Facts:

The dispute arose over a fair price shop at Gram Panchayat Ambaghat, Block Godalamau, Tehsil Mishrit District Sitapur (UP).

The appellant, Meera Mishra, and respondent No. 1, Satish Kumar, both claimed rights to operate the shop.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mishrit, canceled Satish Kumar's license for the fair price shop, leading to appeals which were dismissed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division.

Satish Kumar then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow, challenging the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Commissioner.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was correct in allowing Satish Kumar's writ petition and setting aside the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Commissioner.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments of both parties and reviewing the records of the case, held as follows:

The High Court erred in not addressing the matter on merits and solely focusing on the Commissioner's order being inadequately reasoned (Paragraph 12).

The parties were entitled to a decision on merits by the Appellate Court (Commissioner) and then by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction (Paragraph 13).

As a result, the Supreme Court decided to remand the case to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits (Paragraph 14).

Both parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner on December 14, 2018, to submit a copy of the Supreme Court's order (Paragraph 16).

The Commissioner was instructed to hear the appeals afresh, considering all issues raised in the case, and to pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of appearance of the parties (Paragraph 17).

Facts:

The appellant participated in an auction conducted by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital, in 1990 for the residential quarter No. 6.

Despite claiming to be the highest bidder and occupying quarter No. 6 since June 1990, the appellant did not receive a sale deed from the Nagar Palika.

Instead, the Nagar Palika decided to sell quarter No. 6 along with other quarters through public auction in 2001.

Legal proceedings ensued, leading to a writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court at Nainital, which was dismissed.

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

Issues:

Whether the appellant's possession of quarter No. 6 was legal.

Whether the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's appeal was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's possession of quarter No. 6 was unauthorized and amounted to trespassing. Several reasons supported this conclusion:

Lack of an allotment letter issued to the appellant during the 1990 auction.

Failure to produce any acceptance letter from the Nagar Palika indicating acceptance of the bid.

Inability to demonstrate the amount paid towards the sale/auction price for quarter No. 6.

Absence of a privity of contract between the appellant and the Nagar Palika justifying his entry into quarter No. 6.

Lack of any legal document or title executed by the Nagar Palika in the appellant's favor before occupying quarter No. 6.

The Court emphasized the legal principle that possession of immovable property must be legitimate, either as an owner, lawful tenant, or with the express consent of the true owner. Since the appellant failed to establish any of these legal grounds for possession, his occupation was deemed unauthorized.

Consequently, the Court ordered the appellant to vacate quarter No. 6 within three months and pay damages to the Nagar Palika for wrongful use and occupation since June 1990. The damages were set at Rs. 3000 per month from June 1990 until the appellant vacates the premises.

Failure to comply with the Court's order would result in further legal action by the Nagar Palika against the appellant. Thus, the appeal was finally disposed of in accordance with these directions.

Facts:

Manju Saxena, the Appellant, was employed by HSBC Bank as a "Lady Confidential Secretary" since 01.04.1986.

She was later promoted to "Senior Confidential Secretary" but her position became redundant in May 2005.

Despite being offered four alternative positions within the same pay scale, Saxena declined them.

Consequently, HSBC Bank terminated her services on 01.10.2005, offering a severance package and compensation.

Saxena raised an industrial dispute seeking enhancement of the severance package.

Various legal proceedings ensued, including appeals and review petitions.

Issues:

Whether Saxena's refusal to accept alternative positions constituted abandonment of her job?

Whether she was entitled to an enhanced severance package and waiver of her outstanding housing loan?

Held:

Saxena's refusal of alternative positions constituted abandonment of her job, making her ineligible for further benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This was in accordance with established precedents such as The Buckingham & Carnatic Co. Ltd. vs. Venkatiah and others, (1964) 4 SCR 265.

The amounts received by Saxena during the legal proceedings constituted a final settlement of her claims. Thus, her appeals for an enhanced severance package and waiver of her housing loan were dismissed.

The Civil Appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The State of Karnataka acquired land for the expansion of an industrial estate in Tahsil Hubli under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

The landowners disputed the compensation amount and sought a reference to the Civil Court.

The Reference Court awarded compensation at a higher rate than initially determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

Both parties appealed to the High Court, which reduced the compensation rate.

The landowners appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the compensation rate determined by the Reference Court.

Whether the market value of the land was correctly determined.

Held:

The market rate determined by the Reference Court was proper and should have been upheld by the High Court.

There was sufficient evidence to establish the potentiality and market value of the land.

The market value of the land was fixed at Rs. 18,900/- per Gunta after deducting 10% towards development charges .

The respondents were directed to recalculate the compensation amount based on the Supreme Court's determination and pay the landowners within three months.

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

Facts:

The appellant, Kanubhai Bhagvanbhai Nayak, appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, which affirmed his conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC.

The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal without adequately discussing the issues raised or properly appreciating the evidence.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court seeking a review of the High Court's decision.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's criminal appeal without proper discussion of the issues and appreciation of evidence.

Whether the appellant's right to a fair trial and appellate review was violated due to the High Court's inadequate judgment.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's criminal appeal without thorough discussion and appreciation of evidence was improper. The Bench emphasized the duty of the appellate court to examine evidence and issues raised by the parties before arriving at a decision.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

Facts:

The appellants filed an appeal against the High Court's order dated September 5, 2018, which dismissed their application under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The appellants sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them under Section 498A of the IPC in Complaint Case No. 537/2018.

The proceedings were pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, JP Nagar.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants' application under Section 482 of the CrPC without adequately considering the factual background of the case.

Held:

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had failed to address the factual matrix of the case before dismissing the appellants' application.

The Court noted that the High Court did not provide essential details such as the nature of the complaint, the allegations made, and the grounds for challenging the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Justice Sapre, delivering the judgment, emphasized the importance of outlining the factual background of the case before applying legal principles. Without understanding the facts, it becomes difficult to assess the validity of the legal arguments presented.

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration.

The High Court was directed to examine the application afresh on its merits after issuing notice to the respondents.

The Supreme Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case itself, leaving it to the High Court to decide uninfluenced by any observations made in the Supreme Court's order.

Facts:

The appellants filed an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which dismissed their application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The application sought to quash proceedings in a complaint case filed against them under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants' application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments and examining the record, held that the High Court erred in its judgment by failing to discuss the factual matrix of the case adequately. The High Court focused solely on legal principles without considering the specifics of the case. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to reconsider the appellants' application on its merits, taking into account the observations made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case itself, as its primary concern was the procedural lapse in the High Court's judgment.

Facts:

Appellant entered into an agreement to sell property with the respondent.

Despite the agreement, possession of the property was not transferred.

Appellant filed for registration of a complaint when the transaction wasn't completed.

Economic Crime Cell concluded the dispute was civil.

FIR was registered under various sections of IPC.

Chargesheet filed, and charges framed against the respondent.

High Court quashed proceedings citing lack of criminal intent.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to quash proceedings was justified.

Whether the allegations made in the FIR establish criminal intent.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings. The Court noted crucial aspects emerging during the investigation, suggesting potential criminal intent on the part of the accused. It emphasized that the decision to quash criminal proceedings should not be taken lightly, especially after charges have been framed and the trial has commenced.

The Court reinstated the criminal proceedings, clarifying that its decision did not imply an opinion on the merits of the accusations, as they are to be determined through the trial process. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

Facts:

The case involves the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) as the appellant and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and others as respondents. The dispute centers around the determination and fixation of tariff for electricity and specifically focuses on the computation of interest on capital under Section 38 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948.

Issues:

The applicability of Section 38 of the DVC Act concerning interest on capital.

Whether interest due from DVC on the capital employed by participating governments, ploughed back into the capital, should be considered under Section 38 of the DVC Act.

The complaint raised by the appellant regarding the calculation of interest on the basis of cumulative depreciation reducing the loan component.

Held:

The Appellate Tribunal noted the retention and ploughing back of interest due from DVC on the capital employed by participating governments. While initially providing for this under Section 38 of the DVC Act, the Tribunal later directed its application under the same section. However, the appellant failed to adequately raise this aspect, and the particulars were not provided.

The complaint raised by the appellant primarily concerned the calculation of interest based on cumulative depreciation reducing the loan component, which was deemed unsustainable. However, the respondents argued that this contention was not raised in the initial litigation before the appellate tribunal.

The Court observed that the procedure for calculating interest, including the consideration of cumulative depreciation, had been established in previous litigation and had become final. Therefore, the appellant could not raise the same issue in the subsequent litigation.

Judicial precedents related to depreciation rates for power companies were discussed, but it was concluded that they did not support the appellant's argument.

Ultimately, the Court ruled against the appellant, holding that they were not entitled to consider the point regarding the calculation of interest on the loan.

Decision: The Court ruled against the appellant, denying their request for reconsideration of the calculation of interest on the loan based on cumulative depreciation.