Facts:

Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed.

Trial court dismissed the suit, upheld by the first appellate court and the High Court.

Parties reached a compromise during the legal proceedings, leading to the disposal of the second appeal.

One defendant challenged the compromise, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.

High Court proceeded to decide the second appeal on its merits without thoroughly examining the compromise's genuineness and legality.

Issues:

Interpretation of the Supreme Court's remand order.

Examination of the genuineness and legality of the compromise petition.

Proper procedural steps to be followed in dealing with the compromise petition.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court erred in not considering the genuineness and legality of the compromise petition as directed by the remand order. The failure to do so caused prejudice to the parties' rights. Consequently, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the High Court with specific directions. The High Court was instructed to reconsider the genuineness of the compromise and, if necessary, to refer the matter to the trial court for recording evidence.

Depending on the determination of the legality of the compromise, the second appeal would either be disposed of accordingly or heard on its merits. The Supreme Court urged the High Court to expedite the process and dispose of the matter within six months.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Jharkhand, which upheld the reinstatement of 37 workmen with full back wages by setting aside their dismissal orders for contravening Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issues:

Whether the lower courts were justified in awarding full back wages to the workmen after setting aside their dismissal orders.

Whether the principles established in previous cases regarding the awarding of back wages were properly applied in the present case.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the decision of the lower courts. It was held that back wages cannot be awarded as a matter of right to the workmen solely based on setting aside their dismissal orders. The workmen must demonstrate with evidence that they were not gainfully employed during the period of dismissal. The employer also has the opportunity to prove otherwise.

The court awarded 50% of the total back wages to the workmen, considering the circumstances of the case and aiming to achieve substantial justice. This decision was made under the powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit against the respondents (defendants) seeking various reliefs including a declaration of title, permanent injunction, and possession of the disputed property.

The respondents contested the suit, arguing that it was barred by limitation.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the suit was filed within the applicable limitation period.

However, the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the suit was indeed barred by limitation.

Issues:

Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation.

Interpretation of Article 65 of the Limitation Act in the context of the facts of the case.

Held:

The plaintiffs filed the civil suit within 12 years from the date of the attachment order dated 23.12.1966, which was issued during proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC.

The cause of action for the plaintiffs arose when the defendants asserted their rights over the property during the Section 145 CrPC proceedings, leading to the attachment order.

Therefore, the suit was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

The plaintiffs had rightly filed the suit for declaration and possession in response to the defendants' assertions of rights over the property.

The High Court erred in its interpretation of the law regarding limitation, and its judgment on the question of limitation is legally unsustainable.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment on the question of limitation, and restored the Trial Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Facts:

The appellant was convicted under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing her acquittal by the trial court.

The incident occurred on 27th March 2006, resulting in the death of two individuals and injuries to another.

Witness testimonies, particularly that of the injured witness (PW2) and the appellant's daughter (PW4), played a crucial role in establishing the appellant's guilt.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's conviction under Sections 302/307/34 IPC was justified.

Whether differential treatment in sentencing the appellant compared to other co-accused was warranted.

Held:

The credibility of witnesses, including PW2 and PW4, was emphasized. Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies in their testimonies were considered insignificant.

The injured witness's testimony was deemed reliable despite her young age and emotional distress during cross-examination.

The court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 302/307/34 IPC, considering the corroborative evidence provided by PW4 and the injured witness (PW2).

The principle of proportionality in sentencing was applied, and differential treatment of the appellant compared to other co-accused was deemed unjustified.

The direction to deny remission to the appellant for twenty-five years was set aside.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of setting aside the direction for denial of remission to the appellant for twenty-five years.

Facts:

The appellant, Meena Verma, was appointed as a part-time female member in the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The second respondent challenged this appointment through a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, alleging discrimination.

The High Court quashed Meena Verma's appointment and directed the Commission to reconsider the appointment of the writ petitioner.

Issues:

Whether the State Government's appointment of Meena Verma was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the Selection Committee's recommendation was disregarded in making the appointment.

Held:

The Court held: "In the absence of any Rule or any executive instruction, when the Committee had drawn a panel on the basis of performance and placed the candidates in seriatim on the basis of the said performance, we are disposed to think that the High Court correctly expressed the opinion that the addition of public experience was uncalled for."

Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash Meena Verma's appointment, finding no merit in her appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Facts:

The case pertains to a dispute involving disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The encroachment in question was not directly by the candidate herself but by her husband and father-in-law.

Issues:

Whether the disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) is applicable when the encroachment is by individuals associated with the candidate rather than the candidate herself.

The scope of interpretation regarding the term "person" in section 14(1)(j-3) and its relevance to encroachment.

Held:

The court, after considering the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, including Sections 10, 11, and 53, emphasized the duty of elected Panchayat members to address encroachments on government or public land.

The term "person" in Section 14(1)(j-3) should not be narrowly construed, as it would render the issue of encroachment redundant. The legislative intent is to address encroachment strictly, with the Panchayat having the power to remove such encroachments.

Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and held that a candidate sharing an encroached property and continuing to reside there should be considered disqualified under section 14(1)(j-3). This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to prevent conflicts of interest and protect public properties.

Facts:

The deceased was involved in a fatal accident while riding his motorcycle.

His family filed a claim petition seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation, which was later appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The High Court enhanced the compensation, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court by the Insurance Company.

Issues:

Assessment of compensation in a fatal accident case under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Validity of the High Court's enhancement of compensation.

Determination of the deceased's dependents and their entitlement to compensation.

Held:

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's decision regarding the percentage of future prospects, reducing it to 40% instead of 50%.

The deduction from the deceased's income at 1/3rd was upheld, considering the circumstances of the family.

The Court affirmed the High Court's decision on the assessment of the deceased's income and the status of his dependents.

Compensation under the heads of Loss of Estate and Loss of Filial Consortium, not awarded by the lower courts, were granted by the Supreme Court.

The total compensation awarded was revised, and the Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay it.

The appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court in the terms mentioned in the judgment.

Facts:

The case revolved around the directives issued in Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of U.P. and Another, [2017] 9 SCR 529, concerning matrimonial disputes, specifically related to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Issues:

Whether the directions issued in the Rajesh Sharma case regarding Section 498-A of IPC required reconsideration.

The permissibility and legality of various directives issued in the Rajesh Sharma case.

Held:

The Court examined the directives issued in Rajesh Sharma and found that certain directions, such as the constitution of Family Welfare Committees and their powers, were impermissible as they extended beyond the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Regarding settlement of cases, the Court clarified that settlements in non-compoundable criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, with parties approaching the High Court for such matters.

The Court directed that complaints under Section 498-A IPC should be investigated by designated officers trained in accordance with Supreme Court principles on arrests.

Certain protective measures, such as Red Corner Notices, clubbing of cases, and bail conditions, were deemed appropriate and in line with legal provisions.

Settlements should be approached under Section 482 of the CrPC, with the High Court disposing of such matters in accordance with established principles.

Decision: The Court modified and clarified the directives issued in Rajesh Sharma regarding matrimonial disputes and Section 498-A IPC, ensuring adherence to legal provisions and principles while ensuring fair handling of disputes.

Facts:The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to the Union of India and the States to conduct periodic national surveys on leprosy, publish reports, conduct awareness campaigns, provide free medication, eliminate discrimination, provide rehabilitation, and frame rules for issuing disability certificates under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Issues:

The prevalence of leprosy, lack of awareness, discrimination, availability of medication, rehabilitation, and issuance of disability certificates.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and facts presented, issued the following directions:

Undertake periodic national surveys for determining the prevalence rate and new cases detection rate of leprosy, and publish reports including the National Sample Survey of Leprosy.

Organize massive awareness campaigns on leprosy day to spread awareness about its curability, treatment availability, and dispel myths.

Ensure availability of free medication for leprosy management at all health facilities.

Run all-year awareness campaigns to inform citizens about free treatment available for leprosy.

Organize seminars at all levels to gather input from stakeholders.

Include positive messaging about leprosy in awareness campaigns and ensure no discriminatory behavior in healthcare facilities.

Provide surgical opportunities for correcting partial deformities caused by leprosy.

Explore the possibility of including leprosy education in school curricula to prevent discrimination.

Ensure no discrimination against children from leprosy-affected families in schools.

Issue BPL cards to leprosy-affected persons to avail benefits under various schemes.

Provide MCR footwear free of cost to all leprosy-affected persons.

Formulate a scheme for providing minimum assistance to leprosy-affected persons for rehabilitation.

Plan and implement a comprehensive community-based rehabilitation scheme to eliminate stigma.

Consider framing separate rules for assessing disability quotient of leprosy-affected persons for issuing disability certificates under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.