Facts:

Chennai Port Trust had a canteen run by a Cooperative Society named "Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Co-operative Canteen Limited" since 1964.

Workers in the canteen formed an association and filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking recognition as regular employees of Chennai Port Trust and associated benefits.

The Chennai Port Trust contested, stating they had no control over the canteen's operations, and the employment status was a factual matter for an Industrial Tribunal.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, and the Division Bench affirmed the decision on appeal.

Issues:

Whether the canteen workers should be considered regular employees of Chennai Port Trust and entitled to benefits.

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter or if it should have been referred to an Industrial Tribunal.

Held:

The Division Bench upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming the employment status and benefits of the canteen workers. The Court found that the Chennai Port Trust exercised significant control over the canteen operations, similar to precedents established in previous cases, notably Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Shramik Sena.

The Court rejected the argument that the dispute should have been referred to an Industrial Tribunal, as the writ petition had already been decided on its merits and no disputed facts requiring trial existed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

On 23.11.2002, based on secret information, a raiding party intercepted the appellant who admitted possession of charas.

The appellant consented to a search by the raiding police party, but the search and seizure were not conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer as required by Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution charged the appellant under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, leading to his conviction by the trial court and the confirmation of the same by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the search and seizure conducted in this case complied with the mandatory procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the failure to comply with Section 50 renders the prosecution's case fatally flawed, entitling the appellant to acquittal.

Held:

In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled law that the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. Despite the appellant's consent to the search, it is the obligation of the officer to inform the suspect of their right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 50. None of the police officials testified that the search was conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Therefore, the non-compliance with Section 50 rendered the prosecution's case fatally flawed.

As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant of the charges under the NDPS Act.

Facts:

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking restoration of possession, mesne profits, and a permanent injunction with respect to House No. ED-48, Tagore Garden, New Delhi. The property was initially acquired in the name of Kumari Sneh Lata and later transferred to the plaintiff, Dharampal Dhall. However, the defendant claimed that the property was family-owned and the plaintiff had no exclusive right over it. The entire family had resided in the house from the beginning, including the plaintiff, defendant, and their siblings. Marriages of family members were also solemnized in the house.

Issues:

Whether the property in question was exclusively owned by the plaintiff or if it was family-owned, which would affect the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Held:

The Court examined the evidence presented by both parties and observed that the entire family had resided in the house from the beginning, indicating collective ownership and enjoyment. The source of funds for acquiring the property was the father of the parties, who had spent money on getting the land allotted and constructing the house. The plaintiff, at the time of acquisition, was a student with no source of income. Therefore, the Court held that the property was family-owned and not exclusively owned by the plaintiff.

The Court further emphasized that the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 were not applicable in this case, as the property was held by a coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family for the benefit of the family members.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals filed by the defendant and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. No costs were awarded, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

Kurk Amins were appointed by the UP Government for recovering dues of cooperative societies.

Their appointment conditions changed over time, leading to disputes over their status and entitlements.

Legal battles ensued, with judgments confirming their status as government servants.

After the creation of Uttarakhand, many Kurk Amins were absorbed into its government service.

A writ petition was filed seeking the counting of past services for benefits.

Issues:

Whether past services of Kurk Amins should be counted for benefits entitlement.

The date from which past services should be counted.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that past services of Kurk Amins could not be disregarded due to state reorganization. The benefits of previous judgments confirming their status as government servants should extend to them. The Division Bench's decision to limit the counting of past services was deemed contrary to law and service jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Division Bench's decision. It directed that past services of Kurk Amins should be counted for all purposes, including selection grade, promotional scale, post-retiral benefits, and pension. The appellants were entitled to all the relief granted by the Single Bench. The benefit of the judgment was extended to all similarly situated incumbents, aiming to prevent further litigation.

Facts:

The State of Rajasthan issued a notification upgrading Gram Panchayat of Napasar Village to Nagar Palika (Municipality) Class IV category.

Legal challenges were raised against this notification through various writ petitions and appeals.

The constitutional validity of the notifications and subsequent actions taken by the state government were questioned before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the notifications issued by the State of Rajasthan regarding the establishment of municipalities, particularly the upgrading of Napasar Village Gram Panchayat to Nagar Palika, comply with the constitutional mandate under Article 243Q.

Whether the actions taken by the state government are consistent with the parameters set forth in Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the notifications issued by the State of Rajasthan, including the one upgrading Napasar Village Gram Panchayat to Nagar Palika, were unconstitutional as they failed to meet the requirements of Article 243Q of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Governor is obligated to specify parameters uniformly for the entire state through public notification, considering factors such as population density, revenue generated, etc. Since the notifications only classified municipalities based on population without considering other necessary parameters, they were deemed inconsistent with the constitutional mandate.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the duty of courts to examine constitutional issues even if not explicitly raised by the litigants, citing relevant precedents. The Court rejected arguments raised by non-state respondents regarding potential development consequences, finding no substantial basis for such apprehensions.

Therefore, the Court disposed of the appeals, declaring the initial notification and subsequent actions taken by the State of Rajasthan as unconstitutional.

Facts:

The case involves the murder of a person allegedly by 16 accused individuals. The trial court acquitted all accused, which was later reversed by the High Court. Upon appeal, various discrepancies and shortcomings in the prosecution's case were observed.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution's case established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the appellate court's interference with the trial court's acquittal was justified.

Held:

The trial court's acquittal signifies the presumption of innocence reinforced by the advantage of firsthand witness testimony. The appellate court should interfere only when substantial reasons exist.

Circumstantial evidence, when forming an unbroken chain, can justify conviction.

Testimony from related witnesses should be approached cautiously due to potential bias.

While motive plays a role, solely dismissing a case based on lack of motive is not warranted.

Inconsistencies and contradictions in witness statements weakened the prosecution's case.

The failure to prove motive and the absence of identification parades undermined the prosecution's case.

Discrepancies in the FIR and lack of corroborative evidence weakened the case further.

The non-examination of vital witnesses and misinterpretation by the High Court contributed to the acquittal.

The accused were acquitted due to shortcomings in the prosecution's case and lack of compelling reasons for appellate interference.

Decision: The trial court's acquittal was upheld, and the appellate court's decision was deemed unjustified. The accused individuals were acquitted due to deficiencies in the prosecution's case.

Facts:

Dispute between appellants (plaintiffs) and respondent (defendant) over land.

Land previously owned by Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy, subject to suits by appellants.

Respondent provided evidence of land acquisition by the State in 1941.

Appellants claimed ownership without rebuttal evidence.

Issues:

Validity of suits filed by appellants over land.

Effect of State's acquisition of land in 1941 on appellants' claims.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the suits filed by the appellants were misconceived due to the State's acquisition of the land in 1941. The appellants failed to provide any rebuttal evidence to the documents provided by the respondent, establishing the land's acquisition.

The Court upheld the decision of the High Court to allow the respondent to file additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus, the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed.

Facts:

The case pertains to Criminal Appeal No. 1375 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2013. The appellants are Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P Ltd and another, while the respondent is the Central Bureau of Investigation. The appeals were heard by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Rohinton Fali Nariman.

Issues:

Whether there were sufficient grounds to interfere with the order framing charges.

Held:

The Court, after considering the arguments from both parties and reviewing the material on record, held that there were no grounds to interfere with the order framing charges. Therefore, the trial court was directed to proceed with the matter pending before it, leaving all contentions of the parties open for consideration by the trial court. The parties were instructed to appear before the trial court on 14th May 2018.

The Court also issued directives regarding the handling of original trial court records by appellate/revisional courts. It ordered that whenever the original record is summoned, a photocopy/scanned copy should be retained for reference, and the original returned to the trial court immediately. Furthermore, in cases where the trial court record is summoned in the future, photocopies/scanned copies should be sent, and the original retained by the trial courts to prevent delays. Only in cases where the original record is specifically required, should it be summoned for perusal, with a photocopy/scanned copy retained.

Finally, the Court directed that a copy of its order be sent to all High Courts and disposed of the appeals accordingly.

Facts:

The State of Himachal Pradesh sought to acquire the appellants' land for the public purpose of constructing a road. The appellants filed objections within the prescribed time under Section 15 of the Act. However, the Collector did not provide the appellants with an opportunity as required under Section 15(2) of the Act, nor did the Collector submit any report to the appropriate Government regarding the objections.

Issues:

Whether there was compliance with Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by the Collector? Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition took into account the non-compliance of Section 15(2)?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that compliance with Section 15(2) of the Act by the Collector is mandatory to ensure the legality and conformity of land acquisition proceedings. The Court found that the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition did not consider the non-compliance of Section 15(2) by the Collector. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the Collector to decide the objections filed by the appellants within three months, adhering to the requirements of Section 15(2) of the Act.

The Court's decision underscores the importance of following due process in land acquisition matters under the Act, ensuring that affected parties are afforded the opportunity to be heard and that proper procedures are followed by the authorities involved.