Facts:

The appellant, a public Trust, leased out two shops to the respondents.

Disputes arose regarding non-payment of rent and termination of tenancy.

Appellant filed suits for eviction and recovery of rent against the respondents.

The Trial Court decreed the suits in favor of the appellant, but the Appellate Court dismissed them due to the appellant Trust not being registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

The issue revolved around the interpretation and applicability of Section 29 of the Act, which prohibits unregistered trusts from filing suits to enforce their rights.

Issues:

Whether the suits filed by the unregistered public Trust were competent under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

The jurisdiction of the Trial Court and the validity of its decree in light of the Trust's registration during the pendency of the appeal.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the suits filed by the unregistered public Trust were not competent under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

Once the Trust obtained registration during the pendency of the appeal, the bar under Section 29 no longer applied, and the Trial Court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the suits on merits.

The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the suits were remanded to the Trial Court for hearing and deciding them on merits.

The parties were given the liberty to amend their pleadings and submit additional documents, including the certificate of registration of the Trust.

The Trial Court was directed to decide the suits within six months, and the parties were instructed to appear before the Trial Court on a specified date.

Facts:

The case involved the interpretation of amendments made to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act, 1992, particularly the changes in the forum for the trial of offenses under the Act introduced by the SEBI (Amendment) Act, 2002, and the SEBI (Amendment) Act, 2014.

Issues:

Whether the changes in the forum for the trial of offenses under the SEBI Act introduced by the 2002 and 2014 amendments apply retrospectively to pending proceedings.

Whether the amendments affected the substantive rights of the accused, particularly regarding the right of revision.

The applicability of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to trials under the SEBI Act.

Held:

The change in the forum for trial introduced by the amendments to the SEBI Act in 2002 and 2014 operates retrospectively, affecting pending proceedings.

The amendments are procedural in nature and do not affect substantive rights, such as the right of revision.

The amendments explicitly specify the new forums for trial, and pending matters must be transferred accordingly, irrespective of when the offense occurred or when trial proceedings commenced.

The provisions of the CrPC regarding trial forums do not uniformly apply to trials under the SEBI Act.

Decision: The court affirmed that offenses under the SEBI Act, regardless of when they were committed or when trial proceedings commenced, would be tried in accordance with the amended provisions, either by a Court of Session or a Special Court, as specified in the relevant amendments.

Facts:

The respondent filed a Civil Suit (CS (Comm) No. 330 of 2016) against the appellant, seeking certain reliefs.

The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, stating that the plaint disclosed no cause of action.

The impugned judgment held that while the plaint discloses no cause of action against certain directors, the suit is to continue against the company, and the defendant was barred from filing a written statement due to delay.

Issues:

Whether the plaint as a whole discloses a cause of action.

Whether the defendants should be allowed to file a written statement despite the delay.

Held:

The Supreme Court clarified the application of Order 7 Rule 11 and directed the continuation of the suit with specific instructions regarding the filing of the written statement. The key points of the decision are as follows:

Interpretation of Order 7 Rule 11: The Court emphasized that Order 7 Rule 11 applies to the plaint as a whole, and partial rejection of the plaint is not permitted under this rule.

Distinction from Order 6 Rule 16: The Court clarified that if only a portion of the plaint needs to be struck out, Order 6 Rule 16 applies, not Order 7 Rule 11. However, in this case, there were no grounds to apply Order 6 Rule 16.

Discretion under Order 14 Rule 2: The Court explained that under Order 14 Rule 2, the Court has discretion to deal with an issue of law as a preliminary issue, but this provision applies after issues are framed, not before.

Decision: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the defendants were granted eight weeks to file their written statement. The suit would then proceed to trial.

Facts:

On 19.11.2002, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted Ms. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani at the IGI Airport, suspecting her of carrying undeclared valuable goods.

Jewellery worth Rs. 1.27 crores was found, leading to a show-cause notice and confiscation order.

The respondent challenged these through a writ petition, arguing that the jewellery was personal effects under Baggage Rules 1998.

The High Court quashed the notice and order, deeming the jewellery as personal effects.

Issues:

Whether the show-cause notice and order were rightly quashed by the High Court.

Held:

No violation of Section 77 of the Customs Act as necessary declarations were made implicitly.

The jewellery was considered personal effects under Baggage Rules, as it was for personal use and intended to be taken out of India.

The proximity of the purchase date and intended use supported the respondent's claim.

No deliberate concealment was found; the respondent's travel to London for personal reasons was noted.

Legal restrictions on bringing back VAT-reclaimed items were absent.

The Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the respondent followed legal procedures and didn't violate customs laws. The appeal was dismissed. The Court also expunged any remarks against DRI from the High Court's judgment.

Facts:

Advertisements were issued in 2010 inviting applications for the selection of Constables and Sub-Inspectors of Police.

During the recruitment process, the State Government issued a circular on 11.05.2011, stipulating that candidates of SC/ST/BC, regardless of any concessions including age relaxation, would be migrated against general category vacancies if they scored higher than the last candidate of the general category.

General category candidates challenged the circular through writ petitions, contending that candidates availing age relaxation in reserved categories should not be migrated to unreserved vacancies.

Issues:

Whether the circular issued by the State Government on 11.05.2011 could be applied retroactively to the ongoing recruitment process.

Whether candidates availing age relaxation in reserved categories are eligible for migration to unreserved vacancies.

Held:

The circular of 11.05.2011 was issued during the recruitment process but could not be applied retroactively as the recruitment process had commenced prior to its issuance. The circular dated 24.06.2008, in force during the initial stages of recruitment, stipulated that reserved category candidates availing age relaxation were not eligible for migration to unreserved vacancies. Thus, the circular of 11.05.2011 could not be applied in the ongoing recruitment process. (Para 30, 39)

The subsequent circular dated 26.07.2017 reiterated the position provided by the circular dated 24.06.2008, affirming that candidates belonging to SC/ST/BC who availed age relaxation were not eligible for migration to unreserved vacancies. This circular reaffirmed the established position that such candidates are not entitled to be migrated. (Para 39)

Rule 7(1) of The Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 expressly provides for reservation of vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in accordance with government orders in force at the time of recruitment. As the recruitment commenced when the circular dated 24.06.2008 was in force, the subsequent circular dated 11.05.2011 cannot be applied to the ongoing recruitment process. (Para 46)

Candidates belonging to SC/ST/BC who availed age relaxation were not entitled to be migrated to unreserved vacancies. However, the State of Rajasthan unlawfully migrated such candidates, resulting in the displacement of candidates entitled to be selected against unreserved vacancies. The affected unreserved category candidates are entitled to appointment based on merit. (Para 48)

Decision:

The Court directed that unreserved candidates entitled to appointment against unreserved vacancies should be appointed based on merit within three months. If vacancies are unavailable, supernumerary posts may be created for the affected candidates, which may be terminated when vacancies arise. (Para 49)

Facts:

The case involved Respondent No.1, who was accused of procuring minor girls for prostitution. Charges were filed against him under various sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and the Indian Penal Code. The High Court quashed the proceedings on the basis that the Investigating Officer was not authorized under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 to conduct the investigation.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings solely on the ground of the Investigating Officer's lack of authorization under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the mere invalidity of the investigation does not automatically nullify the trial unless it results in a miscarriage of justice. The Court emphasized that if the breach in investigation procedures is brought to the attention of the court at an early stage, appropriate steps should be taken to rectify the situation, such as ordering reinvestigation. However, in this case, no serious prejudice or miscarriage of justice was demonstrated due to the invalid investigation. Therefore, the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings was deemed unjustified.

The Court referred to the precedent set in various cases, including H.N. Rishbud vs. State of Delhi, which establishes that the invalidity of an investigation does not automatically vitiate the trial unless it results in a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, cases such as M.C. Sulkunte vs. State of Mysore and A.C. Sharma vs. Delhi Administration further support the principle that an irregularity or illegality in the investigation does not necessarily affect the legality of the trial unless it causes prejudice or miscarriage of justice.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.

Facts:

The respondent, initially a prosecution witness, provided a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

During the trial, the respondent altered their statement, leading the Sessions Court to suspect that they were deliberately making contradictory statements to favor the accused. Consequently, the Sessions Court directed the prosecution of the respondent under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Issues:

The interpretation and application of various sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly sections 340, 343, and related legal principles.

The court is tasked with determining the appropriate procedure for cases instituted based on a complaint, the scope of inquiries under section 340, and the procedure to be followed by the Trial Magistrate.

Held:The court elucidates the distinction between a "complaint" and a "police report," as well as between a "warrant-case" and a "summons-case" under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). (Para 14)

The court defines "inquiry" and "investigation," highlighting the differences between the two terms as per the CrPC. (Para 15)

The court examines Section 195 of the CrPC, which deals with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority, offenses against public justice, and offenses relating to documents given in evidence. It discusses the conditions for taking cognizance of offenses enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 195(1). (Paras 16, 17)

The court delves into the procedure for trial of warrant cases by Magistrates, distinguishing between cases instituted on a police report and those instituted otherwise than on a police report, as outlined in Chapter XIX of the CrPC. (Paras 24, 27)

The court discusses the provisions of Chapter XXVI of the CrPC regarding complaints under Section 340, emphasizing the two essential prerequisites for initiating an inquiry under this section. (Paras 30, 31)

The court elucidates the scope of an inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC, emphasizing its purpose in deciding whether an offense affecting the administration of justice requires further inquiry by a criminal court. (Para 32)

The court examines the procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 340, emphasizing the application of Section 343(1) of the CrPC. (Para 33)

The court discusses the phrase "as far as may be" in Section 343(1) of the CrPC, highlighting its significance in the context of dealing with a complaint under Section 340 or Section 341. (Paras 51, 52)

The court outlines the eventualities arising from the interplay between Sections 340 and 343 of the CrPC and provides guidance on the appropriate course of action for the Trial Magistrate in such cases. (Para 54)

Decision: In view of the interpretation and analysis of relevant provisions of the CrPC, the court concludes that the High Court's approach to quash the charges against the respondent was incorrect. The charges are reinstated, and the Trial Magistrate is directed to proceed strictly in compliance with the letter and spirit of Section 343(1) of the CrPC. (Para 60)

Facts:

The State government issued notifications over the years regarding the refund of CST paid by SSI units on raw materials purchased from outside the state.

The respondents challenged a notification dated 01.10.1993, contending that they had a legal right to claim refund based on earlier policies.

Issues:

Whether the State government had the authority to modify or withdraw the policy regarding CST refund.

Whether the respondents had a legal right to claim refund based on earlier policies.

Held:

The Court held that the State government had the authority to modify or withdraw the policy regarding CST refund for valid reasons in the larger public interest. The Court emphasized that the respondents did not have a legal or indefeasible right to claim refund, and the policy could be modified or withdrawn at any time.

Considered the contention of the appellants regarding fraudulent refund claims obtained by SSI units, stating that such actions would be contrary to the financial interests of the state. Additionally, the Court set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the appeals, clarifying in Para 14 that only claims which had already been granted and the financial benefit availed would not be reopened or withdrawn.

Facts:

The educational qualification for Vocational Masters initially included either a degree in Engineering or a B.A. with ITI Diploma, with their pay-scale higher than that of Lecturers.

In 1978, both Vocational Masters and Lecturers were placed in the same pay scale.

In 1995, Vocational Masters were redesignated as Vocational Lecturers, but their responsibilities and financial implications remained the same.

A notification dated July 16, 2003, restricted higher pay-scale benefits to only those appointed before July 8, 1995, or those who acquired specific qualifications by that date.

Issues:

Whether there was a valid basis for differential treatment between Vocational Masters and Vocational Lecturers in terms of pay-scale.

Whether the notification dated July 16, 2003, violated the principles of natural justice.

Held:

The Court emphasized the principle of equality as enshrined in Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution of India and forbade discrimination between similarly situated persons. The state must justify any differential treatment between classes.

The Court held that since the inception, the educational qualifications for Vocational Masters were either a degree or a diploma, and they were appointed through a common selection process. There was no substantial difference in their duties compared to Vocational Lecturers. Therefore, any attempt to curtail their salary and allowances without reasonable justification would be considered arbitrary. The Court ruled that the Vocational Masters were entitled to the higher pay-scale, as they had been treated similarly to Vocational Lecturers in previous pay revisions and notifications.

Additionally, the Court quashed the notification dated July 16, 2003, on the grounds of violating the principles of natural justice, as the concerned employees were not given an opportunity to be heard before suffering financial losses.