Facts:

The Court requested senior counsels to assist in nominating members of the committee of administrators for BCCI.

Issues:

Appointment of suitable candidates as members of the committee of administrators for BCCI.

Held:

Mr. Fali S. Nariman, who was initially requested, expressed difficulty due to his prior association with BCCI. He was discharged from the role. Mr. Anil B. Divan was appointed in his place to recommend suitable names for appointment. An inadvertent error in the order was corrected regarding the tenure of office bearers in BCCI or State Associations.

Facts:

The case pertains to the recovery of dues before Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) in India.

Prior to the establishment of DRTs, a significant number of cases were pending before various courts.

The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was enacted to establish tribunals and appellate tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of dues.

Despite legislative provisions, there was a substantial backlog of cases pending before DRTs and DRATs.

Issues:

Whether the timelines set in the amended legislation can be achieved with the existing infrastructure and personnel of DRTs and DRATs.

Steps to enhance the infrastructure and resources of DRTs and DRATs.

Empirical data on pending cases and outstanding amounts.

Held:

Highlights the backlog of cases and the introduction of legislative changes to address the issue.

Emphasizes the importance of infrastructure and resources for the effective functioning of DRTs and DRATs.

Outlines the directives issued to the Union Government to file an affidavit addressing various issues, including the feasibility of achieving timelines, steps to enhance infrastructure, and provision of empirical data.

Facts:

The case involves allegations of abduction, murder, and destruction of evidence against the appellants. The prosecution presented evidence regarding a transaction involving the purchase of land between the deceased and one of the appellants. Additionally, witnesses testified to the last seen together between the deceased and the accused. The police discovered the deceased's body based on information provided by two accused individuals. The prosecution contended that these pieces of evidence, along with others, pointed towards the guilt of the appellants.

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution establishes a prima facie case against the appellants.

Whether the disclosures made by the accused leading to the discovery of the deceased's body are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Whether the circumstantial evidence, including motive and last seen together, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

Held:

The Court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including testimony regarding the land transaction and last seen together, was credible and relevant. This evidence supported the prosecution's case and established a prima facie case against the appellants.

The Court held that the disclosures made by the accused leading to the discovery of the deceased's body were admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The disclosures were made separately by the accused and preceded the discovery of the body, making them admissible against both accused individuals.

The Court concluded that the circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen together, and the involvement of the accused in disposing of the deceased's body, was sufficient to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The roles of each accused were differentiated based on the evidence presented.

Facts:

Balwant Singh, a driver with PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, retired without opting for the pension scheme under the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992.

He later filed a suit claiming entitlement to pension benefits despite not having opted for the scheme within the stipulated time frame.

Issues:

Whether personal service of notice inviting option was necessary for employees to exercise their choice under the Regulations.

Whether the plaintiff's failure to opt for the pension scheme within the prescribed period disentitles him from claiming pension benefits.

Held:

The Court held that personal service of notice inviting the option was not necessary as per the Regulations. The Regulations were circulated to all concerned parties, including the Head Office and Depots, fulfilling the requirement for notice. Referring to previous judgments, including PEPSU Road Transport Corporation v. Mangal Singh, the Court reiterated that failure to opt for the pension scheme within the specified time frame would disentitle the employee from claiming pension benefits.

In this case, the plaintiff retired without opting for the pension scheme and received CPF benefits without protest. Therefore, he cannot claim benefits under the pension scheme. The appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

Facts:

The case, Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1992, involved Abhiram Singh as the appellant and C.D. Commachen (deceased) by legal representatives as the respondent.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and its alignment with the secular principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Held:

The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated January 2, 2017, held that:

The elections to the State legislature, Parliament, or any other body in the State are secular exercises, and the functions of elected representatives must also be secular in both outlook and practice.

It emphasized the importance of interpreting statutes in a manner that does not offend the fundamental mandate, particularly if a statute is well-drafted and debated in Parliament.

The interpretation placed on Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was deemed correct and not suffering from manifest error, and it did not result in any public mischief.

Acknowledging the imperfections in democracy, the judgment underscored that no form of government is perfect, and the actual unfolding of democracy may suffer from imperfections.

Facts:

The respondent, Krishna Narayan Tewari, was employed with the appellant-bank, Allahabad Bank, and was posted as Officer in-charge at the Sultanpur branch in Uttar Pradesh.

He was suspended pending a disciplinary enquiry initiated against him with the service of a charge-sheet.

The Enquiry Officer concluded the proceedings quickly, finding the respondent guilty on most counts.

The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and imposed the penalty of removal from service.

The respondent's departmental appeal was dismissed, following which he approached the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed by the authorities suffered from deficiencies.

Whether the High Court was justified in not remanding the matter back to the competent authority.

Whether the respondent is entitled to salary and retiral benefits for the period between removal from service and superannuation.

Held:

The Supreme Court acknowledged the general principle of remanding cases for a fresh enquiry or order when deficiencies are found in disciplinary proceedings.

Considering the prolonged legal process and the respondent's circumstances, the Court deemed a remand too harsh and upheld the High Court's decision not to remand the matter.

Regarding entitlement to salary during the period of removal until superannuation, the Court partially allowed the appeal. It granted the respondent continuity of service till superannuation with all service benefits but awarded only 50% of the salary for the period of removal till superannuation, along with retiral benefits.

Facts:

The BCCI failed to comply with the recommendations of the Lodha Committee, as affirmed by the final judgment and order dated 18.06.2016. Despite ample time provided, the BCCI did not adhere to the court's directives. The President of BCCI, Mr. Anurag Thakur, sought a letter from the President of the International Cricket Council (ICC), requesting that the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) nominee be deemed governmental interference, potentially leading to ICC suspension.

Issues:

Whether the actions of the President of BCCI constituted contempt of court?

What measures should be taken regarding the officials of BCCI and its affiliated State Associations who failed to meet the norms recommended by the Lodha Committee?

Held:

The conduct of the President of BCCI in soliciting a letter from the ICC President after the final judgment of this Court was an attempt to evade compliance with the court's order. Mr. Thakur's actions rendered him unfit to continue as President of BCCI and obstructed the court's order dated 18.07.2016.

The President of BCCI and Secretary of BCCI are to cease and desist from their roles within the organization. The senior-most Vice-President of BCCI is to assume the duties of President, and the Joint Secretary is to assume the duties of Secretary.

A committee of administrators will oversee the administration of BCCI through its Chief Executive Officer. Proceedings will be listed for the pronouncement of directions regarding the appointment of administrators.

Facts:

Pushparani Jain appointed her brother Jinendra Jain as her attorney to handle formalities regarding her plot allotted by the Bhopal Development Authority (BDA).

Harjas Rai Makhija (the appellant) entered into an agreement with Jinendra Jain regarding the sale of Pushparani's plot.

Legal proceedings ensued, including suits filed by Pushparani and Makhija, which were decided in favor of Pushparani and against Makhija.

Makhija's subsequent appeals were dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Allegations of fraud in obtaining the decree in favor of Pushparani.

Collateral attack on a final decree.

Specific performance of the agreement and the necessity of proving fraud with evidence.

Held:

The court held that Makhija's appeal lacked merit, emphasizing the importance of proving fraud with evidence and intent to deceive. The court noted that Makhija had failed to prove fraud and that mere allegations without evidence are insufficient. It was deemed impermissible for Makhija to reopen the case for specific performance as the decree had become final. Accordingly, the court dismissed Makhija's appeal and ordered him to pay costs. This decision was in line with earlier precedents emphasizing the necessity of proving fraud with evidence.

Facts:

The cases in question were pending before the High Courts, where proceedings had been stayed at various stages such as registration of FIR, investigation, framing of charges, or during trial, through the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or Sections 397/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The court noted the prolonged pendency of serious criminal cases due to the issuance of stay orders by the High Courts. The Law Commission had been tasked with studying the issue and recommending measures for setting up additional courts and providing necessary infrastructure to ensure speedy disposal of cases. Subsequently, the Chairperson of the National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMSC) proposed an interim approach, which supplemented the disposal rate method with the prevailing unit system of the High Courts to determine judge strength based on the nature and complexity of cases.

Issues:

The efficacy of the rate of disposal method in assessing judge efficiency and its implications.

The need for due importance to be given to the disposal of old cases and complex cases within the framework of the unit system.

Determining judge strength to address backlog and prevent its recurrence.

Acceptance and implementation of the interim approach proposed by the NCMSC.

Role of State Governments and High Courts in addressing infrastructure and manpower needs of the judiciary.

Held:

The Court addressed criticisms of the rate of disposal method, emphasizing that lower disposal rates may not necessarily reflect inefficiency but could be due to various external factors such as inadequate infrastructure, absentee witnesses, and delays in service of summons. Ground realities must be considered alongside statistics. (Para 16)

The Court emphasized the need for the High Courts to revise the unit-based norms to incentivize the disposal of complex and old cases, consulting with the district judiciary to ensure a balanced approach. (Para 17)

It was highlighted that judge strength should anticipate future case filings and aim to clear backlogs within a specified timeframe. (Para 18)

The Court accepted the interim approach proposed by the NCMSC for determining judge strength, rejecting the stipulation by the Union government to create new posts only after 90% of the sanctioned strength is filled. It emphasized the necessity of providing adequate judge strength to facilitate infrastructure development. (Para 20)

The Court noted the endorsement of proposals by the Fourteenth Finance Commission and urged State Governments to utilize additional fiscal allocations for meeting judiciary requirements. (Para 21)

Specific directions were formulated, including the utilization of the interim approach until a scientific method for determining judge strength is formulated by NCMSC, cooperation between State Governments and High Courts, and the creation of additional infrastructure as per recommendations.(Para 22)

List the proceedings for disposal of the criminal appeals before the appropriate bench in the third week of July 2017. (Para 23)