Facts:

Beniram Gond, a member of a notified Scheduled Tribe, executed a sale deed of agricultural land in 1964 in favor of Dhaniram, a non-tribal.

Section 170B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was inserted in 1980, allowing reversion of land transferred fraudulently from a tribal member.

Legal proceedings initiated by Beniram's son under Section 170B resulted in the Collector's order reverting the land to Beniram.

Issues:

Validity of the order under Section 170B challenged by Dhaniram, leading to a writ petition dismissed by the High Court in 1987.

Subsequent suit by Dhaniram challenging the Collector's order, barred by Section 257 (L-1) introduced in 1995.

Held:

The High Court erred in allowing the suit challenging the Collector's order when a prior challenge was decided in 1987. The civil court cannot arrive at a conclusion contrary to the High Court's final judgment.

The appeal is allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the suit.

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:

The original plaintiff and his brother executed a registered deed of gift in favor of the appellant (original defendant) in 1981.

The appellant filed a partition suit in 2001, and the respondent (original plaintiff) was a party to it.

The respondent, after the death of his brother, filed a suit in 2003 challenging the gift deed, alleging it to be showy and sham.

The appellant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint, citing the bar of limitation.

Issues:

Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation.

Whether the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is justified.

Held:

The court observed that the plaintiff admitted to the execution of the gift deed in 1981, and for approximately 22 years, there was no challenge to its validity.

Despite being a party to the partition suit in 2001, the plaintiff alleged awareness of the gift deed only in 2003 when filing the present suit.

The court held that by clever drafting, the plaintiff sought to bring the suit within the limitation period, which, otherwise, was barred.

The absence of a prayer to set aside the gift deed was noted, indicating an attempt to avoid the bar of limitation.

Referring to various decisions, the court emphasized that if the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless, it should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11.

The court concluded that both the trial court and the High Court erred in not rejecting the plaint, and the suit was barred by the law of limitation.

The impugned orders were set aside, and the application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 was allowed. The plaint was rejected.

Facts:

The dispute involves a lease premises of a partnership firm named "Ramnath Anant Kesarkar" in Margao.

Appellant no. 1 and respondent nos. 1 & 3 are siblings.

Parents of the parties succeeded to the lease premises through a Deed of Partition dated 29.03.1976.

After the demise of the parents, the brother initiated Regular Inventory Proceedings in 2013, excluding the "lease premises" from the list of assets.

Appellants objected, asserting the right of a married daughter to succeed in the lease premises.

Issues:

Whether a married daughter has the right of succession in the lease premises under the Goa Rent Act, Portuguese Civil Code, and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012?

Whether the exclusion of the "lease premises" from the list of assets in the inventory proceedings is valid?

Held:

The courts below erred in relying on the Goa Rent Act, irrelevant to the succession issue.

Both the Portuguese Civil Code and the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, make no gender-based distinction regarding the right of succession.

Section 399 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, encompasses immovable assets, including leases.

Section 446 allows amendment of partition, even after it becomes final, rectifying mistakes in the list of assets.

The right of the appellants to challenge the exclusion of the "lease premises" persists, notwithstanding the final order.

The appeal succeeds; the impugned orders are quashed. Appellant no. 1, a married daughter, has the right of succession in the "lease premises," which should be included in the inventory proceedings. The final order of partition may be amended with the aid of Section 446 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012. No costs are awarded.

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

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:

The State of U.P. referred an industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the legality and correctness of the termination order of the appellant (workman).

The Industrial Tribunal awarded in favor of the appellant, directing reinstatement with back wages.

The employer filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the award.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Industrial Tribunal's award.

The appellant filed a review petition, which was also dismissed by the High Court.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's orders.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal, specifically regarding the continuous service of the appellant with the employer.

Held:

The Court found no merit in the appeals.

The main question was whether the appellant was in continuous service for one year with the employer, as required under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

The Court held that it cannot examine this factual question de novo, as it was a finding of fact already determined by the High Court.

The decision in Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Mahak Singh & Ors. was cited but deemed distinguishable on facts.

The High Court's order to not recover the substantial amount already paid to the appellant during the litigation was upheld.

The Court affirmed that proceedings under Section 17-B of the ID Act are independent and not dependent on the final order in the main proceedings.

The employer, even if successful in upholding the termination, cannot recover the amount paid during the proceedings.

The appeals were dismissed.