Facts:

The case revolved around disputes arising from a development agreement dated 03.06.1993 between the appellants and the complainant, Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. The appellants were accused of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC for allegedly retaining a sum of Rs. One crore advanced by the complainant. The dispute primarily concerned contractual obligations and ownership of the property.

Issues:

Whether the dispute between the parties constituted a criminal offense under Section 406 IPC or a civil dispute?

Whether the FIR and charge sheet filed against the appellants should be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC?

Held:

The court quashed the FIR and charge sheet against the appellants, emphasizing that the dispute was civil in nature and did not constitute a criminal offense. It found that the amount in question was paid as a deposit under the development agreement and was subject to specific conditions regarding its refund. The court held that there was no prima facie case of criminal breach of trust against the appellants and characterized the criminal proceedings as mala fide and intended to harass them.

The court emphasized the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. It held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appellants' petition under Section 482 of the CrPC and emphasized the need to prevent criminal proceedings from being misused as a tool for harassment.

Facts:

P.E.C. Limited chartered MV "Rubin Halycon" from Austbulk Shipping Sdn Bhd for transportation of chickpeas from Australia to India. Disputes arose regarding demurrage charges, leading to arbitration.

Issues:

Validity of the arbitration agreement.

Interpretation of Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the production of documents for enforcement.

Effect of non-signing of the Charter Party by P.E.C. Limited on the arbitration agreement.

Held:

The arbitration agreement between the parties was found to be valid, even though P.E.C. Limited did not sign the Charter Party.

The interpretation of Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the production of documents for enforcement was that the word "shall" should be read as "may", allowing flexibility in the production of documents.

Non-signing of the Charter Party by P.E.C. Limited did not invalidate the arbitration agreement, as it could be inferred from correspondence and conduct between the parties.

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, dismissing P.E.C. Limited's appeal and ordering the payment of the awarded amount to Austbulk Shipping Sdn Bhd.

Facts:

The complainant filed an FIR alleging abduction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act against Natuji Bachuji Thakor.

During the trial, an application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C to proceed against additional accused (appellants) based on the victim's statement.

The trial court rejected the application, suspecting mala fide intentions behind naming the appellants.

The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the trial court's order and directing to proceed against the appellants.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court's order rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C?

What is the standard for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C?

Held and Decision: The Supreme Court held that:

The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and only when circumstances warrant it.

The threshold for invoking this power is more than establishing a prima facie case but falls short of satisfaction to the extent that unrebutted evidence would lead to conviction.

The evidence on record, including statements of the victim and her mother, lacked sufficient substance to implicate the appellants in the offence under the POCSO Act.

The High Court erred in setting aside the trial court's order without providing sufficient reasons for summoning the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.

Facts:

The case involves allegations of fake encounters and extra-judicial executions by Manipur Police and Armed Forces. The Supreme Court previously directed investigations by the CBI into these allegations. Subsequently, police personnel from Manipur Police filed writ petitions seeking to quash certain oral observations made by the court and requested recusal of the bench from hearing the case.

Issues:

Whether the bench should recuse itself from hearing the case due to alleged bias or violation of rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Held:

The court dismissed the recusal petitions, finding no merit in them. It emphasized the need for fair investigations by the CBI and integrity in the judicial process. The court clarified that its observations during the continuing mandamus proceedings were not intended to compromise the independence, integrity, and fairness of the investigations or the judiciary.

The court held that there was no reason for the petitioners to doubt the fairness of the investigations or the judiciary. It reaffirmed the importance of maintaining institutional integrity and dismissed the recusal petitions.

The court also emphasized the role of continuing mandamus in ensuring fair investigations and judicial independence. It stated that any observations made during such proceedings should not be construed as compromising the integrity of the investigative process. We see no merit in these applications and they are accordingly dismissed.

Facts:

The case pertains to alleged illegalities in the mining lease of Sarda Mines Private Limited (SMPL) highlighted by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).

SMPL was granted permission in 1999 to extract iron ore and its mining lease was renewed in 2001.

Environmental clearance was granted in 2004 for the expansion of production from 1.5 LTPA to 4.0 MTPA.

Issues:

Validity of the environmental clearance granted to SMPL.

Legality of iron ore extraction by SMPL without/in excess of the environmental clearance.

Held:

The environmental clearance cannot have retrospective effect and is operational from the date it is granted. SMPL cannot claim retrospective benefit from the date of mining lease renewal.

The environmental clearance was granted for extraction of iron ore ROM, not specifically for iron ore (lump) as argued by SMPL.

The extraction of iron ore ROM inherently includes the extraction of iron ore (lump) as a by-product. SMPL cannot claim exclusive rights to extract iron ore (lump) without adhering to environmental clearance limitations.

The Central Empowered Committee is directed to reassess the quantum of excessive or illegal mining conducted by SMPL and determine the penalty accordingly, considering all relevant records provided by SMPL and concerned authorities. The substantive applications are disposed of to the above extent and in terms of the above directions.

Facts:

The case revolves around the elections conducted by the State Bar Council of M.P. On June 29, 2014, a meeting was held where a Chairman was elected. Subsequently, an election was conducted to choose the representative member of the State Bar Council for the Bar Council of India ('BCI'). However, objections were raised regarding the validity of these elections. Special meetings were convened on July 16, 2014, and July 19, 2014, to address the disputes arising from the election process. On August 2, 2014, another election was held, resulting in Pratap Mehta ('PM') being declared as the representative member of the BCI.

Issues:

The procedural compliance of the elections conducted by the State Bar Council, specifically regarding the issuance of notice and agenda as required by the Bar Council of India Rules.

Held:

The court analyzed Rule 7 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which stipulates the requirement for notice and agenda to be issued by the Secretary of the State Bar Council for the election of a member to the Bar Council of India. The court observed that the notices for the special meetings held on July 16, 2014, and July 19, 2014, did not contain agendas for fresh elections. It was noted that the agenda issued for the meeting on June 29, 2014, did not cover the subsequent reconvened meeting where further elections were conducted. Consequently, the elections held on June 29, 2014, and August 2, 2014, were deemed invalid due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements.

Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the decision to conduct a fresh election for the representative member of the State Bar Council in the Bar Council of India. It emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and proper procedural norms in conducting elections within the legal framework.

Facts:

Mallikarjuna, an employee of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, died while on duty due to a heart attack.

His wife, Sujatha, filed a claim petition seeking compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarded compensation to Sujatha, which the employer appealed against in the High Court and later in the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the appeal involved substantial questions of law.

Grant of interest on the awarded amount and the applicable date for such interest.

Held and Decision:

The Court held that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law and upheld the Commissioner's order. It clarified that findings of fact by the lower courts are binding unless found to be perverse or arbitrary. The Court modified the Commissioner's order regarding the grant of interest, stating that it accrues from the date of the accident, not the adjudication of the claim.

Therefore, interest was awarded to Sujatha from the date of the accident, i.e., 06.04.1999. The Court directed the Commissioner to calculate the total amount payable by the appellant to Sujatha, including the awarded sum and interest, and instructed the appellant to deposit the same within one month for payment to Sujatha. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of.

Facts:

The appellant, Management of Sri Ramnarayan Mills Ltd., sought permission to add "break in service" as a new ground for punishment in Clause 16 of the Chapter of Punishment in Certified Standing Orders.

The appellant's application was initially granted by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, but it was challenged by the Workers' Union and subsequently rejected by the Labour Court, the Single Judge, and the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras.

Issues:

Whether the Courts below were justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant to add "break in service" as a ground for punishment in Certified Standing Orders.

Held:

The Division Bench rightly concluded that "break in service" cannot be allowed as a ground for punishment in Certified Standing Orders for several reasons.

Firstly, the existing grounds specified in Clause 16 were deemed sufficient to address employee misconduct.

Secondly, permitting "break in service" as a ground for punishment could potentially be misused by employers to the detriment of employees' interests.

Thirdly, such a provision could conflict with the Payment of Gratuity Act, impacting employees' entitlement to gratuity.

Fourthly, allowing "break in service" as a ground for punishment would defeat the very object of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which is a beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of employees.

Therefore, the Division Bench upheld the decision to reject the appellant's application, finding no merit in the appeal.

Facts:

The Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) was granted lease of land for the construction of a cricket stadium, along with additional land for a club house and a hotel for commercial purposes.

Two FIRs were filed against the appellants (HPCA and others) alleging illegal grant of land lease, invoking various sections of the IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act, and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

Issues:

Whether there exists sufficient grounds to quash the FIRs against the appellants, considering the allegations of illegal land lease and construction activities.

Held:

The court noted that the lease for the cricket stadium was granted at a nominal rental as per the Himachal Pradesh Lease Rules, 1993, which was not contrary to law. The lease for commercial activities was also done in accordance with Lease Rules, 2011.

The court observed that while several senior government officials involved in the land lease were not charged or prosecuted, junior officers were made scapegoats. This indicated bias in the prosecution and raised doubts about the fairness of the case.

The court emphasized that there was no criminal act on the part of the appellants, especially considering that the officers involved in the decision-making process were not prosecuted. The conversion of the cricket association into a non-profit company was done as per the mandate of the BCCI.

The court criticized the High Court for dismissing the petition without thorough examination, emphasizing the need for caution in exercising judicial powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Based on the above analysis, the Supreme Court quashed the FIRs against the appellants, concluding that no criminal case was made out against them.