Facts:

The appellant, GNR. Laxmanram Poonia, was enrolled in the Indian Army in 2005. Two years later, he was diagnosed with acute schizophrenia-like psychotic disorder. Despite this, the Medical Board determined that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by Military Service. Subsequently, the appellant was discharged from service. Upon applying for disability pension, his claim was rejected by the tribunal, asserting that the disability was not connected with Military Service.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's disability was attributable to or aggravated by Military Service.

Whether the Medical Board's opinion adequately considered the relevant regulations and rules governing disability pensions.

Whether the tribunal appropriately applied the relevant regulations and rules in its decision.

Held:

The Court noted that Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, outlines the conditions for granting disability pension. The regulation specifies that disability pension is granted to individuals who are invalided out of service due to a disability attributable to or aggravated by Military Service, with an assessed disability of 20% or more, unless otherwise provided. This determination is made according to the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982. [Para 11]

The appellant's disability, as assessed by the Medical Board, was acute schizophrenia-like psychotic disorder, with a 60% assessed disability for life. However, the Medical Board concluded that the disability was not attributable to or aggravated by Military Service. The Court observed that the Medical Board's opinion lacked reasoning, particularly regarding the absence of any record of the disease or disability at the time of the appellant's enrollment in Military Service. [Para 18]

While the Court acknowledged the weight of the Medical Board's opinion, it emphasized that such opinions must align with the relevant regulations and rules. According to the General Rules of Guide to Medical Officers (Military Pensions), 2002, the Medical Board should consider the etiology of the disease and provide reasoned conclusions to facilitate the examination of entitlement to pension by the Pension Sanctioning Authority. [Para 20]

Since there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of enrollment, the Court presumed that he was in sound mental condition then. Consequently, any deterioration in health was presumed to be due to Military Service, unless proven otherwise. [Para 22]

The tribunal failed to examine the case in light of the relevant regulations and rules. Applying precedent cases, it was presumed that the appellant's disability was casually connected to his service conditions. The Court set aside the tribunal's order and directed the respondents to pay disability pension to the appellant's wife and other legal heirs in accordance with the rules. [Para 23, 24]

Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, directing the respondents to pay disability pension to the appellant's wife and other legal heirs in accordance with the relevant regulations and rules.

Facts:

The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (CSEB) filed a petition under Sections 45, 46, and 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003, seeking determination of Retail Supply Tariff for the financial year 2005-2006.

The Commission fixed minimum charges for power consumption initially at 30% of the load factor, later reducing it to 10% after considering consumption patterns.

The appellant challenged this order before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.

During the appeal, the appellant approached the Commission with additional prayers, including the issue of minimum charges.

The Commission, in its order, stated that consumers availing power from captive power plants (CPPs) need not pay monthly minimum charges on consumption if they draw more than 50% of their power requirement from the CPP.

Issues:

Whether the concept of minimum charges for power consumption was abolished for the appellant for the year 2005-2006.

Whether the Tribunal adequately addressed the Commission's order of abolishing minimum charges when affirming the decision.

Held:

The Court noted that while the Commission had acknowledged the possibility of abolishing minimum charges for cases like the appellant's, it was subject to factual analysis and conditions precedent.

The Tribunal failed to adequately address this aspect.

Therefore, the Court remitted the matter back to the Commission for fresh determination based on factual analysis.

The Commission was directed to complete the determination within four months and consider all relevant aspects.

The Court's decision was limited to the issue of contract demand, as argued by the counsels. The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents (including the Union Government, State Governments, and Union Territories) to ensure that industrial units requiring "consent to operate" have functional effluent treatment plants meeting prescribed norms.

Issues:

Whether industrial units requiring "consent to operate" must have functional effluent treatment plants.

Whether the directives issued by the court would effectively address industrial pollution concerns.

Held:

The court held that industrial units must have functional primary effluent treatment plants to operate. It directed State Pollution Control Boards to issue notices for compliance within three months, with inspections to follow. Non-compliant units would face restrictions, including disconnection of electricity supply.

The court also mandated the setting up of common effluent treatment plants and sewage treatment plants within specified timelines. Municipalities were tasked with operating existing plants and evolving norms for fund recovery. Implementation responsibility rested with Member Secretaries of Pollution Control Boards, with oversight by Environment Department Secretaries. The National Green Tribunal would supervise complaints and initiate actions against defaulters.

The court also directed the implementation of online monitoring systems for emission levels. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

The case involved the registration of a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). The respondent company, Zenith Infotech Limited, had its application for reference dismissed by the Registrar, Secretary, and Chairman of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). Subsequently, the High Court upheld an order of winding up against the respondent company.

Issues:

Whether the rejection of the reference application by the Registrar, Secretary, and Chairman of the BIFR was lawful.

Whether the winding-up order against the respondent company foreclosed the proceedings under SICA.

Held:

The power to scrutinize an application prior to registration and subsequently register it lies with the Registrar or Secretary of the BIFR. However, this power does not extend to adjudicating whether a company qualifies as an industrial company under SICA. Adjudication of such a question is within the jurisdiction of a Bench of the BIFR. (Para 17)

The rejection of the reference application by the Registrar, Secretary, and Chairman of the BIFR was deemed non-est in law by the High Court. Therefore, the reference was considered pending before the BIFR, attracting the provisions of Section 252 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. (Para 18)

The winding-up order against the respondent company did not foreclose the proceedings under SICA. The enquiry under SICA is deemed to have commenced upon registration of the reference. Therefore, the winding-up proceedings would only terminate after orders under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956, are passed. However, this question became redundant due to the conclusion that the reference was pending at the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. (Para 19)

Decision: The Court disposed of the appeal, affirming the High Court's ruling. It clarified the procedural aspects of registering a reference under SICA and emphasized that the power of adjudication lies with the Bench of the BIFR rather than individual authorities. It also affirmed the continuation of proceedings despite a winding-up order, provided the reference was pending before the BIFR.(Para 20-21)

Facts:

The appellant and respondent entered into an agreement for the sale of a property.

The sale was not completed as agreed upon, leading to the respondent filing a suit for specific performance.

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, which was upheld by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

The appellants appealed the decision, contending that specific performance should not be ordered due to certain circumstances giving the plaintiff an unfair advantage.

Issues:

Whether specific performance of the contract should be ordered.

Whether circumstances justify compensation in lieu of specific performance.

Held:

The court emphasized the discretionary nature of specific performance, guided by judicial principles (Paragraphs 8 and 9).

The court found that certain circumstances, including the involvement of the respondent's father in money lending and the disparity in property values, made it inequitable to enforce specific performance (Paragraphs 10 and 11).

The court set aside the decree for specific performance and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 15 lakhs to the respondent in lieu of specific performance, with interest accruing at a rate of 9% per annum if not paid within two months (Paragraph 12).

The appeal was allowed, and no order was made regarding costs (Paragraph 14).

Facts:

The appellant-landlord filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the tenant, partially decreed by the trial court.

Another action for eviction was initiated by the landlord on grounds of unauthorized construction by the tenant.

Appeals against the suits were dismissed, with the High Court also dismissing civil revision applications.

Issues:

Whether the application of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was correct without proper proof of the earlier suit's plaint.

The validity of the High Court's decision regarding the application of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and its failure to address the merits of the case.

Held:

The Court held that the application of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC requires proper proof of the earlier suit's plaint. The failure to provide such proof renders the plea unsustainable.

This principle was reiterated based on the decisions in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal and Jichhu Ram v. Pearey Pasi. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the High Court for reconsideration on merits, with instructions to dispose of the civil revision application within six months.

The appeal relating to eviction was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court in that regard was set aside. However, the appeal arising out of the refusal of the order of injunction was dismissed.

Facts:

The case involved appeals against a judgment by the High Court of Gauhati at Guwahati regarding enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon.

The victims were involved in a fatal accident while traveling as passengers in a Tata Sumo vehicle.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation, holding the Tata Sumo driver negligent but absolving the insurance company from liability due to the victims being classified as "gratuitous passengers."

The claimants appealed seeking enhancement of compensation and liability of the insurance company.

Issues:

Whether the insurance company, United India Insurance Company Ltd., should be held liable for compensation to the claimants.

Application of the principle of "pay and recover" in such cases.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the principle of "pay and recover" should be applied, directing the insurance company to initially pay the awarded sum to the claimants.

Subsequently, the insurance company was entitled to recover the paid amount from the owner of the offending vehicle, Tata Sumo, in the same proceedings.

This decision was based on previous precedents, including National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur & Ors., National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao & Ors., and Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul & Anr.

The Court found no merit in the insurance company's arguments against granting relief to the claimants, considering the similarity of facts to previous cases and the pendency of reference to a larger Bench, which did not affect the applicability of established principles.

Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was modified accordingly.

Facts:

The case involves the acquisition of land by the State of Haryana for a public purpose, specifically for setting up an Industrial Model Township.

Disputes arose regarding the determination of compensation for the acquired land, which was allotted to Maruti Suzuki India Limited (MSIL).

The High Court permitted the post-acquisition allottee to be impleaded as a party in the compensation determination process and allowed additional evidence to be presented.

Issues:

Whether a post-acquisition allottee of land has the locus to be heard in the determination of compensation.

Whether the allowance of additional evidence and remand by the High Court was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the post-acquisition allottee does not have the locus to be heard in the determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Once the land vests in the State for a public purpose, any subsequent allottee has no right to contest the compensation.

The allowance of additional evidence and the subsequent remand by the High Court was unjustified, as there was no ground for permitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

Transparency International India and the Centre for Media Studies filed a writ petition based on a study highlighting corruption issues, including in the lower judiciary in Jammu and Kashmir.

The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan, initiated action against several parties, including Transparency International India and the Centre for Media Studies, based on an article published in "Greater Kashmir" alleging corruption in the lower judiciary.

Issues:

The jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate to initiate contempt proceedings.

The response of the petitioners to the show cause notices.

The legality of enforcing attendance through arrest.

Held:

The court ruled that any court affected by general allegations could make a reference to the High Court for contempt proceedings. The jurisdiction of the High Court extends to cases involving contempt of subordinate courts, even if the allegations are not specific to individual judges or courts. (Para 18)

The Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to enforce attendance through arrest. The petitioners' response to the show cause notices was acknowledged, and the magistrate was directed to proceed in accordance with the law. The court clarified that while the magistrate could continue proceedings, the petitioners were free to enter their appearance before the magistrate. (Para 20)

The court recognized the petitioners' contention regarding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989, and directed the magistrate to consider their submissions if intending to proceed under certain provisions of the Ranbir Penal Code. (Para 21)

Proceedings against Admiral R.H. Tahiliani were deemed to have abated due to his demise. (Para 22)

The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.( Para 23)