Facts:

The appellant firm, engaged in the business of purchasing and selling sandalwood oil, had sandalwood oil seized from its premises by the Kasargod Police. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the seized sandalwood oil under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The appellants contested the confiscation, claiming ownership of the seized quantity.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in upholding the order of confiscation under Section 61-A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

Whether confiscation of sandalwood oil can be ordered under Section 61-A or Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the order of confiscation was made under Section 69 of the Act, not under Section 61-A as cited by the High Court. Sandalwood oil was not covered under Section 61-A, which only pertains to certain specified items. Section 69 merely establishes a presumption of government ownership and does not confer the power of confiscation. Therefore, the confiscation order was deemed illegal and was set aside.

Facts:

The Union of India (appellant) entered into contracts with M/S. Varindera Constructions Ltd. (respondent) for construction work.

Disputes arose regarding additional claims made by the respondent, which were rejected by the appellant.

The matter was referred to arbitration as per the contract.

The arbitrator made an award in favor of the respondent on certain claims.

The appellant challenged the award before the High Court, which upheld the award.

Issues:

• Whether the respondent is entitled to claim escalation in minimum wages despite contractual clauses prohibiting reimbursement for such escalations.

Held:

The Court analyzed the contractual clauses, particularly Clause 19, which prohibited reimbursement for increases in labor wages. It also considered Clause 6.3, which reiterated this limitation even in the case of local regulations mandating higher wages. The Court criticized the High Court's interpretation, stating that Clause 19 could not be read in conjunction with Clause 25, as they addressed different issues.

The Court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to claim escalation in minimum wages, as it would contradict Clause 19 and Clause 6.3. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the decisions of the lower courts and the arbitration award. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

Facts:

The case concerned disputes arising from the election to the Thiruvalla East Cooperative Bank Ltd. Various petitions were filed challenging different aspects of the election process. The High Court referred the matters to a Larger Bench, and subsequently, a Division Bench passed an interim order allowing the election to proceed subject to the result of the writ petitions and Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act.

Issues:

Whether the High Court could extend the statutory period for referring disputes related to the election, as provided under Section 69(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, through its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not have extended the time for preferring the election dispute under Section 69(3) of the Act. It set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the writ petitions to the High Court for fresh consideration, with parties allowed to raise all available contentions.

The Court emphasized the strict interpretation of limitation periods in election cases and reiterated that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used to direct authorities to act contrary to law.

Facts:

Paradeep Phosphates Limited extended the retirement age of its employees from 58 to 60 years in response to a government directive aimed at mitigating losses in public sector units.

Subsequently, due to continued financial struggles, the government decided to revert the retirement age back to 58 years.

The trade union representing the employees raised a dispute, leading to a reference made by the Government of Orissa to the Industrial Tribunal.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the employees, stating that Paradeep Phosphates Limited had violated Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act by not giving prior notice to the employees before changing the retirement age.

Issues:

Whether the extension of retirement age constituted a change in service conditions.

Whether Paradeep Phosphates Limited violated Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act by not providing prior notice to employees before reverting the retirement age.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of the extended retirement age constituted a change in service conditions and amounted to withdrawal of a privilege granted to the employees.

Therefore, Paradeep Phosphates Limited was required to provide prior notice to the employees under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of employees and ensuring fair treatment by their employers. Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision of the High Court, dismissing Paradeep Phosphates Limited's appeal and affirming the ruling of the Industrial Tribunal.

Facts:

The appellant's daughter married respondent No. 2, but due to societal non-acceptance, she lived with the appellant.

The daughter died during a trip with respondent No. 2, allegedly due to a car accident.

The appellant filed an FIR under sections 498-A, 302, and 120-B IPC.

The State Government transferred the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Respondent No. 2 was arrested but granted bail by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to grant bail to respondent No. 2 was appropriate considering the seriousness of the charges against him.

Held:

The Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant bail to respondent No. 2.

The Court emphasized the limited scope of interference with an order granting bail and the parameters on which such an order can be challenged.

It was noted that the reasons provided by the High Court for granting bail were reasonable and not perverse.

The Court emphasized that the seriousness of the offense alone cannot be the sole ground for denying bail if other compelling circumstances justify its grant.

Reports from agencies such as CRRI, AIIMS, CFSL, and IIT were mentioned, but their evidentiary value was yet to be tested in trial.

The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the death was a result of murder and that respondent No. 2 committed the crime.

Relevant factors were considered by the High Court while granting bail, and the order was supported by reasoning.

The Court highlighted that initially, there was no suspicion after the incident, as postmortem was conducted in the presence of family members and doctors who did not raise any doubts.

The delay in lodging the FIR (nine days after the incident) was also considered.

Material collected by the CBI during investigation was primarily documentary and based on photographs, which needed to be tested during trial.

Decision: The appeals challenging the grant of bail to respondent No. 2 were dismissed by the Court.

Facts:The case of Union of India & Ors. v. Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai (Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2016) revolves around Court Martial proceedings concerning alleged obscene calls made by Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai to the wives of three navy officers. The charges led to the respondent's dismissal from service and forfeiture of 24 months of seniority.

Issues:

The quantum of sentence imposed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) after finding the respondent guilty of the charges.

Held:The prosecution successfully established that the mobile phone used for the offending calls belonged to the respondent (para 14).

Additionally, evidence presented by the prosecution proved that sexually explicit calls were received by the officers' wives, with call records linking the calls to the respondent's phone (paras 15, 23).

Given the Court's limited appellate scope under Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, it upheld the AFT's decision, which substituted the sentence of dismissal with loss of seniority for 24 months. The Court also endorsed the AFT's ruling to deprive the respondent of salary until reinstatement, considering the duration he remained out of service (paras 25, 26, 29, 30).

Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by both the officer and the Union of India, affirming the AFT's decision on the sentencing.

Facts:

An agreement was made between Puri Constructions Pvt Ltd and the State of Madhya Pradesh for the construction of an Assembly building in Madhya Pradesh.

Disputes arose from this agreement, leading to arbitration proceedings and the issuance of an award.

Execution proceedings were initiated by Puri Constructions Pvt Ltd, and the matter was taken up before the High Court of Delhi.

Issues:

The enforceability of the decree depended on the outcome of another pending appeal (FAO (OS) No. 23/1998) between the parties.

Treatment of the arbitration proceedings and their transfer under the M.P. Act.

Held:

The Division Bench, in an order dated 5th July 2012, stated that the enforceability of the decree would depend on the outcome of another pending appeal between the parties.

Given that the award had been issued long ago and not challenged by the respondents, and the matter was still at the execution stage, the Court directed that the award should be treated as if rendered under the M.P. Act.

Therefore, the Court ordered that the pending arbitration proceedings be transferred to the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal under the M.P. Act, to be handled according to its provisions and the law.

Decision: The appeal was disposed of accordingly, and the parties were instructed to appear before the High Court/Tribunal for further proceedings on 9th July 2018.

Facts:

The dispute centered around 500 square yards of land in Survey No.87 of Lingampally Village, Chikkadapally Mandal, Hyderabad District. The appellants claimed ownership of the land, while the respondents were accused of land grabbing. Litigation ensued over several decades, spanning multiple suits and proceedings in civil courts and eventually before the Special Court established under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.

Issues:

Jurisdiction of civil courts versus Special Courts under the Act.

Ownership of the disputed land.

Allegations of land grabbing against the respondents.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the appellants' repeated litigation over several decades, despite the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, was unwarranted. The Court found that the appellants failed to establish their ownership of the disputed land and could not prove the respondents' involvement in land grabbing. Additionally, there was ambiguity regarding the location, extent, and boundaries of the alleged grabbed land.

The Court emphasized that the appellants' persistence in pursuing litigation in civil courts, even after the enactment of the Act, was misguided. The Court opined that the appellants should have approached the Special Court under the Act if they believed that civil courts lacked jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants for engaging in continuous and fruitless litigation.

Facts:

The case involved Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. as the appellant and Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation and another as the respondents. The matter pertained to the interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 ("1983 Act").

Issues:

The interpretation of the term "dispute" as defined in Section 2(d) of the 1983 Act and the eligibility criteria for arbitrators under Section 4(3)(iii) of the same Act.

Held:

The judgment clarified the definition of "dispute" under Section 2(d) of the 1983 Act, stating that it includes a claim of ascertained money valued at Rupees 50,000 or more arising from the execution or non-execution of a works contract. It further clarified that "ascertained money" encompasses both the amount already determined and the amount that may be determined during proceedings based on the claims or counterclaims of the parties.

Additionally, the judgment referred to Section 4(3)(iii) of the 1983 Act, stating that an employee of a party to the dispute cannot act as an arbitrator. The provision specifies qualifications for appointment as a member of the Tribunal, excluding employees of the concerned department to which the dispute relates.

The appeal was disposed of accordingly. Delay in related special leave petitions was condoned, and they were disposed of in line with the order in another related special leave petition. Pending applications were also disposed of.