasoning and highlighting the intermediary's limited liability. [Paragraphs 137-139]

The Court emphasized the role of publication in defamation cases, especially in the context of the internet and intermediary responsibility. [Paragraphs 141, 142]

The Court addressed the appellant's response to the complainant's notice, emphasizing the need for evidence and the inappropriateness of addressing such matters in a Section 482 petition. [Paragraphs 146, 147, 149]

Facts:

The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of cotton and man-made fabrics, filed writ petitions seeking direction that excise duty is not payable for yarn processed further in its composite mills in the manufacture of fabrics. The High Court granted interim reliefs, modifying them later. The appellant executed bonds and furnished a bank guarantee for the differential duty. The Assistant Collector informed the appellant that Section 11A was not applicable. A Show Cause Notice was issued, demanding payment, which the appellant contested, asserting the mandatory nature of the notice.

Issues:

The applicability of Section 11A to the case involving provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules.

Held:

The appellant's claim that Section 11A is not applicable to provisional assessment cases is dismissed. Rule 9B governs provisional assessment, and the appellant cannot deny submitting to this process voluntarily.

The appellant's voluntary execution of bonds and submission to provisional assessment under Rule 9B is upheld. The High Court's order did not absolve the appellant from these obligations.

Section 11A applies to cases of recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid. However, the present case falls within the dispensation of Rule 9B, dealing with provisional assessment.

The order dated 10/12.03.1993 did not release the appellant from its voluntary submission to provisional assessment. Authorities proceeded in accordance with the law during the relevant period.

The appellant cannot now deny the provisional assessment process it voluntarily entered, as doing so would give undue advantage and favor, contrary to the High Court's order.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, upholding the liability of the appellant for excise duty based on the provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules.

Facts:

Employees of Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) were contributors to the Self Contributory, Post Retirement and Death in Service Benefits Scheme, 1991.

Scheme was introduced on 01.04.1990, with voluntary and optional participation for employees in service from the effective date.

The Scheme was managed by a Trust, with trustees nominated by the Chairman of ONGC and representatives nominated by the Central Working Committee (CWC) of Association of Scientific and Technical Officers.

Issues:

Whether there exists a relationship of consumer and service provider between the claimants (employees) and ONGC?

Claimants alleged loss due to delayed processing of claims by LIC.

Held:

The Court determined that there is virtually no privity of contract for providing service between ONGC and the claimants.

Emphasized that the Scheme was voluntary, contributors were ONGC employees, and the service was managed by a Trust nominated by ONGC.

Concluded there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between claimants and ONGC.

Partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the consumer dispute redressal commissions' orders on the relationship.

Directed ONGC to pay amounts payable (excluding costs) to claimants within 8 weeks.

Facts:

The case revolves around the insertion of Section 10D in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, related to admission to PG Medical Courses.

Background includes the issuance and subsequent recall of notifications regarding a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET).

Section 10D introduced on 24.05.2016 due to a Constitution Bench decision on 02.05.2016.

Issues:

Examining the constitutionality of domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to PG Medical Courses within the State Quota.

Determining the extent and manner of providing such reservation, especially for a State/UT having only one Medical College.

Held:

Blanket prohibition on domicile/residence-based reservation for State Quota seats may not be workable.

Institutional preference plays a role in State Quota seats, but varied provisions exist among States/UTs concerning domicile/residence.

Without domicile/residence-based reservation, State Quota seats might be entirely filled by institutional preference, leading to potential issues.

High Court disapproved of stipulations in the impugned Clause 2B of the prospectus, indicating further examination needed on the mode and modalities of domicile/residence-based reservation.

Decision:

Proposes questions for examination by a Larger Bench to determine constitutionality and modalities of domicile/residence-based reservation in PG Medical Courses within the State Quota.

Constitutionality of domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to PG Medical Courses within the State Quota.

If permissible, the extent and manner of providing such reservation, especially for a State/UT with only one Medical College.

If impermissible, how State Quota seats, other than permissible institutional preference seats, are to be filled.

Facts:

The appellants are the heirs of Aranganathan, who died in a motor accident.

The appellants filed a claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal awarded compensation, which was partly modified by the High Court in appeal.

The deceased was a businessman with income from various sources, including business and agricultural land.

Issues:

Determination of the deceased's annual income for the purpose of calculating compensation.

Whether the High Court erred in not considering certain contractual work and solvency certificates in computing the deceased's income.

Whether depreciation costs on fixed assets should be added to the income.

Calculation of monthly income of the deceased.

Held:

The income tax return is a statutory document, and the High Court's reliance on it to determine annual income is justified.

The method adopted by the Tribunal in determining agricultural income is not sustainable; the High Court's approach is correct.

Depreciation on fixed assets cannot be added to the income for computing compensation.

Additional amount added to the annual income based on a prepaid license fee reflected in a balance sheet.

The total compensation payable to the appellants is Rs. 42,29,534 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing till the date of payment.

Partial allowance of the appeals with no order as to costs.

FACTS:

An FIR was lodged on March 28, 2005, regarding the discovery of a decomposed body.

The deceased, Surjit Kaur, had inherited land, leading to conflicts with her son Avtar Singh and his family.

The prosecution relied on evidence like the recovery of a telephone diary, extra-judicial confessions, and witness statements.

ISSUES:

The murder of Surjit Kaur, the chain of events leading to the crime, and the reliability of the evidence presented.

HELD:

The High Court and the trial court found the appellants guilty based on the chain of circumstances presented by the prosecution.

The Court emphasized the non-attendance of the appellants at the cremation and post-death events as indicative of their involvement.

The disfigurement of the deceased's face by acid, the recovery of a bottle of acid, and an extra-judicial confession contributed to the conviction.

The postmortem report revealed fractures consistent with the confession of one of the accused.

The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the guilt of the appellants and ordering their surrender to complete the remaining sentence.

REFERRED CASES:

Ajay Singh vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 341

Devi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine 39

Madan Gopal Kakkad vs. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204

Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452

Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1730

S. Arul Raja vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 8 SCC 233

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116

Facts:

The appellants challenged the seniority list finalized on 28th November, 2014.

Advertisement issued on 29th November, 2004, for 241 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil/Mechanical).

Selection process completed based on merit, but appointments made in a manner deviating from the merit list.

State Government approval on 3rd May, 2005, for appointments based on a roster from the Government order dated 31st August, 2001.

Writ petitioners appointed earlier in time but lower in merit.

Issues:

Conflict between Regulation 23, emphasizing seniority based on substantive appointment date, and Regulations 16, 17, and 20, prescribing appointment based on merit list.

Appointments made in contravention of statutory regulations.

Held:

The method of giving appointment to the senior most person of each category is a fortuitous circumstance, and appointments made in contravention of statutory regulations cannot defeat the rights of the appellants. Seniority has to be fixed as per the merit of the candidates determined by the Selection Committee.( Para 17)

Regulation 6 contemplates reservation in accordance with the orders of the Government, and the Government order dated 31st August, 2001, applies to determine reservation and seniority. The seniority list has not been prepared in accordance with the roster circulated on 31st August, 2001.( Para 18)

The Uttarakhand Government Servant Seniority Service Rules, 2002, are not applicable to the Nigam, as they were adopted in 2011 and framed under the proviso to Article 309, not applicable to a creation under a Statute.( Para 19)