Facts:

The appellant's predecessor, Shri Bona Menezes, applied for occupancy rights over various parcels of land.

Landlord raised objections, specifically in relation to Survey No. 119/2A1, claiming it as 'Punja' land not leased to the applicant.

Issues:

Whether the land in Survey No. 119/2A1 qualifies as agricultural land under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961?

Whether the Land Tribunal's findings regarding possession and usage of the land were justified?

Held:

The High Court, on appeal, set aside the Land Tribunal's order, emphasizing that Punja land, if not brought under cultivation, cannot be classified as agricultural. The court also questioned the establishment of lawful tenancy and landlord-tenant relationship based on mere possession.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. It remanded the case for reconsideration, noting that the High Court seemed to have overlooked relevant aspects and legal definitions. The Court directed the High Court to decide the writ petition afresh, emphasizing the broad definition of "land" under Section 2(18) of the Act of 1961.

Facts: The appellant, Globe Ground India Employees Union, raised an industrial dispute over the closure of their establishment and retrenchment by M/s Globe Ground India. The issue was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government. The appellant claimed that the new company formed after closure, Bird Worldwide Flight Services Ltd., utilized the same equipment and retained most employees, alleging violation of labor laws.

Issues:

Whether the closure and retrenchment actions by M/s Globe Ground India were legal under the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant sought reinstatement and benefits for the retrenched workers.

Held:

The court examined the corporate structure, noting that the first respondent, Lufthansa German Airlines, had a subsidiary (Globe Ground Deutschland GmbH) holding shares in the second respondent (Globe Ground India Pvt. Ltd.). The appellant argued the first respondent's involvement based on corporate relationships.

Decision: The court held that, considering the limited scope of adjudication under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the first respondent was neither a necessary nor a proper party in answering the reference. The closure and retrenchment actions were found to be within legal bounds. The appeals were dismissed.

Facts:

The respondents allege that their father mortgaged the property for Rs. 2500 through a Deed (Ex.P-73) with a condition to repurchase within five years. The appellants argue that the transaction was a sale with a condition to repurchase. The trial court dismissed the suit, stating the debtor-creditor relationship wasn't established. The first Appellate Court reversed this decision, affirming that Ex.P-73 was a mortgage by conditional sale.

Issues:

Whether the document (Ex.P-73) should be classified as a "mortgage by conditional sale" or a "sale with a condition to repurchase."

Held:

By examining Ex.P-73, it's evident that the father of respondents borrowed Rs. 700 eight days before its execution, and this amount was adjusted from the total consideration of Rs. 2500. The intention of the parties was to terminate the debtor-creditor relationship, creating a vendor-vendee relationship. The document established a conditional sale with an option to repurchase within five years.

The mention of "borrowed a sum of Rs. 700" in the document is incidental. The recitals make it clear that the parties intended to end the debtor-creditor relationship and establish a vendor-vendee relationship. There is no mention of essential mortgage elements like interest rate or foreclosure in Ex.P-73.

The receipt Ex.P-69 cannot be relied upon as corroborative evidence of part payment. The burden of proving its genuineness was not discharged by the plaintiffs, and it cannot establish that Ex.P-73 is a "mortgage by conditional sale."

Despite the transaction and repurchase condition being in one document, Ex.P-73 does not fall within the proviso to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act. It is a sale with a condition to repurchase, and the respondents lost their right to repurchase due to non-payment within the stipulated period.

The appeals are allowed.

Facts:

The Cantonment Board, Meerut, and others issued notices under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, alleging unauthorized constructions by the respondents. The respondents filed writ petitions challenging these notices in the High Court.

Issues:

The authority of the appellants, and the validity of the notices. It also examined the failure to consider objections, the absence of reasons, and the stereo-typed orders by the appellate authority.

Held:

The High Court rejected jurisdictional challenges and the plea of not taking action within 12 months. However, it found procedural irregularities and lack of consideration for objections. The High Court quashed the notices but left it open for the appellants to initiate fresh proceedings.

Decision: The appeals were dismissed. The liberty granted by the High Court to initiate fresh proceedings was maintained. The appellants were directed to take fresh action in accordance with the Cantonment Act, 2006. The fresh show cause notice was to be in continuation of the earlier one, with a copy of the Inspection Report provided to the respondents.(Para 12)

Facts:

The State of Karnataka appealed a decision quashing part of a Memo dated 7.4.2010 related to the transfer of teachers in Higher Primary Schools under the 'Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan' Scheme. The teachers appointed in 2004-2005 were affected by a clause on 'mutual transfer' in the Memo.

Issues:

The validity of Clause 13 of the Office Memorandum dated 07.04.2010, specifically concerning 'mutual transfers' of teachers under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme, and whether it conflicted with the KCS (Regulation of Transfers of Teachers) Act, 2007.

Held:

The bench held that the SSA Scheme is an independent scheme, creating a hybrid category of higher primary schools. The provisions of the Act of 2007 and rules framed thereunder did not strictly govern these schools. The Office Memorandum, particularly Clause 13, dealing with mutual transfers, was deemed valid and not in violation of the Act and rules.

Decision: The Tribunal and the High Court's decisions were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The bench found no violation of the Act and rules by Clause 13 of the Office Memorandum dated 07.04.2010.

Facts:

The appellant, M/s. Diyas Mantra Lighting Private Limited, challenged the order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The dispute involved the valuation of imported electric decorative lightings, with allegations of undervaluation and evasion of customs duty.

Issues:

Whether the sequential application of Customs Valuation Rules was followed in the determination of the value of imported goods?

Whether the appellant's plea regarding the non-significance of the brand 'Diyas' and 'mAntra' was justified?

Held:

The Court observed a fundamental mistake in the implementation of the statutory Rules, emphasizing the necessity of sequential application. It questioned the authority's choice to ignore Rules 3 to 5 and directed a fresh assessment following the correct sequence. The Court clarified that all available pleas could be raised and addressed on merits in the subsequent proceedings.

Decision: The orders of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and CESTAT were set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh assessment adhering to the sequential application of Customs Valuation Rules.

Facts:

Appellant, Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj, a Scale II Officer at Bank of India, sanctioned loans later classified as Non-Performing Assets.

Procedural abnormalities in the loan process were identified, posing a potential loss of Rs. 70.32 lakh to the Bank.

Disciplinary proceedings ensued, leading to the appellant's removal from service.

Issues:

Whether the punishment of removal from service could be altered to compulsory retirement.

Parity in punishment concerning two other officers, Mr. R.K. Mishra and Mr. V.K. Srivastava, who faced compulsory retirement for similar losses.

Held:

The Court emphasized limited judicial review on the quantum of punishment, primarily within the domain of disciplinary authorities.

Parity in punishment must be based on identical charges and post-incident conduct, with absolute equality.

Financial implications, specifically the appellant's pension option, played a role in the decision.

Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, altering the appellant's punishment from "removal from service" to "compulsory retirement," citing the lack of financial difference and identical roles with other officers.

Facts:

The State of Bihar issued an advertisement on July 24, 1985, inviting applications for 40 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF). The appellants participated in the selection but were unsuccessful. Representations were made to appoint them against vacant posts beyond the advertised 40. The State appointed them on April 13, 1988, purportedly with reference to the 1985 advertisement. Further appointments occurred in 1987, 1990, 1992, and 1995. The proposal to regularize the appellants' services was approved in 2005.

Issues:

Determination of the legality of the appellants' appointment.

Seniority calculation concerning substantive appointments.

The regularisation proposal's impact on seniority.

Held:

Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules, 1953, dictates that seniority is determined with reference to the date of substantive appointment. The appellants secured their appointments through representations, rendering them illegal and fortuitous.

The recruitment initiated in 1985 culminated with the exhaustion of the Merit List in 1987. No further appointments could be made from it. The appellants' appointments were illegal and contrary to the statutory rules.

The appellants, through persistent lobbying, secured appointments against the 1985 Advertisement, which was illegal and in violation of the rules.

A proposal to regularize their services was made, considering their 17 years of service. The irregularity of their 1988 appointments was acknowledged in the proposal.

The High Court rightly dismissed writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals, holding that seniority is reckoned from the date of regularization in 2005, not from the illegal appointment in 1988.

Facts:

The appellant appealed against the judgment of the Sikkim High Court that enhanced his sentence from seven years to ten years under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The case originated from an incident where the appellant was convicted of attempting to sexually assault a minor girl, and the Special Judge sentenced him to seven years.

Issues:

Whether the High Court had the authority to enhance the sentence in an appeal challenging the conviction.

Whether the procedure prescribed under Section 386 proviso was followed, specifically regarding notice for enhancement.

Held:

The High Court's enhancement of the sentence from seven years to ten years was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The judgment was set aside to the extent of the enhancement. The sentence awarded by the Special Judge was maintained.

Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, affirming the conviction but setting aside the enhancement of the sentence. The Special Judge's sentence of seven years under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and one month under Section 341 of IPC was upheld.