Facts:

The claimant, Gajender Yadav, a Security Officer, met with an accident resulting in the amputation of his left leg below the knee. The Tribunal and the High Court had awarded compensation, which was disputed.

Issues:

The assessment and modification of compensation, considering the claimant's permanent disability and loss of future earnings.

Held:

The Court held that the compensation for future loss of earnings should be computed based on principles outlined in relevant judgments. The Court noted the claimant's 85% permanent disability and his occupation as a Security Officer. It applied a multiplier of 15, considering his age, and arrived at a compensation amount of Rs. 15,12,000/- for future earnings (Paragraph 7).

The Court adjusted the High Court's award, finding a duplication in the compensation awarded for physical disability and future loss of earnings. It reduced the total compensation to Rs. 15,12,000/- for future earnings, maintaining the rest of the High Court's order (Paragraph 8).

Additionally, the Court awarded an extra amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the claimant's claim for changing the artificial limb at least once in two years (Paragraph 9).

Facts:

The Supreme Court had issued directions on December 15, 2016, to address the dangers posed by drunken driving on national and state highways.

The Chandigarh Administration issued a notification on March 16, 2017, reclassifying certain roads within the city from state highways to major district roads.

The reclassification was challenged before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which upheld the validity of the notification.

Issues:

Whether the reclassification of roads by the Chandigarh Administration violated the Supreme Court's directions on the ban on liquor sale along highways.

Held:

The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated July 11, 2017, held that the reclassification of roads by the Chandigarh Administration did not breach the directions issued by the Court regarding the ban on liquor sale along highways. The Court clarified that the purpose of its directions was to address liquor sale along highways connecting cities, towns, and villages, not licensed establishments within municipal areas. The reclassification did not violate the terms or purpose of the Court's directions. Therefore, the Special Leave Petition challenging the notification was dismissed.

Facts:

The respondent, a chartered accountant, was subjected to disciplinary action for issuing certificates for the consumption of raw materials, inaccurately representing the value of imported raw materials to the units without proper verification.

The Disciplinary Committee found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct under relevant provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and recommended reprimand by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI).

The High Court set aside the findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Council, citing insufficient evidence to establish wrongdoing.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Council.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish professional misconduct by the respondent.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and reviewing the judgment of the High Court, upheld the decision to set aside the findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Council. The Court found no error in the High Court's reasoning regarding the insufficiency of evidence to establish professional misconduct. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Facts:

The appellants, minority educational institutions, appointed a teacher from their respective minority communities to the post of Headmaster, bypassing senior teachers from the same community. The High Court intervened, prompting the appeals.

Issues:

The absolute right of minority educational institutions to appoint qualified individuals from their community as Heads or Principals and the validity of the declaration of minority status.

Held:

The Court held that the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution is absolute for minority educational institutions to appoint Heads or Principals of their choice, regardless of seniority or qualifications of other candidates from the same community. This principle was established in various previous judgments.

The Court clarified that the declaration of minority status merely recognizes an existing status and does not create it. Thus, the protection under Article 30(1) applies regardless of formal government recognition.

Additionally, the Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions to issue certificates regarding the minority status of educational institutions.

FACTS:

Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Appellant) entered into an agreement with Atwal Rice and General Mills (Respondent) for processing paddy into rice.

Appellant claimed the Respondent failed to deliver the agreed-upon quantity of rice, resulting in financial losses.

Disputes were referred to arbitration, and an award was passed in favor of the Appellant.

Respondent challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but the challenge was unsuccessful.

Appellant filed an execution petition to enforce the award, but the Respondent raised objections under Section 47 of the CPC.

ISSUES:

Whether the objections raised by the Respondent in execution proceedings were maintainable.

Whether the alleged payment made by the Respondent satisfied the decree.

Whether the executing court properly applied the provisions of Order 21 of the CPC.

HELD:

The Court clarified the enforceability of arbitral awards under Sections 35 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, stating that such awards are treated as decrees of civil courts.( Paragraph 17)

The Court criticized the lower courts for not properly addressing the objections raised by the Respondent and for failing to understand the legal issues involved.( Paragraph 26)

The Court held that objections pertaining to the merits of the award were not maintainable in execution proceedings. It further ruled that the alleged payment made by the Respondent did not satisfy the decree as it did not comply with the requirements of Order 21 of the CPC.( Paragraph 37)

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's orders, and directed the executing court to issue a warrant for the recovery of the entire awarded decretal amount against the Respondent.( Paragraph 38)

Facts:

The case involved a dispute between Ram Murti Devi and Pushpa Devi and others over the subletting of a shop. The trial court ruled in favor of eviction based on the landlord's claim that the tenant had sublet a portion of the shop. However, the High Court set aside the trial court's decision. The matter came before the appellate court to determine the validity of the eviction order.

Issues:

Whether the tenant had indeed sublet a portion of the shop, justifying eviction.

Held:

The court outlined the burden of proof in cases of eviction based on subletting. The landlord must prove that a third party was in exclusive possession of the rented property and that this was done for monetary consideration. The burden then shifts to the tenant to provide an explanation.

The court emphasized the importance of proper pleading and evidence in establishing subletting. If the tenant fails to provide adequate evidence countering the landlord's claim, the court may infer that the transaction involved monetary consideration.

It was noted that in this case, the landlord had sufficiently pleaded the parting of possession by alleging that another person, 'E', was staying in a portion of the establishment and paying rent. The tenant failed to adequately refute this claim.

The court considered the evidence presented, particularly the deposition of a witness, which supported the landlord's claim of subletting. This evidence confirmed that 'E' was indeed paying rent for staying and working in the shop.

Referring to statutory requirements under the Uttar Pradesh Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1962, the court pointed out that the tenant failed to provide evidence of 'E' being registered as an employee, which could have supported their claim that 'E' was a worker and not a subtenant.

The court upheld the trial court's decision to draw an adverse inference against the tenant due to the lack of evidence regarding 'E' being an employee, as required by statutory provisions.

Consequently, the court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the eviction order issued by the Judge Small Causes Court.

Facts:

The Court entertained writ petitions regarding unauthorized industrial activities in residential areas.

Various directions were issued, including closure of units established after 1-8-1990 in non-conforming areas.

Respondent, Sanjay Gupta, operated an industrial unit in violation of Court orders despite an undertaking to cease operations.

Issues:

Whether the respondent's actions constituted contempt of Court.

What penalties should be imposed for the contemptuous behavior.

Held:

The Court found that Sanjay Gupta's continued operation of the industrial unit in violation of Court orders amounted to contempt. Despite submitting an undertaking to cease operations, Gupta persisted in the violation. The Court considered the seriousness of the contempt and proposed penalties of imprisonment and fines. Gupta opted for a higher fine amount.

The Court ordered Gupta to surrender for ten days' imprisonment and to deposit the fine within a specified time. Failure to pay the fine would result in a three-month sentence. The contempt petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

The appellants, who were junior engineers (Electrical) in All India Radio, went on deputation to the Postal Department. Subsequently, they opted for permanent absorption in the Postal Department on certain specified terms and conditions. These terms and conditions included the denial of the benefit of past service for seniority purposes. The Postal Department published a seniority list based on these terms, which was challenged by the appellants.

Issues:

Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of past service for seniority purposes despite the specified terms and conditions of absorption.

Whether the challenge to the seniority list is maintainable considering the acceptance of the terms and conditions of absorption by the appellants.

Held:

The Order Memos (OMs) providing for the benefit of service rendered in the previous cadre do not apply when absorption is on specified terms and conditions, denying the benefit of past service for seniority purposes (Para 29).

The terms and conditions of absorption, clearly stating that past service would not be counted for seniority, were accepted by the appellants without challenge. Their subsequent plea against the seniority list, based on these terms, is not maintainable after such a long lapse of time (Para 31-33).

The principles established in the case of Indu Shekhar Singh apply, where the State has the right to impose conditions on employees, provided there is an option for the employees to exercise their rights (Para 34).

The High Court correctly interpreted the relevant Rules, which specify the method of recruitment and provide for relaxation. The terms of absorption, as per an Office Memorandum (OM), were in conformity with these Rules (Para 35-36).

Despite the Government's failure to challenge a judgment from the Ernakulum Bench, the legal position was settled by the Delhi Bench's judgment. Therefore, the impugned judgment is upheld, and applications for direction and contempt petition are closed (Para 37-38).

Facts:

The case involves the review of judgments in Criminal Appeal Nos.1396-1397 of 2008 and Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.192-193 of 2011. The appellants were convicted under sections 302, 364A, 201, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with the death sentence upheld for two appellants and commuted to life imprisonment for a female co-accused. The review petitions were filed challenging the judgment on various grounds.

Issues:

Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review of the judgment?

Whether the tape-recorded conversation was admissible as evidence without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was justified given the circumstances of the case?

What is the scope and ambit of the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 137 of the Constitution?

Held:

The power of review granted to the Supreme Court under Article 137 of the Constitution is subject to the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, particularly Rule 1 of Order 40. The Court can entertain review applications only on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record (para 9, 10).

Review jurisdiction is limited, and a review in a criminal case can only be entertained on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. The Court can exercise its wider power under Article 137 to mitigate manifest injustice but cannot allow re-argument of the appeal on grounds previously raised (para 21).

The tape-recorded conversation, being the original cassette used for the ransom call, was admissible as primary evidence and did not require a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (para 23, 24).

The conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was upheld based on cogent evidence presented during the trial, and there was no apparent error on the face of the record warranting a review (para 25).

The Supreme Court affirmed the balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances done by the High Court and found no error in its judgment (para 29, 31).

Decision: The review applications were rejected as the submissions raised did not establish any ground for review, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record leading to a miscarriage of justice.