Facts:

The dispute involved ownership and possession of a piece of land. The plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit after obtaining a temporary injunction, which was allowed by the Trial Court on payment of costs to the defendant. The defendant challenged this decision through revisions and a writ petition before the High Court, which set aside the lower court's orders.

Issues:

Whether the lower courts were justified in permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC, and if the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in its decision.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court and Revision Court were justified in allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, as the plaintiff had applied under Order 23 Rule 1(1) without seeking permission to file a fresh suit. The High Court erred in delving into matters beyond the withdrawal of the suit and ordering possession of the land. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the decisions of the lower courts.

Facts:

The case of Dr. S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. involved a PIL seeking the enforcement of road safety norms and proper treatment for victims of road accidents.

Issues:

The implementation of recommendations by the Committee on Road Safety and the response of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to suggestions regarding road safety.

Held:

The Court issued various directions regarding road safety policies, the establishment of road safety councils and lead agencies, the creation of road safety funds, preparation of road safety action plans, and the formation of district road safety committees.

States and Union Territories were directed to take necessary steps for engineering improvements, traffic calming measures, road safety audits, and the implementation of drivers' training programs.

Specific instructions were given regarding lane driving, the use of road safety equipment, regulations on alcohol and road safety, and the inclusion of road safety education in school curricula.

The Court emphasized the importance of emergency medical care, the provision of a universal accident helpline number, and the establishment of permanent road safety cells.

Directions were issued for data collection, GPS tracking in vehicles, adherence to bus/truck-body building codes, and fitment of ABS, airbags, and headlights in vehicles.

Decision: The directions issued by the Court were agreed upon by the involved parties and were deemed essential for saving lives and reducing compensation payouts. States were granted the liberty to seek clarification or guidance from the Committee on Road Safety if needed.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over the validity of a trademark under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

Issues:

The jurisdiction of civil courts versus statutory authorities in deciding trademark validity.

Interpretation of Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and its implications.

The procedure to be followed in cases where the issue of trademark invalidity is raised independently or within the context of a pending lawsuit.

Consequences of abandoning a rectification plea or failing to comply with statutory timelines.

Held:

The court clarified that all questions regarding the validity of a trademark must be decided by the Registrar, High Court, or Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), not by the Civil Court .

Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, should be interpreted in its entirety, rather than narrowly based on its heading .

Different procedures are outlined in the Act for situations where the issue of trademark invalidity is raised independently or within a pending lawsuit .

If a party abandons a rectification plea or fails to initiate the prescribed action within the statutory timeframe, the right to raise the issue of trademark invalidity ceases to exist between the parties .

Satisfaction of the Civil Court regarding the existence of a prima facie case of invalidity and framing of an issue is not permission for the statutory authority to handle the issue; it is a procedural requirement to eliminate baseless claims .

Proceedings under Sections 46 and 56 of the Act do not run parallel to proceedings under Sections 107 and 111 when the issue of trademark invalidity is raised in a lawsuit .

Decision: The court dismissed certain appeals while allowing others based on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

Facts:

The appeal arises from a judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana concerning a dispute over external development charges for flats and infrastructure development obligations.

The developer firm, M/S Sai Apartments and Infrastructure Ltd., failed to comply with conditions for obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) for permanent electricity connection.

The High Court issued various directions, including auctioning personal properties of the partners/ex-partners of the developer firm and directing individual consumers to file complaints against them.

The appellants, partners in the developer firm, contested that they were not made parties to the writ petition in their individual capacity nor issued any show cause notice for attachment of their personal properties.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's orders regarding auctioning personal properties of the partners/ex-partners of the developer firm were justifiable.

Who should bear external development charges and infrastructure costs?

Held:

The Supreme Court decided not to delve into the merits of the dispute but instead remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties are afforded sufficient opportunity. The appeal was allowed, expressing no opinion on the merits of the case. No costs were awarded.

Facts:

The petitioner challenged the appointment of Shri Rakesh Asthana as the Special Director of the CBI, alleging illegality and violation of principles of integrity.

Concerns were raised about Asthana's involvement in ongoing investigations, suggesting a conflict of interest.

Issues:

Whether the appointment of Shri Rakesh Asthana as the Special Director of CBI was made illegally, arbitrarily, and in violation of principles of integrity.

Whether the established procedure for appointments to the CBI was followed in this case.

Held:

The court analyzed the procedure for appointments to the CBI, as established in previous judgments and relevant statutes. It emphasized the importance of consultation and the role of the Selection Committee in making appointments. The court concluded that the appointment of Shri Rakesh Asthana as the Special Director of CBI did not suffer from any illegality. It found that due consideration was given to all relevant factors, including concerns raised about Asthana's involvement in ongoing investigations. The decision to recommend Asthana's appointment was unanimous and based on relevant materials. Thus, the court dismissed the petition challenging the appointment.

Facts:

The appellant, District Development Officer, Gujarat terminated the employment of Satish Kantilal Amrelia, who worked as a Peon-cum-Driver on daily wages.

Mr. Amrelia challenged his termination in both civil and labor courts.

The civil court initially ruled in his favor, but the decision was reversed on appeal.

The labor court later found his termination illegal due to non-compliance with labor laws.

The appellant appealed the labor court's decision to the High Court of Gujarat, which dismissed the appeal.

A subsequent Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed in default.

Issues:

Whether the termination of Mr. Amrelia's employment was legal.

Whether reinstatement with back wages is appropriate in this case.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the labor court's award. Instead of reinstatement with back wages, the court awarded Mr. Amrelia a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 (Indian Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) in full and final settlement of his claim. The court based its decision on the nature of Mr. Amrelia's employment as a daily wage worker and the circumstances of the case. It cited Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the judgment in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal [(2014) 7 SCC 177] in support of its decision.

The appellant was ordered to pay the compensation within three months, failing which interest would accrue at a rate of 9% per annum. The orders of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were set aside, and the labor court's award was modified accordingly.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal before the Supreme Court of India wherein the appellants were convicted for the murder of Bhagwan Singh in Rajasthan.

Nine appellants were convicted while others were either acquitted or deceased.

The trial court adjourned the matter multiple times during the examination of witnesses, leading to concerns about the integrity of the trial process.

Issues:

Whether the trial court's grant of adjournments during witness examination was in compliance with Section 309 of the CrPC.

Whether the trial court adequately protected witnesses and ensured the fair administration of justice.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions. The court expressed concern over the conduct of the trial and the granting of adjournments. It emphasized the importance of continuous examination of witnesses, in accordance with Section 309 of the CrPC, to protect witnesses from undue influence or threats. The court also highlighted the necessity of recording witness statements under Section 164 of the CrPC during the investigation itself, preferably using audio-video electronic means. The court issued directions to trial courts to adhere to these principles and emphasized the importance of early examination of eyewitnesses. It also directed High Courts to issue appropriate directives to trial courts for compliance. These directions were based on precedents cited by the court, including State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and Others, Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B., and Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, which underscored the significance of continuous trial proceedings and the potential consequences of unnecessary adjournments.

Facts:

The appellants were accused in a case filed under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes directed the addition of charges under the SC/ST Act, leading to the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet. The appellants challenged this before the High Court, arguing that the charges under the SC/ST Act were added at the dictate of an external agency and not based on the findings of the investigation.

Issues:

The validity of adding charges under the SC/ST Act based on the direction of an external agency, and whether such charges could be quashed in part under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that there is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in part, particularly if a person is aggrieved by prosecution only on specific charges. The Court emphasized that external interference in police investigation, such as directives from agencies like the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, is impermissible. While these bodies can point out lapses in investigation, they cannot dictate the course of investigation.

Therefore, the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the charges added at the dictate of an external agency. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the supplementary report filed under the SC/ST Act was quashed. The order passed by the Court did not inhibit the police or the court from taking appropriate steps under the CrPC.

Facts:

The petitioner, an advocate, filed a petition under Article 32 seeking direction for the implementation of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in a previous case regarding the destruction of public and private property during agitations.

The petitioner cited instances where strikes/agitations led to the destruction of public property, causing inconvenience and violating fundamental rights.

Committees appointed by the court recommended statutory amendments to hold those sponsoring agitations accountable and punishable under criminal law. Despite recommendations, no legislation or speedy mechanism was put in place.

Issues:

Whether the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in a previous case regarding the destruction of public and private property during agitations have been implemented effectively.

Whether there is a need for legislative action to address the issues related to the destruction of public property during agitations.

Held:

The court acknowledged the need for preventive and remedial measures to address situations where peaceful protests turn violent, resulting in loss of lives and damage to public property. The Attorney General for India emphasized the necessity for legislation to fix accountability and provide for punishment and compensation. The court expressed hope that the proposed law by the Union of India would be enacted within a reasonable timeframe, addressing all concerned issues. Suggestions were made regarding the appointment of district judges to handle such matters. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.