Dowry and Harassment – Conviction under IPC Sections 304B, 498A and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - Kanchanben Bhanderi, mother-in-law, convicted for dowry harassment leading to daughter-in-law Hina’s suicide by consuming poison seven months post-marriage - Conviction sustained by the Supreme Court despite acquittal of husband due to specific evidence against her - Allegations of cruelty connected with dowry demands proven – High Court's acquittal of husband on account of his lack of involvement in harassment, and general allegations made against him found reasonable - No parity in cases between mother-in-law and husband due to specific evidence against the former - Sentence reduced from eight to seven years RI for offences under IPC Section 304B and 498A [Paras 1-16]

Demand of Dowry - Clear and specific evidence of demands for dowry and harassment by the appellant led to mental and physical cruelty towards the deceased, contributing to her suicidal decision - Testimonies of family members and friends supported the prosecution’s claim, overcoming defense arguments related to general household dissatisfaction and possible accidental poisoning - Evidence from PW8 (mother), PW10 (cousin), and PW18 (friend) crucial in establishing the continuous demand for dowry and resultant harassment [Paras 5-14]

Legal Principle - Importance of specific and cogent evidence in dowry death cases highlighted - Convictions under Section 304B IPC require demonstrated linkage between cruelty and dowry demands, upheld by cited precedents including Satvir Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and Durga Prasad and Another Vs. State of M.P. - General principles of parity among accused considered, emphasizing individual roles and evidence [Paras 9-13, 16]

Insurance Claim and Settlement – Respondent's factory damaged by fire – Claimed insurance amount under a fire insurance policy – Dispute arises over the settlement amount and the conditions under which the discharge voucher was signed - Appellant contested the claims of duress and undue influence, asserting that the settlement was agreed upon without coercion and was in line with the surveyor's assessment - Respondent alleges duress due to financial strain and coercive conditions imposed by the appellant. [Paras 2-4]

Arbitration Clause Invocation – Respondent sought arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, claiming duress in settlement – High Court deemed disputes arbitrable and appointed an arbitrator - Appellant challenges the High Court's decision, arguing full and final settlement had been reached with the voluntary signing of discharge voucher and subrogation letter. [Paras 5-6]

Judicial Review – Supreme Court examined whether the discharge agreement was signed under duress or undue influence – Consideration of the financial status of the respondent and circumstances of signing the agreement - Held, no evidence supporting claims of non-voluntary agreement - Full and final settlement deemed valid and no arbitrable dispute existed. [Paras 7-10]

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order appointing an arbitrator set aside, as no arbitrable dispute exists after voluntary full and final settlement of the insurance claim. [Para 10]

Property Law - Intestate Succession - Suit for possession and declaration of ownership over residential property filed by the deceased’s brother challenged by a woman claiming to be the deceased’s wife - Trial court favored the brother based on familial relations under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, but High Court reversed finding her to be the lawful wife and thus class-I heir.

Legal Representative - Inquiry required to determine the appropriate legal representative for deceased Respondent in appellate proceedings - High Court failed to properly ascertain legal representative status under Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC, leading to remand by Supreme Court.

Evidence and Presumptions - High Court found extensive cohabitation and recognition as husband and wife over a long period sufficient to establish marital status under common law presumptions of marriage, contrary to the trial court's findings based strictly on documentary evidence and legal submissions.

Conviction Review - Allegations of forming unlawful assembly with intent to commit murder; weapons used; multiple assailants; confirmation of lower court's findings by High Court despite questionable witness credibility - [Para 2-4].

Witness Credibility - Inconsistencies in testimonies, identification of assailants without proper foundation; reliance on chance witnesses and hostile testimonies questioned - [Para 4, 6-8, 10-11].

Evidence Evaluation - Analysis by Supreme Court highlights discrepancies and contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, leading to doubts about their reliability in corroborating the occurrence of crime as alleged - [Para 9-22].

Legal Reasoning - High Court's affirmation of conviction criticized for lack of substantial evidence; reliance on discredited witness testimonies and failure to consider full scope of trial court's critical findings - [Para 23-37].

Decision - Supreme Court allows appeal; sets aside convictions of appellants, emphasizing need for credible, reliable evidence for conviction - [Para 38].

MRTP Act Interpretation - Land not acquired within 10 years under a development plan should ideally be acquired or have acquisition initiated, failing which the owner can serve notice to the planning authority - If no action is taken within six months of such notice, the reservation lapses - Application and interpretation of Sections 126, 127 of the MRTP Act examined [Paras 11-13].

Revised Development Plans - Revised development plan under Section 38 MRTP Act does not reset the 10-year requirement for land acquisition under the original plan unless specific actions disrupting the original terms occur - Supreme Court clarifies that the period for consideration of lapsing of reservations under a revised plan starts from the date of the original plan unless effectively superseded by actionable steps under the revised plan [Para 19].

Legal Outcome - Appeal dismissed as the notice under Section 127 was issued after the revised development plan, maintaining the reservation as per the revised plan - Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision with no orders as to costs [Para 21].

Employment Dispute - Termination of employment challenged - Respondent was employed as a conductor on a daily-wage basis by the appellant from 3rd October 1987 to 31st March 1989 - Labour Court and High Court findings confirmed that the respondent had worked sufficiently to be eligible for protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination deemed illegal due to non-payment of retrenchment compensation, directed reinstatement with 65% back wages, later modified by High Court reducing back wages - Supreme Court finds reinstatement not feasible after significant time lapse, awards monetary compensation instead [Paras 1-17].

Burden of Proof - Onus on the workman to demonstrate employment for 240 days to claim unfair termination - Labour Court drew an adverse inference against the Appellant for not producing relevant employment records, supported by precedents that burden of proving employment duration rests on the employee [Para 8].

Evidence and Admissibility - Labour Court relied on a Xerox copy of a certificate indicating the respondent's employment period - Despite absence of original document, the certificate was admitted without objection, establishing continuous service for the required period [Para 9].

Legal Principle - Non-payment of retrenchment compensation renders termination illegal - Supreme Court cites several precedents, decides against reinstatement due to practical considerations, opts for monetary compensation [Paras 10-16].

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the lower courts' orders by substituting reinstatement with a monetary compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 to the respondent, to be paid within two months, with an interest provision for delayed payment [Para 17].

Public Sector Undertakings - Wage Revision - Supreme Court holds that employees who retired before 1st April 2003 are not entitled to wage revision benefits or notional pay revision; wage revisions effective from 1st April 2003 to be implemented from 1st April 2006 do not apply to those who retired before these dates - Tribunal and High Court erred in granting notional wage revision to employees retired before the cut-off date - Emphasis on financial sustainability and the specific government communication restricting benefits only to employees who were on rolls as of 1st April 2003 - Actual benefits restricted to post-2003 retirees based on financial and structural adjustments within the corporation following heavy losses [Paras 1-19].

Decision: Supreme Court sets aside the judgments of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, holding that the cut-off date (1.4.2003) for wage revision entitlements is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - No wage revision benefits to employees who retired prior to the cut-off date. No costs.

Electricity Law - Tariff and Subsidy - Clarification on Applicability of Government Policy to HV-2 Connections – Supreme Court held that the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission's extension of a flat rate subsidy to HV-2 category consumers, intended for LMV-2 and LMV-6 consumers, was beyond its jurisdiction, as this contradicted the express directives of the State Government that no subsidy was envisaged for HV-2 consumers - The Court found that the Commission could not unilaterally extend subsidies without clear governmental provision - [Paras 1-31]

Subsidy Policy Application – Government's Intended Beneficiaries – The policy providing flat rate electricity to power loom bunkers was specifically aimed at supporting LMV-2 and LMV-6 category consumers, traditionally smaller power loom operators, and not applicable to larger industries categorized under HV-2, which generally consume much higher power - [Para 26]

Legal Authority and Government Directives – Supreme Court emphasized that the provision of subsidies lies strictly within the prerogative of the State Government as per Sections 65 and 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the State Commission must act within the confines of directives issued by the State Government - [Paras 27, 30]

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., stating the extension of benefits under the disputed government order to HV-2 consumers was unsustainable and dismissed the appeal concerning Vikas Textile's demand for a refund under the same order - [Para 31]

Demurrage and Port Charges – Liability of Steamer Agent – Appeals involve questions of whether a Steamer Agent is liable for demurrage and port charges under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - Steamer Agents held liable by High Court for charges on unendorsed goods warehoused by port authorities - Supreme Court examines statutory definitions and bailment relationships under Sections 2, 42 of the Act of 1963 - Held: In cases where bill of lading is not endorsed or delivery orders are not issued, Steamer Agent is the bailor and Port Trust is the bailee; Steamer Agent liable for demurrage and port charges until consignee takes over - Contractual bailment established under Section 42(2) and Section 43(1)(ii) supporting liability of Steamer Agent [Paras 3-12].

Decision: Dismissal of Appeals – High Court decisions affirmed – Steamer Agents are liable for demurrage and port charges under Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 until consignee endorses the bill of lading or issues delivery order - Supreme Court supports statutory interpretation of 'owner' to include Steamer Agents where bill of lading remains unendorsed [Paras 12-13].