Facts:

The petitioner, E. Sivakumar, challenged a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated April 26, 2018, in Writ Petition No. 19335 of 2017.

The High Court had issued a writ of mandamus to transfer the investigation of a criminal case concerning the illegal manufacture and sale of Gutkha and Pan Masala containing Tobacco and/or Nicotine to the CBI.

The petitioner, named as an accused in the FIR, raised objections regarding previous decisions of the Coordinate Bench, lack of opportunity of hearing, absence of special circumstances for transferring the investigation to the CBI, and alleged political motivation behind the writ petition.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI was justified.

Whether the petitioner's objections regarding previous decisions, lack of opportunity of hearing, absence of special circumstances, and alleged political motivation were valid.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI, emphasizing the importance of a fair and impartial investigation, especially in cases involving public interest.

The Court dismissed the petitioner's objections, stating that the High Court had adequately considered all aspects of the matter before transferring the investigation.

The argument that previous decisions of the Coordinate Bench were disregarded was rejected, as the High Court had distinguished those decisions and provided reasoning for its decision.

The objection regarding lack of opportunity of hearing was dismissed, as the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, clarifying that transferring the investigation to the CBI did not reflect negatively on the efficiency of the State Vigilance Commission's investigation.

Facts:

The appellant, Ms. X, appealed against the grant of bail to the second respondent, a film producer accused of sexual exploitation and rape.

The complainant alleged that the accused had made false promises of marriage and had forced himself upon her on multiple occasions.

The High Court had granted bail to the accused considering various factors including the consensual nature of the relationship, lapse of time between the alleged incidents and filing of the complaint, and the medical condition of the accused.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused.

Whether there are any supervening circumstances which would warrant the cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant bail but ordered an enhancement of the personal bond amount to Rs. 10 lakhs. The Court found no supervening circumstances justifying bail cancellation. The lodging of the second FIR shortly after the grant of bail lacked detail and clarity and thus was not sufficient to warrant cancellation.

The Court emphasized the distinction between rejection of bail and cancellation of bail, stating that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for the latter. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of with the modified condition regarding the personal bond.

Facts:

The case involved the revival of Super Bazar, monitored by the Supreme Court over several years.

M/s Writers and Publisher Pvt. Ltd. (WPL) sought a refund of their investment in the revival.

A court order dated 29 March 2016 directed the refund of WPL's entire investment with interest at 6% per annum, subject to deduction of profits made during the arrangement.

Disputes arose regarding the implementation of this order, particularly the disallowance of interest on share capital and the adjustment of losses incurred by Super Bazar.

Issues:

Whether the interpretation of the court's earlier order regarding the refund of WPL's investment was correct.

Whether the Official Liquidator (OL) had violated any part of the court's directions.

Held:

The court held that interest at 6% per annum should be allowed on WPL's entire investment, including share capital. It emphasized that the order envisaged an exit for WPL and directed deduction of profits earned, not adjustment of losses incurred.

The court disposed of the contempt petition against the OL, finding that the OL had acted in accordance with the court's directions.

All concerned parties were directed to act in accordance with the court's interpretation of the earlier directions.

Facts:

Kiran Pal Singh, the appellant, was elected as the Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat Vikash Khand Gulawati, District Bulandshahr, in 2015. Some members of the panchayat initiated a no-confidence motion against him under Section 15(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961. The District Magistrate/Collector issued a notice to convene a meeting of the panchayat for consideration of the motion. Subsequently, the no-confidence motion was passed by 32 votes against the appellant.

Issues:

The appellant challenged the validity of the no-confidence motion before the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court, arguing that the second notice of no-confidence motion was impermissible under Section 15(12) of the Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the High Court. The Court held that the prohibition under Section 15(12) would only apply if the conditions precedent specified in the provision were satisfied, namely, if the motion was not carried out as per the provisions of Section 15 or if the meeting could not be held for want of quorum. Since neither of these conditions were met in the present case, the prohibition under Section 15(12) did not apply.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of democratic decentralization and stability in rural governance, highlighting provisions in the Act that ensure the stability of local governance structures while also providing mechanisms for accountability and removal of office bearers when necessary.

Facts:

The Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Association challenged a judgment of the High Court of Kerala, which denied their claim for parity in retirement age with Public Prosecutors.

The appellant argued that Assistant Public Prosecutors should retire at 60, similar to Public Prosecutors, as their duties and functions were similar.

The respondent state contended that the appointment processes and service conditions of Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors were distinct, with Assistant Public Prosecutors being government employees entitled to service benefits, including pension, while Public Prosecutors were appointed by the government for fixed terms and were not entitled to such benefits.

Issues:

Whether Assistant Public Prosecutors are entitled to parity in retirement age with Public Prosecutors.

Whether the claim for parity creates anomalies or discrimination among government employees.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that there was no infirmity in the High Court's decision rejecting the claim for parity in retirement age between Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors. The Court emphasized the qualitative differences in appointment processes and service conditions between the two positions. Assistant Public Prosecutors were appointed through competitive examinations and were government employees entitled to service benefits, while Public Prosecutors were appointed by the government for fixed terms and were not considered government employees.

Regarding the alternative plea to forego pension for extended service till 60 years, the Court declined to issue such a direction to the State Government, stating it could create anomalies and discrimination among government employees. However, it left the decision to the State Government, allowing the appellant to make representations for consideration.

The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

Facts:

The deceased's legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, alleging that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident involving a truck owned by the appellant. The insurance company opposed the claim on grounds that the vehicle was driven without a valid permit and other breaches of the insurance policy.

Issues:

Whether the vehicle involved in the accident had a valid permit at the time of the accident.

Whether the insurance company can be held liable for the accident under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the insurance company cannot be held liable due to the absence of a valid permit for the vehicle at the time of the accident. It emphasized that the exceptions carved out in Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be equated with minor breaches such as absence of a license or carrying more passengers.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the directions for the insurer to pay compensation with the right to recover from the owner and driver.

Facts:

Dispute over a flat mortgaged to the State Bank of India (SBI) by the directors of M/S. Allwyn Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 contested the mortgage claiming rights over the property based on a Memorandum of Understanding dated March 13, 2011.

Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) upheld the validity of the mortgage in favor of SBI, rejecting the claims of respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

High Court directed respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to approach the appropriate forum for adjudication of their claims, granting them eight weeks to do so.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's direction for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to approach a different forum was valid under the SARFAESI Act.

Validity of the High Court's direction for SBI to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs in an interest-earning deposit.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that under the SARFAESI Act, civil courts are barred from entertaining suits or proceedings related to matters within the jurisdiction of DRT or DRAT. Therefore, the High Court's direction for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to approach a different forum was erroneous.

The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for reconsideration based on merits, while also overturning the direction for SBI to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs. Additionally, the Court urged the High Court to expedite the proceedings, aiming for a resolution by the end of July 2018.

Facts:

The retirees of the United Bank of India raised concerns regarding the differentiation in dearness relief based on the retirement dates of pensioners. They contended that denying full dearness relief to retirees before November 1, 2002, was unjustified. The High Court ordered the appellant bank to provide dearness relief to all pensioners at the same rate.

Issues:

Whether the differentiation in dearness relief rates between pre-November 2002 and post-November 2002 retirees was justified under the pension regulations.

Held:

The appellate court highlighted the distinct parameters governing each class of retirees (pre-November 2002 and post-November 2002) under the pension regulations.

It was clarified that the conferral of benefits followed different formulas and rates for the two classes of retirees, making it impractical to adopt a flat rate.

The court explained the rates and tapering formulas used for calculating dearness relief under Appendix II to the Pension Regulations.

It justified the differing rates by stating that the tapering formula aimed to provide larger benefits to retirees with lower basic pensions, gradually tapering down as the pension amount increased.

The court emphasized that each class of retirees was distinct and could not be treated as a homogeneous group, making it difficult to apply a uniform rate.

It noted that altering the established formulas or rates would render the entire scheme unworkable.

The court held that discontinuation of the tapering formula by the Reserve Bank of India did not automatically entitle pre-November 2002 retirees to benefits at the same rate as post-November 2002 retirees.

Facts:

The appellants filed writ petitions against Bank of Baroda, which were initially allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court but overturned by a Division Bench relying on a previous judgment. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in a related case.

Issues:

Whether the decision of the Division Bench in overturning the Single Judge's judgment was valid and whether it should be affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Held:

The Court held that the decision of the Division Bench in overturning the Single Judge's judgment was valid, and it was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The appeals were dismissed in accordance with the judgment rendered in a related case, Union Bank of India v. United Bank of India Retirees' Welfare Associations and others.