Facts:

The appeal arises from a judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana concerning a dispute over external development charges for flats and infrastructure development obligations.

The developer firm, M/S Sai Apartments and Infrastructure Ltd., failed to comply with conditions for obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) for permanent electricity connection.

The High Court issued various directions, including auctioning personal properties of the partners/ex-partners of the developer firm and directing individual consumers to file complaints against them.

The appellants, partners in the developer firm, contested that they were not made parties to the writ petition in their individual capacity nor issued any show cause notice for attachment of their personal properties.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's orders regarding auctioning personal properties of the partners/ex-partners of the developer firm were justifiable.

Who should bear external development charges and infrastructure costs?

Held:

The Supreme Court decided not to delve into the merits of the dispute but instead remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties are afforded sufficient opportunity. The appeal was allowed, expressing no opinion on the merits of the case. No costs were awarded.

Facts:

The petitioner challenged the appointment of Shri Rakesh Asthana as the Special Director of the CBI, alleging illegality and violation of principles of integrity.

Concerns were raised about Asthana's involvement in ongoing investigations, suggesting a conflict of interest.

Issues:

Whether the appointment of Shri Rakesh Asthana as the Special Director of CBI was made illegally, arbitrarily, and in violation of principles of integrity.

Whether the established procedure for appointments to the CBI was followed in this case.

Held:

The court analyzed the procedure for appointments to the CBI, as established in previous judgments and relevant statutes. It emphasized the importance of consultation and the role of the Selection Committee in making appointments. The court concluded that the appointment of Shri Rakesh Asthana as the Special Director of CBI did not suffer from any illegality. It found that due consideration was given to all relevant factors, including concerns raised about Asthana's involvement in ongoing investigations. The decision to recommend Asthana's appointment was unanimous and based on relevant materials. Thus, the court dismissed the petition challenging the appointment.

Facts:

The appellant, District Development Officer, Gujarat terminated the employment of Satish Kantilal Amrelia, who worked as a Peon-cum-Driver on daily wages.

Mr. Amrelia challenged his termination in both civil and labor courts.

The civil court initially ruled in his favor, but the decision was reversed on appeal.

The labor court later found his termination illegal due to non-compliance with labor laws.

The appellant appealed the labor court's decision to the High Court of Gujarat, which dismissed the appeal.

A subsequent Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed in default.

Issues:

Whether the termination of Mr. Amrelia's employment was legal.

Whether reinstatement with back wages is appropriate in this case.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the labor court's award. Instead of reinstatement with back wages, the court awarded Mr. Amrelia a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 (Indian Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) in full and final settlement of his claim. The court based its decision on the nature of Mr. Amrelia's employment as a daily wage worker and the circumstances of the case. It cited Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the judgment in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal [(2014) 7 SCC 177] in support of its decision.

The appellant was ordered to pay the compensation within three months, failing which interest would accrue at a rate of 9% per annum. The orders of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were set aside, and the labor court's award was modified accordingly.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal before the Supreme Court of India wherein the appellants were convicted for the murder of Bhagwan Singh in Rajasthan.

Nine appellants were convicted while others were either acquitted or deceased.

The trial court adjourned the matter multiple times during the examination of witnesses, leading to concerns about the integrity of the trial process.

Issues:

Whether the trial court's grant of adjournments during witness examination was in compliance with Section 309 of the CrPC.

Whether the trial court adequately protected witnesses and ensured the fair administration of justice.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions. The court expressed concern over the conduct of the trial and the granting of adjournments. It emphasized the importance of continuous examination of witnesses, in accordance with Section 309 of the CrPC, to protect witnesses from undue influence or threats. The court also highlighted the necessity of recording witness statements under Section 164 of the CrPC during the investigation itself, preferably using audio-video electronic means. The court issued directions to trial courts to adhere to these principles and emphasized the importance of early examination of eyewitnesses. It also directed High Courts to issue appropriate directives to trial courts for compliance. These directions were based on precedents cited by the court, including State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and Others, Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B., and Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, which underscored the significance of continuous trial proceedings and the potential consequences of unnecessary adjournments.

Facts:

The appellants were accused in a case filed under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes directed the addition of charges under the SC/ST Act, leading to the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet. The appellants challenged this before the High Court, arguing that the charges under the SC/ST Act were added at the dictate of an external agency and not based on the findings of the investigation.

Issues:

The validity of adding charges under the SC/ST Act based on the direction of an external agency, and whether such charges could be quashed in part under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that there is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in part, particularly if a person is aggrieved by prosecution only on specific charges. The Court emphasized that external interference in police investigation, such as directives from agencies like the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, is impermissible. While these bodies can point out lapses in investigation, they cannot dictate the course of investigation.

Therefore, the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the charges added at the dictate of an external agency. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the supplementary report filed under the SC/ST Act was quashed. The order passed by the Court did not inhibit the police or the court from taking appropriate steps under the CrPC.

Facts:

The petitioner, an advocate, filed a petition under Article 32 seeking direction for the implementation of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in a previous case regarding the destruction of public and private property during agitations.

The petitioner cited instances where strikes/agitations led to the destruction of public property, causing inconvenience and violating fundamental rights.

Committees appointed by the court recommended statutory amendments to hold those sponsoring agitations accountable and punishable under criminal law. Despite recommendations, no legislation or speedy mechanism was put in place.

Issues:

Whether the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in a previous case regarding the destruction of public and private property during agitations have been implemented effectively.

Whether there is a need for legislative action to address the issues related to the destruction of public property during agitations.

Held:

The court acknowledged the need for preventive and remedial measures to address situations where peaceful protests turn violent, resulting in loss of lives and damage to public property. The Attorney General for India emphasized the necessity for legislation to fix accountability and provide for punishment and compensation. The court expressed hope that the proposed law by the Union of India would be enacted within a reasonable timeframe, addressing all concerned issues. Suggestions were made regarding the appointment of district judges to handle such matters. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

Chanchali Nayak, the deceased, was a mother and an agricultural laborer who died in a road accident on 29th September 1991.

The accident occurred due to a head-on collision between a bus and a truck, leading to the death of Chanchali Nayak.

Issues:

The adequacy of the compensation awarded for the loss suffered by the deceased's family.

Held:

The court analyzed the income and contributions of the deceased, finding the compensation awarded by the tribunal to be inadequate. It recalculated the deceased's monthly income considering both her agricultural labor work and household contributions. Additionally, the court adjusted the multiplier used for calculating loss of dependency and awarded additional compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses based on relevant legal precedents. Consequently, the court enhanced the total compensation payable to the claimants and held the respondents jointly and severally liable for the payment.

Facts:

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking to prevent the exhibition of the film "Padmavati" in other countries without proper certification from the CBFC and requested the CBI to register an FIR against the filmmakers for various offenses.

Issues:

Whether the pleadings in the petition were proper.

Whether commenting or adjudicating on the film before the CBFC's decision would prejudice the matter.

Whether the petitioner's allegations were scurrilous and abusive of the public interest litigation system.

Held:

The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for proper procedure and respect for freedom of expression. The Court found the pleadings in the petition improper and struck off certain portions. It held that pre-judging the film's content before CBFC certification would be inappropriate. The Court cautioned against abusing the public interest litigation system and making scurrilous allegations. Costs were not imposed on the petitioner, who represented themselves, but they were cautioned to be more careful in the future.

Facts:

Punjab National Bank (PNB) provided a loan to M/s India Iron & Steel Corporation Limited, secured against their assets.

PNB initiated proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act when the borrower defaulted on the loan.

Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) participated in the public auction of the mortgaged assets and emerged as the highest bidder.

Disputes arose between PNB, the appellant, and the borrower regarding payment and removal of scrap material from the factory premises.

PNB forfeited the appellant's deposit, leading to the appellant filing a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi challenging the forfeiture.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's challenge to PNB's forfeiture of the deposit falls within the purview of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Held:

The Court held that the action of PNB in forfeiting the appellant's deposit constituted a measure under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the appellant had the right to challenge this action under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), rather than through a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted liberty to file an application before the DRT within 45 days to challenge PNB's action. The DRT was directed to decide the matter on its merits without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment.