Facts:

The appellants, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, challenged the selection process for the limited departmental examination for the promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) in the Police Department of Uttar Pradesh. The examination was conducted by the UP Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, and the appellants alleged that the selection process was undertaken without applying the Reservation Policy.

Issues:

Whether the selection process was conducted in accordance with the Reservation Policy.

Whether the criteria for securing 50% marks should be reckoned subject-wise or paper-wise.

Held:

The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the merit-based selection process and upheld the requirement of a minimum of 50% marks in each subject.( Para 13)

The Court rejected the reliance on a previous order, stating that it did not decide the current controversy and could not serve as a precedent.( Para 14)

The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellants did not fulfill the criteria of obtaining 50% marks in each subject.( Para 15)

Facts:

The case involved a dispute over the ownership of properties, with the plaintiffs claiming a 3/4th share in the suit properties. The properties were purchased by the father-in-law in the name of his wife (defendant no.1), leading to allegations of benami transactions.

Issues:

Whether the lower courts erred in shifting the burden to the defendants to prove that the sale transactions were not benami.

Whether the payment of part sale consideration alone is sufficient to determine a transaction as benami.

Whether the surrounding circumstances, relationships, motives, and subsequent conduct were adequately considered in determining the intention behind the transactions.

The impact of the Benami Amendment Act, 2016 on the case.

Held:

The trial court and the High Court erred in shifting the burden to the defendants without the plaintiffs proving, by cogent evidence, the intention of the father-in-law to purchase the properties in the name of his wife (defendant no.1). The reasoning and findings of the lower courts were not in line with the established circumstances by the Supreme Court.( Para 8.4, 9)

The payment of part sale consideration cannot be the sole criterion for deeming a transaction benami. The intention behind the contribution of purchase money must be assessed based on various factors, including the relationship between the parties.( Para 9.1)

The stamp duty at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed alone cannot establish a transaction as benami. Insufficient consideration of other documentary evidence by the lower courts.( Para 9.2)

The Release Deed executed by defendant no.1, on payment of Rs.10,000, was misinterpreted as evidence of joint family properties. Defendant no.1 clarified that it was to avoid future litigation, not an acknowledgment of joint family properties.( Para 9.3)

Defendant no.1's Will and subsequent revocation indicated her consistent belief that the properties were self-acquired, purchased from Stridhana and the sale of jewelry.( Para 9.4)

Plaintiffs claimed that the properties were purchased from funds received by selling ancestral properties, but the timing of transactions contradicts this. The properties were acquired before the sale of ancestral properties.( Para 10, 11)

The Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and its 2016 amendment were discussed. The court rejected the argument that the amendment affects the presumption of transactions in the name of the wife or children being for their benefit.( Para 12)

Once established that the Sale Deeds were not benami transactions, plaintiffs have no share in the suit properties (except specified ones). The judgments granting 3/4th share to the plaintiffs were quashed and set aside.( Para 12.1, 13)

Facts:

The appellant was accused of pouring acid on the victim, causing extensive injuries.

The victim suffered acid burns from head to thigh on the left side, leading to more than 50 days of hospitalization.

The victim asserted his inability to carry out daily routines during hospitalization, and the treating doctor mentioned the possibility of disfigurement.

Issues:

Whether the injuries inflicted qualified as grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC.

Whether the punishment awarded was adequate, considering the gravity of the offense.

Held:

The court emphasized that the extensive acid burn injuries and the victim's long hospitalization suggested severe bodily pain for more than 20 days, meeting the criteria under Section 320 IPC.( Para 10.1)

The court highlighted the gruesome nature of acid attacks and the legislative response through Act No. 13 of 2013, providing higher punishments.( Para 11)

Considering the circumstances, including the age of the accused and the historical context of the offense, the court refrained from enhancing the punishment and upheld the original sentence.( Para 12)

The appeal was dismissed.( Para 13)

Facts:

The appellant, originally the defendant, purchased a property in 1971.

The property was subject to the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act of 1973.

The Land Reforms Tribunal found excess land held by the appellant in 1976.

The appellant entered into an agreement to sell the property in 1985 with the respondent.

The respondent paid part of the sale consideration, demanded the original sale deed, and sought measurement of the land.

The appellant, allegedly breaching the agreement, did not execute the sale deed or measure the land.

The respondent filed a suit for specific performance in 1993.

Issues:

Whether the plaintiff (respondent) was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief of refund of advance sale consideration.

To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

Held:

The learned trial Court and the High Court found that the appellant breached the agreement by not performing her contractual obligations. The plaintiff (respondent) demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part, as observed in the cross-examination and upheld by both courts. The absence of a specific mention in the agreement regarding land measurement was not decisive, as the respondent rightfully insisted on obtaining title documents and land measurement. The appellant's failure to provide necessary documents and measure the land released the respondent from the obligation to deposit the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff's deposit within the extended time showed his bona fides. The plea of hardship raised by the appellant was not entertained due to its absence in the written statement. The decisions cited by the appellant were found inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the decree for specific performance.

Facts:

A Company Petition was filed, and documents (No. 1 to 54) were submitted by the Respondents. The Appellant alleged theft/misappropriation of these documents. Documents 2 to 28 were alleged to be photocopied and returned, while documents 29 to 54 were not returned.

Issues:

The alleged theft/misappropriation of documents and the validity of the criminal complaint based on these allegations.

Held:

The court found that the allegations in the complaint lacked material particulars and were vague regarding the commission of theft (Para 39, 42, 47).

Specific averments against the respondents were missing, and the statements lacked details on how the accused were responsible for moving the documents out of the appellant's possession (Para 48).

The statements of the employee were considered insufficient, being a bare statement without specific allegations against the accused (Para 54).

The Magistrate's order lacked application of mind, and the issuance of summons was not well-founded, lacking a prima facie case against the accused (Para 57).

The complaint lacked particulars regarding the time and place of theft, and how the documents went out of the complainant's possession (Para 58).

The court emphasized the restricted scope of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the serious responsibility of the Magistrate to ensure sufficient grounds before issuing process (Para 61).

The court ruled that the use of documents in pending litigations did not amount to theft and lacked dishonest intention or wrongful gain, resulting in no wrongful loss to the appellant (Para 70).

Considering the facts and the number of litigations, the court deemed the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of the court's process, quashing the criminal complaint (Para 89).

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between a husband (respondent No. 1) and his two wives (appellant and respondent No. 2) arising from a matrimonial suit. The High Court, in its order dated 09.08.2011, disposed of the appeal filed by the first wife against the husband under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of CPC. The second wife (appellant) was not made a party to the appeal, and the High Court did not consider the consequences of the marriage between the appellant and the husband.

Issues:

The appellant not being made a party to the appeal.

The High Court not considering the consequences of the marriage between the appellant and the husband.

Held:

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the case to the High Court for deciding the miscellaneous appeal afresh on merits. The need for remand arose as the appellant was not made a party, and the High Court's directions were deemed incapable of due performance. The impugned order was considered without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. The Court requested the High Court to implead the appellant in the appeal and encouraged the parties to settle amicably before deciding the appeal on its merits.

Facts:

The appellant is a society running educational institutions, including a non-Governmental Educational Institution.

The employees were engaged on a temporary basis and were terminated due to the abolition of posts in light of financial losses faced by the institution.

Issues:

Whether the removal of employees due to the abolition of posts falls under the purview of Section 18 of the Act?

Whether the decision of the Managing Committee to abolish posts was arbitrary or mala fide?

Held:

The Court examines the applicability of Section 18 of the Act and Rule 39 of the 1993 Rules in cases of removal due to the abolition of posts.( Paragraph 9)

Reference to the decision in Shri Maheshwari Senior Higher Secondary School vs. Bhikha Ram Sharma (1996) 8 SCC 22, emphasizing that in cases of termination due to the abolition of posts, no enquiry under the Rules is required.( Paragraph 11)

The Court discusses the State's communication, stating no approval is needed for removal if the posts were not aided and appointments were not approved by the Education Department.( Paragraph 13)

Critique of the Division Bench's observation that the issue was raised for the first time, highlighting the consistent stand of the Management on the applicability of Section 18. The present appeals are allowed. ( Paragraph 14)

FACTS:

The dispute revolves around two cheques dishonored by the State Bank of India, leading to legal proceedings. The appellant issued notices, and the High Court quashed the order taking cognizance, citing a failure to file the complaint within the statutory period.

ISSUES:

The timeliness of filing the complaint under Section 138 in connection with the dishonored cheques, with a focus on the legal notices issued by the appellant.

HELD:

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The appellant's contention that successive notices are permissible under Section 138 was upheld. The court emphasized that the delay in filing the complaint was condoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and there was sufficient cause for the delay.

REFERRED CASES:

MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan (2013) 1 SCC 177

Facts:

The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority (appellant) appealed against a judgment by the High Court related to construction activities in notified CRZ areas. The appellant authority is empowered to handle environmental issues in CRZ, and construction activities in these areas require consultation and concurrence with the appellant authority.

Issues:

Whether construction activities in notified CRZ areas comply with CRZ notifications and regulations.

The role of local self-governments and competent authorities in obtaining building permits for CRZ areas.

Held:

The Court, after hearing the appeals and considering expert opinions, found that the construction activities in CRZ-III were in violation of relevant statutory provisions and CRZ notifications. The Committee established to evaluate the matter concluded that the area fell within CRZ-III, where construction is strictly restricted. The Court held that the constructions were impermissible and unauthorized within the prohibited area. It ordered the removal of all structures within one month.

The appeals are, accordingly allowed with aforesaid direction. Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.