Facts:

Accused persons were noticed by the police during patrolling, leading to the discovery of a polythene bag allegedly containing intoxicant material. Subsequent chemical analysis revealed no contraband article as defined under the NDPS Act.

Issues:

Whether the trial judge was justified in granting compensation to the accused persons under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for malicious prosecution,

Whether the High Court's affirmation of the decision was sustainable.

Held:

The trial judge's decision to grant compensation was unjustified, as there was no evidence of malice or deliberate false implication by the prosecution. The delay in obtaining forensic reports and lack of expertise by the seizing officer were not sufficient grounds for compensation. The Supreme Court referred to precedents where compensation was granted in cases of proven false implication or malicious prosecution but found that such circumstances were absent in this case.

Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders granting compensation to the accused persons.

Facts:

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai, the appellant, filed a Contempt Petition against Nikhil N. Gupta and others, the respondents, for disobeying the Supreme Court's order dated 27.01.2006, which granted them one year's time to vacate certain premises subject to an undertaking.

The respondents failed to vacate the premises despite filing an undertaking before the court in February 2006. The appellant alleged that the respondents changed their addresses to avoid notice in the execution case.

The respondents argued that they couldn't vacate the premises due to pending eviction suits against tenants occupying the building.

Issues:

Whether the respondents willfully disobeyed the court's order?

Whether the pending eviction suits against tenants justified the respondents' failure to vacate the premises?

Held:

The court found that the respondents willfully disobeyed the court's order by failing to vacate the premises despite filing an undertaking. The respondents' claim of third parties being in possession did not absolve them of their obligation to vacate as per the court's order.

The court directed the executing court to issue a warrant of possession and remove all obstructionists from the premises. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, was directed to assist the bailiff in executing the warrant. The obstructionists were instructed to cooperate in the execution process, and they were given the option to approach the court for redressal if needed. The executing court was ordered to submit a report to the Supreme Court, and the Contempt Petition was listed for further consideration after three months.

Facts:

The Respondents had filed a Civil Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, which was decreed by the trial court.

The Appellant, claiming ownership of the land through gift deeds, filed objections which were rejected, and subsequent applications were dismissed.

The Appellant then filed a separate suit challenging the earlier decree, alleging fraud and collusion.

The trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, citing res judicata.

Appellate proceedings ensued, leading to the High Court upholding the rejection of the plaint based on res judicata.

Issues:

Whether the rejection of the plaint based on res judicata was justified.

Whether the subsequent suit raised different grounds and cause of action.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the rejection of the plaint based on res judicata was premature, considering the different cause of action and grounds raised in the subsequent suit.

The Court emphasized that res judicata cannot be applied merely based on the pleadings, and a trial should have been conducted to examine all issues framed.

Referring to relevant legal principles, the Court clarified that Order 7 Rule 11(d) should be invoked only if the suit is barred by any law, and the question of res judicata involves a mixed question of fact and law, which cannot be determined at the initial stage.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order, and restoring the decision of the appellate Judge.

The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit and dispose of it within six months.

Facts:

The appellants, engaged in construction projects for Madhya Pradesh government departments, contested the demand for cess under The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (the Cess Act), arguing it couldn't be levied on projects initiated before the constitution of the Board.

They argued that the cost of construction couldn't be divided into pre-Board and post-Board periods for cess levy.

Issues:

Whether cess could be levied on construction projects initiated before the constitution of the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Board.

Whether the cost of construction could be divided into pre-Board and post-Board periods for cess levy.

Held:

The court rejected the appellant's argument and upheld the levy of cess under the Cess Act from the date of the constitution of the Board. It emphasized that the objective of the Act was to provide welfare measures for construction workers and that delaying cess collection would impede those benefits.

The court clarified that welfare services to workers didn't need to precede cess levy, and cess should be collected promptly to facilitate the timely provision of benefits. The appellants were granted liberty to raise the contention that the liability for cess should be borne by the government in future proceedings.

The appeals were dismissed without costs, with a directive for the appellants to pay any outstanding cess dues within eight weeks.

Facts:

The case involved a serious crime in West Bengal, where nine people were killed and many others injured. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the investigation and filed a charge sheet against several accused, including those arrested and absconding. Further investigation was ongoing to collect additional evidence and apprehend the absconding accused. Some of the absconding accused were later arrested, but when the CBI sought police remand for them, the Magistrate declined the requests.

Issues:

Whether police remand could be granted to an accused arrested during further investigation after the filing of the charge sheet.

Held and Decision:

The Supreme Court, after examining relevant provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), held that an accused arrested during further investigation can be remanded to police custody under Section 167(2) of the CrPC if the investigating agency requires interrogation. The Court clarified that the term "accused if in custody" in Section 309(2) of the CrPC does not encompass those arrested during further investigation before a supplementary charge sheet is filed.

Therefore, the Court set aside the orders of both the High Court and the Magistrate declining police remand and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the CBI's applications for police remand in accordance with the law.

Facts:

Appellant sought to pay proportionate annual rental for an FL3 license due to third-party intervention.

Division Bench reversed the detailed judgment of the learned Single Judge based on Rule 14 of the Foreign Liquor Rules.

Issues:

Interpretation of Rule 14 regarding payment of full annual fee for FL3 licenses.

Whether licensee can claim proportionate payment due to non-utilization caused by third-party intervention.

Held:

The court held that a party is entitled to seek a remission in the payment of license fee if it is precluded from transacting business on the strength of that license because of factors and reasons extraneous to it.

The court allowed the appeal, directing the State to refund the balance amount of license fee with interest.

The court held that the appellant is only liable to pay the proportionate license fee for the period of utilization, not for the full year.

Facts:

Citibank N.A. (Appellant) challenged the determination of the amount payable for restitution to Canbank Financial Services Limited (Canfina), the respondent, following the reversal of a money decree in favor of Citibank against Canfina.

Issues:

The main issue revolved around the calculation of the market value of the bonds for restitution purposes. Citibank argued for a calculation based on the market value of the bonds when received from Canfina, while Canfina argued for a calculation based on the face value of the bonds plus accrued interest until maturity.

Held:

The Court emphasized the principles of equity, fairness, and justice in restitution cases, stressing the need for a realistic and verifiable approach to determine restitution amounts, considering both the loss suffered by the entitled party and any gain made by the obligated party.

The Court found errors in the Special Court's determination, particularly in disregarding the market tradability of the bonds and making presumptions about Canfina's actions. It set aside the impugned order and accepted Citibank's calculation for restitution, ordering Canfina to refund the due amount along with interest.

Facts:

The appellant, Daljit Singh Grewal, had been denied promotion due to adverse entries in his ACRs. These adverse entries were made without proper authority, competence, and were tainted with malafides. Despite court judgments in Grewal's favor, the respondents failed to implement them.

Issues:

Whether the adverse entries in Grewal's ACRs were valid and made in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations.

Whether the denial of promotional benefits to Grewal was justified or tainted with malafides.

Whether Grewal is entitled to promotional benefits and pensionary benefits due to premature retirement.

Held:

The downgrading of Grewal's performance in his ACRs by respondent No. 4 was not valid as it was done without authority or competence. The adverse entries deprived Grewal of his right to promotion.

The actions of respondent No. 4 in denying promotional benefits to Grewal were tainted with malafides, as evidenced by unjust downgrading, failure to implement court judgments, and promotion of a junior officer.

The impugned orders denying promotional benefits to Grewal are set aside, and the respondents are directed to reconsider his claim. Grewal should be notionally promoted to the higher post of Battalion Commander to receive pensionary benefits.

Decision: The court ruled in favor of Daljit Singh Grewal, finding the denial of promotional benefits unjust and driven by malafide intentions. It directed the respondents to reconsider Grewal's claim and notionally promote him to the higher post of Battalion Commander for pensionary benefits.

Facts:

The appellant filed a suit seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, alleging that the respondent, Parappa, agreed to sell the land to him but failed to execute the sale deed.

The property in question was joint family property belonging to the father and his two sons. The sale agreement was executed only by the father (vendor) without the concurrence of the other co-owners (sons).

The agreement represented the father as the absolute owner of the property and promised the sale of the entire property.

It was found that the appellant was in possession of the property.

Issues:

Whether the sale agreement was valid and enforceable against the vendor-father to the extent of his 1/3rd share in the property.

Whether Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was applicable in this case.

Whether previous court decisions supported the enforcement of the sale agreement against the vendor-father to the extent of his share in the joint family property.

Held:

The agreement was not binding on the respondents as the property was joint family property and there was no legal necessity for the sale.

Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was not applicable in this case as the agreement was for the entire property, not a part of it.

Previous court decisions supported the enforcement of the sale agreement against the vendor-father to the extent of his share in the joint family property.

The Supreme Court partially allowed the civil appeal, decreeing the suit to the extent of the vendor-father's (first defendant's) 1/3rd share in the property. The other civil appeal was dismissed.