Facts:

The case involves a matrimonial dispute where the husband, the complainant, accuses the wife and her family members of various offenses. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed, and the husband later sought to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court initially dismissed the application, but the High Court set aside the order and directed the appellants to be impleaded as accused.

Issues:

Whether the allegations in the FIR were sufficient to summon additional accused under Section 319.

Whether there was strong and cogent evidence supporting the summoning of the appellants.

Whether the High Court's order was justified in light of the legal principles governing Section 319 proceedings.

Held:

Explains that the case is essentially a matrimonial dispute, and the husband made vague allegations against the wife and her family members. The FIR and statements recorded during investigation did not disclose the names of the appellants or provide sufficient details to identify them. The court emphasizes that summoning additional accused under Section 319 requires more than a prima facie case, and there must be strong and cogent evidence. The judgment cites the importance of exercising this power sparingly and not in a casual manner. The High Court's order is set aside, and the trial court's decision to dismiss the application under Section 319 is restored.

Facts:

Tiruchanur village is a minor Inam village under the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956.

The entire land in Survey No. 234 of Tiruchanur village is classified as "Peddacheruvu Poramboke" (Tank Poramboke).

The Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984 notified Survey No. 234 as "Peddacheruvu Poramboke."

Issues:

Whether the land in Survey No. 234 is available for grant of ryotwari patta under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act.

Challenge to the Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984.

Held:

Per R. Banumathi, J.:

Tiruchanur village falls under the Inams Abolition Act, and the entire land in Survey No. 234 is classified as "Peddacheruvu Tank."

Communal government poramboke lands fall under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act, making them unavailable for ryotwari patta.

The Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984 was not challenged, and the High Court rightly declined to quash the District Collector's order.

Per Indira Banerjee, J. (Concurring):

The Inams Abolition Act aims to abolish Inam lands, and Section 2-A vests certain lands in the government.

The appellants did not challenge the Gazette Notification, and the decision was based on materials, not warranting interference.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the District Collector's order.

Facts:

The State acquired land for the construction of Satluz-Yamuna canal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The appellant, a landowner, contested the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO).

The Civil Court, on appeal, enhanced the compensation.

The High Court, in a lead appeal (Hari Singh's case), partly allowed appeals by landowners, enhancing compensation for lands in 9 villages, including Bhago Majra.

The appellant challenged this decision, seeking further enhancement.

Issues:

Whether the appellant is entitled to claim additional compensation for the land acquired.

Whether the High Court erred in determining the market value of the land in question.

Held:

The appellant failed to demonstrate that Courts below overlooked crucial evidence or that the High Court committed fundamental errors.

The High Court considered all aspects, including location, distance from Chandigarh, and land quality, in determining compensation rates for each village.

The appellant's argument for additional compensation for Bhago Majra was dismissed.

The High Court's approach, examining each village's potential from various angles, was deemed just and proper.

No grounds were found to further enhance compensation beyond the High Court's decision.

The appeal was dismissed.

FACTS:

Land oustees displaced due to the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project filed Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Tribunal issued directions for the rehabilitation of land oustees, criticizing the Railway Administration for selection processes and filling of vacancies.

ISSUES:

Validity of the Tribunal's directions regarding the rehabilitation of land oustees.

Preferential treatment for employment of land oustees in Group 'C' and 'D' posts in the Railways.

HELD:

Tribunal's directions found to be faulty; Railway Administration criticized for selection processes.

Policy for preferential treatment in employment subject to specific conditions, including fulfillment of qualifications and suitability.

Tribunal exceeded its authority by substituting its own directions for the government's policy.

Rejection of claims based on technicalities deemed inappropriate.

Directed re-verification of rejected claims, allowing fresh applications within three months, and coordinating with local administration for due verification.

Age relaxation of 15 years granted to applicants.

Appeals allowed, judgments of the High Court and Tribunal set aside.

Facts:

Respondent appointed as Assistant Teacher in 1994, promoted to Trained Graduate Teacher in 2007.

Granted Assured Career Progression (ACP) on April 25, 2008, with upgraded pay scale from August 10, 2006.

6th Central Pay Commission enforced on August 29, 2008, with Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

Respondent's pay revised on November 18, 2009, under Rules of 2008, but fixation disputed.

Issues:

Applicability of Rule 7 or Rule 11 for pay fixation under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

Discrepancy in the manner of pay fixation as per respondent's representation.

Held:

Provisions of Rule 11 are applicable since the respondent opted for revised pay scale from August 10, 2006, the date of ACP upgradation.

Rule 7 deals with the initial pay in the revised pay structure as per the 6th Central Pay Commission, while Rule 11 deals with pay fixation after January 1, 2006, when a government servant continues to draw pay in the existing scale.

Noteworthy that Note 2A of Rule 7, relied upon by appellants, is not applicable in cases of upgradation under ACP scheme, as was the situation in this case.

The decision in Union of India Vs. K.V. Rama Raju, (2018) 2 SCALE 239, is distinguishable, as it did not deal with the specific scenario of exercising the option from the date of upgradation under the ACP.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, and pay revision under Rule 11 is ordered. Arrears, if any, to be paid within three months.

FACTS:

The respondent, Bunty, participated in the selection process for the post of Constable in 2013.

During the selection process, a criminal case involving moral turpitude under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC was pending against Bunty.

Bunty was acquitted subsequently, with the judgment and order attaining finality.

The Screening Committee denied Bunty's appointment, citing reasons related to his involvement in the criminal case.

ISSUES:

Whether Bunty's acquittal was a clear exoneration or based on a benefit of the doubt.

The suitability of Bunty for the position of a Police Constable, considering the nature of the allegations and the Screening Committee's decision.

HELD:

The respondent participated in the selection process when the criminal case was pending, and he was subsequently acquitted. However, the acquittal was based on the benefit of the doubt, not a clear exoneration.

In cases of moral turpitude, especially involving serious offenses, mere acquittal on technical grounds does not automatically qualify an individual for a position in the disciplined police force.

The Screening Committee's decision to deem Bunty unfit for the role was appropriate, considering the serious nature of the allegations and the lack of a clear acquittal.

The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining a disciplined police force and the need for candidates with impeccable character.

The court refers to previous decisions, including Mehar Singh and Avtar Singh, supporting the Screening Committee's authority to assess fitness based on all relevant facts, even in cases of acquittal.

REFERRED CASES:

Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471

Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685

Joginder Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2015) 2 SCC 377

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591

Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration Vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797

Facts:

The respondent, Lehna Singh (original plaintiff), filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the appellants (original defendants), claiming ownership and possession of a disputed land. The defendants contested, asserting a will in their favor executed by the deceased Bhagwan Singh. The Trial Court found in favor of the plaintiff, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision. The High Court, in a second appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment and reinstated the Trial Court's decree.

Issues:

Jurisdiction of the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence in a second appeal.

Validity of the Will in favor of defendants.

Held:

The Trial Court held the Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances, while the First Appellate Court, through re-appreciation of evidence, deemed it genuine. The High Court, in a second appeal, exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence. The Court refers to the limitations under Section 100 CPC, emphasizing that the High Court's interference is only permissible if substantial questions of law are involved.( Para 13)

The High Court's interference with the First Appellate Court's findings on the Will, which were based on a proper appreciation of evidence, was unwarranted. The Court cites Kondiba Dagadu Kadam to assert that the High Court cannot substitute its opinion unless the findings are contrary to law or based on inadmissible evidence.( Para 15)

The substantial questions of law framed by the High Court are deemed inadequate and irrelevant. The Court reiterates the importance of adhering to the limits set by Section 100 CPC.( Para 15.1)

Quoting Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojappa, the Court emphasizes the duty to intervene when the High Court contravenes the limits prescribed by Section 100 CPC.( Para 16)

The appeal is allowed, the High Court's judgment is set aside, and the First Appellate Court's judgment is reinstated. The plaintiff's suit is dismissed.( Para 17)

Facts:

Respondent obtained a Shipment Policy valid until 31 July 2002.

Approval granted by ECGC for covering shipments to SICOREP.

Buyer's bank changed from Credit Lyonnais to BHCI.

BHCI released documents without buyer's acceptance, leading to non-payment.

First respondent unable to pay own banker (PNB), who claimed under its policy.

ECGC made provisional payment to PNB, later rejecting the first respondent's claim.

State Commission and National Commission ruled against ECGC, stating it admitted liability by honoring commitment to PNB.

ECGC appealed, claiming exclusion due to the default of the collecting bank.

Issues:

Whether ECGC is liable for the loss arising from the buyer's non-payment due to the change in the nominated bank.

Whether honoring the commitment to PNB under a different policy constitutes an admission of liability to the first respondent.

Held:

Court invokes Article 142, directing no recoveries from the first respondent.

Loss attributed to the buyer's actions, and no evidence of first respondent's complicity.

ECGC not liable under the exclusionary provision as the collecting bank defaulted.

Honoring commitment to PNB under a different policy doesn't imply liability to the first respondent.

Appeal allowed, setting aside the National Commission's judgment.

FACTS:

Jyoti Sharma committed suicide by consuming poison.

Dying declaration recorded stating harassment by the Respondent, alleging molestation and termination from employment.

Allegation of fraudulent loan in the name of the deceased and subsequent altercations.

ISSUES:

Validity of the charges framed against the Respondent.

High Court's decision to discharge the Respondent.

HELD:

The appeal arises from the High Court's judgment discharging the Respondent.

Charges were framed against the Respondent under Section 306 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Dying declaration points to harassment, molestation, and termination from employment by the Respondent.

Several complaints were filed by the deceased, including a recent one before her suicide.

Allegation of fraudulent loan in the name of the deceased and subsequent altercations between the Respondent and the deceased.

The High Court, in discharging the Respondent, relied on the absence of evidence regarding provocation, incitement, or encouragement for suicide.

Court refers to Amit Kapoor v Ramesh Chander, emphasizing limited revisional jurisdiction, stating that it should only be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a gross error.

Principles outlined for exercising revisional jurisdiction: no meticulous examination needed, interference only if there is a gross error, and the court is not to examine facts, evidence, and materials on record to determine sufficiency.

Refers to Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) to establish the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide, emphasizing the need for mens rea.

Cites Rajbir Singh v State of U.P., highlighting the purpose of framing charges is not to ascertain guilt but to establish a strong suspicion of the accused committing the offence.

The High Court's decision to discharge the accused was not justified; it ignored material emerging during the investigation.

Material indicates multiple complaints by the deceased, alleged fraudulent loan, and actions leading to harassment and termination.

The judgment clarifies that it doesn't affect the merits of the trial.

REFERRED CASES:

Amit Kapoor v Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460

Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605

Rajbir Singh v State of U.P., (2006) 4 SCC 51

Ramesh Kumar, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088

State of Rajasthan v Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198