Facts:

The case arose from a batch of MAs/IAs stemming from a judgment dated 15 December 2016 in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu, Civil Appeal 12164-12166/2016, and subsequent orders dated 31 March 2017 and 11 July 2017.

The main issue revolved around the interpretation of paragraph 7 of the order dated 11 July 2017, which dealt with the sale of liquor along and in proximity to highways.

Issues:

The interpretation of the term "municipal areas" as used in paragraph 7 of the order dated 11 July 2017.

The parties sought clarification to determine whether areas governed by local self-governing bodies should be included within the ambit of "municipal areas" for the purpose of the order.

Held:

The Court clarified that the term "municipal areas" in the order dated 11 July 2017 should not preclude state governments from determining its applicability to areas covered by local self-governing bodies and statutory development authorities.

State governments were allowed to make this determination based on relevant factors such as proximity to urban agglomerations and level of development.

License holders were granted the liberty to submit representations to the state governments for consideration.

Decision: The applications were disposed of with the above observations, aiming to prevent further litigation and clarify the application of the Court's earlier orders regarding the sale of liquor near highways.

Facts:

Rajeshwar Mahto, an employee of Birla Corporation Ltd., challenged his termination through legal proceedings under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court issued an interim order dated 04.05.1999, directing the Corporation to pay Rajeshwar Mahto his full wages last drawn from 01.05.1998 onwards until the final disposal of the appeal.

The final order dated 31.10.2000 allowed the Corporation's appeal and dismissed Rajeshwar Mahto's claims. However, the order also noted an offer by the Corporation to settle the matter by paying Rs. 2 lakhs to Rajeshwar Mahto.

Rajeshwar Mahto filed a contempt petition alleging that the Corporation did not comply with the interim order of 04.05.1999.

Issues:

Whether the Corporation complied with the interim order dated 04.05.1999?

What is the legal effect of the interim order under Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, in the context of subsequent appeal outcomes?

What is the appropriate relief to be granted to Rajeshwar Mahto?

Held:

The court held that the order dated 04.05.1999 remained valid and enforceable independently of the final judgment on the appeal. Therefore, the Corporation was obligated to comply with it.

After considering various factors including the nature of the controversy, the Court determined that Rajeshwar Mahto was entitled to a total sum of Rs. 7,50,000 towards all his claims arising from his employment dispute with the Corporation.

The Court directed the Corporation to pay this amount to Rajeshwar Mahto in full and final settlement. It also ordered Rajeshwar Mahto to vacate the Corporation quarter within three months, after which the payment would be made within one week of his vacating the quarter.

Facts:

The appellant filed a complaint alleging fraud, forgery, and threats by the respondents regarding a disputed land transaction. Despite the police's inaction, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint citing lack of evidence. Upon appeal, the Sessions Court remanded the case for further inquiry. Subsequently, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offenses, leading to revision before the High Court.

Issues:

The legality of the remand order passed by the Sessions Court.

The legality of the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the matter.

Held:

The Court clarified that the Sessions Court's remand order did not amount to taking cognizance. The observations made by the Sessions Court were seen as justification for remand rather than taking cognizance. The High Court's conclusion on this matter was deemed erroneous.

The Court reiterated the standard required for a Magistrate to take cognizance, emphasizing the need for independent application of mind. It was emphasized that the Magistrate's order should reflect a satisfactory evaluation of the material before him.

The Court cautioned against the Magistrate's reliance on observations made by the higher court on the merits of the case. The need for the Magistrate's independent assessment was emphasized.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment. The trial court was directed to consider the complaint afresh, emphasizing that it should proceed without being influenced by any observations made by the higher courts.

Facts:

The appellant, Pankaj Jain, had applied for release on bond under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arguing that since he was not arrested during the investigation, the trial court was obligated to release him on bond. However, the trial court rejected his application. The appellant then sought bail before the Special Judge, C.B.I., but the request was not accepted as the appellant had not previously filed any bail application before the trial court. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the trial court was obligated to release the appellant on bond under Section 88 of the Cr.P.C.

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail.

Held:

The Court held that Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer an automatic right upon any person present in court. The discretionary power vested in the court by Section 88 is aimed at ensuring the appearance of individuals before the court. The use of the word "may" in Section 88 indicates discretionary power, and the term "any person" encompasses a wide range of individuals, including witnesses.

The court further stated that the discretion conferred upon the court under Section 88 extends to accepting a bond from an accused or any person present in court. The decision of the Special Judge, C.B.I., and the High Court to reject the appellant's request for release on bond under Section 88 was upheld as there was no infirmity in their decision.

Regarding the appellant's request for bail, the Court noted that the appellant had previously been granted liberty to file a bail application before the trial court but had failed to do so. Therefore, the trial court was directed to first consider the appellant's bail application. Once the appellant files a bail application, it should be promptly considered, taking into account his claim of disability and other relevant grounds.

Decision: The Court disposed of the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision to reject the appellant's application for release on bond under Section 88. Additionally, the trial court was directed to consider any bail application filed by the appellant.

Facts:

The appellant, Upendra Singh, along with others, sought regularisation of their services and payment of salary based on such regularisation. They were employees of K.D.S. College, which later became a Constituent College of Bihar University. The appellant claimed that despite serving for a long time and the decision of the University authorities to regularise such employees, he had not been paid his regular salary for over a decade.

Issues:

Whether the appointments of the appellant and others were made following due process and against sanctioned posts?

Whether the appellant and others are entitled to regularisation and payment of salary?

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower courts. It noted that the initial appointments, including that of the appellant, were not in accordance with the law. The University refused regularisation based on the ground that the appointments were made without advertisement, without the recommendation of a panel by the Selection Committee, and not by the competent authority. The Court also noted that there were no sanctioned posts against which the appointments were made.

The Court referred to the case law, particularly the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, which established that irregular appointments cannot be regularised if they were made contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no merit in it.

Facts:

The case involves allegations against MAFs operating in India in violation of various statutory provisions, including the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, Foreign Direct Investment policy, Reserve Bank of India Act, and Foreign Exchange Management Act. The petitioner sought direction to initiate investigation against MAFs and Indian Chartered Accountancy Firms (ICAFs) having arrangements with such MAFs, alleging breach of professional conduct.

Issues:

The completeness of investigations conducted by various authorities.

The adequacy of oversight mechanisms for the auditing profession.

Compliance with statutory provisions and policy frameworks.

Held:

The court observed that investigations by various authorities, including the Income Tax Department, Registrar of Companies (ROC), Enforcement Directorate (ED), and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), were incomplete. The ICAI was criticized for not pursuing the matter to its logical conclusion due to lack of complete information.

A three-member committee of experts was directed to be constituted by the Union of India to examine the statutory framework and enforce provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, effectively. This committee was tasked with considering the need for new legislation akin to the Sarbanes Oxley Act and Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as well as revisiting oversight mechanisms for auditors.

The ED was instructed to complete its pending investigation within three months.

The ICAI was directed to further examine all related issues and take necessary steps within three months.

The court emphasized the importance of enforcing statutory provisions and ensuring proper oversight of the auditing profession to safeguard public interest and uphold the rule of law. It called for a comprehensive review of existing mechanisms and recommended potential legislative changes to address deficiencies in the regulatory framework.

Facts:

The facts of the case revolve around the challenge to the appointment of respondent nos. 2 and 3 as Additional Judges of the High Court. These appointments were contested on two primary grounds: the duration of the appointments being less than two years, and the eligibility of the appointees who were retired members of the judicial service.

Issues:

Whether the appointments of respondent nos. 2 and 3 as Additional Judges for a period of less than two years violate Article 224 of the Constitution?

Whether the retired members of the judicial service, as in the case of respondent nos. 2 and 3, are eligible for appointment as Additional Judges under Article 217(2)?

Held:

The Court examined the first issue and referred to the observations made in the S.P. Gupta case regarding the tenure of appointment of Additional Judges. The Court clarified that the appointment of Additional Judges for a period of less than two years, especially when approaching superannuation, does not contravene Article 224.

Paragraph 2: Regarding the second issue, the Court interpreted Article 217(2)(a) and emphasized that eligibility is based on having held a judicial office for at least ten years, irrespective of whether the individual holds such an office at the time of notification under Article 224. This interpretation was supported by Explanation (a) to Article 217(2).

Decision: Based on the above analysis, the Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent nos. 2 and 3 as Additional Judges of the High Court.

Facts:

The Supreme Court issued an interim order on 9 February 2018, regarding the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) and the terms of office for members of various tribunals.

Suggestions were filed during the hearing, and modifications were suggested by the Attorney General, which were accepted by the Court.

The Court analyzed the status of the selection process for various tribunals based on information provided by the Attorney General.

Issues:

Whether the interim directions issued by the Supreme Court on 9 February 2018 regarding the selection process for tribunals should be upheld.

How the selection process for various tribunals should proceed in light of the interim directions.

Held:

The Court held that the interim directions regarding the composition of SCSC and appointment terms for members of tribunals, as issued on 9 February 2018, shall be upheld.

The selection process for tribunals where substantial progress has been made, such as the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), shall proceed unhindered by the interim directions.

The selection process for the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) shall proceed for judicial members unhindered, while directions of the previous order shall apply for administrative members.

The selection processes for the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), and other tribunals shall continue unaffected by the interim directions.

Recommendations made by SCSCs for the appointment of Chairpersons and members of tribunals shall be processed further without being affected by the interim directions.

Facts:

The State Government issued a notification for the expansion of port limits under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, citing public interest.

The appellant company, utilizing a captive jetty, challenged this expansion, arguing it would adversely affect lands reclaimed or to be reclaimed by them.

The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the notification for the expansion of port limits under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, was valid.

Whether the appellant company had a legitimate expectation regarding the reclaimed lands.

Whether the appellant company had any rights to the reclaimed lands.

Held:

The Court held that the notification for the expansion of port limits was valid under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908.

The appellant company did not have a legitimate expectation regarding the reclaimed lands based on the correspondence between the parties.

The appellant company did not have any rights to the reclaimed lands, as they were reclaimed illegally without prior permission under the Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the notification for the expansion of port limits and rejecting the appellant company's claims regarding legitimate expectation and rights to reclaimed lands.