Constitutional Law - Gender Equality - Discrimination by Trade Union - Writ Petition under Article 32 challenging discriminatory practices by the Cine Costume Make-up Artists and Hair Dressers Association of Mumbai, which denied membership to female make-up artists on the grounds of gender and lack of five-year residency in Maharashtra - Supreme Court held that such practices violate Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, as well as provisions under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 - The Court quashed the discriminatory clauses in the Association's bye-laws and directed immediate registration of the petitioners as make-up artists - Court emphasized the constitutional mandate of gender equality and the right to livelihood - Directed police administration to ensure no harassment of female make-up artists [Paras 1-55].

Referred Cases:

Ashoka Smokeless Coal Ind. P. Ltd. v. Union of India (2007) 2 SCC 640

Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University (1996) 3 SCC 545

M/s. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D'costa (1987) 2 SCC 469

Mrs. Neera Mathur v. LIC (1992) 1 SCC 286

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545

Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654

Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India (2013) 4 SCC 1

Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 1

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 1

Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012) 5 SCC 1

Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608

A.I.I.M.S. Students Union v. A.I.I.M.S. (2002) 1 SCC 428

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241

Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 146

Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 10 SCC 237

Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996) 5 SCC 125

Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 186

Contempt of Courts - Conviction of Promoter Director - Criminal Appeals filed against the High Court's judgment which set aside the conviction and sentence of K.S. Raju (Promoter Director of NFL) and other directors for contempt of court - Supreme Court restored the conviction and sentence of K.S. Raju - Held: K.S. Raju's resignation was a deliberate attempt to evade liability and his failure to repay depositors was wilful disobedience of CLB's order and breach of undertakings given to CLB - Conviction and sentence of six months simple imprisonment and Rs. 2,000/- fine reinstated for K.S. Raju - Other directors acquitted by the High Court remained acquitted due to lack of opportunity to defend themselves initially. [Paras 1-29]

Court held that CLB orders, not being executable as a civil decree post Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, warrant the use of contempt proceedings to ensure compliance. CLB, performing judicial functions, is a subordinate court to the High Court for contempt jurisdiction - Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to provide a 60-day window for K.S. Raju to repay depositors, failing which the prison sentence would be enforced - Observed that a company functions through its directors, making them responsible for its contemptuous actions. [Paras 12-29]

Referred Cases:

N. Venkata Swamy Naidu vs. Sri Surya Teja Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2007) 6 ALT 439: (2008) CriLJ 227

Mohammedbhikhan Hussainbhai and etc. vs. The Manager, Chandrabhanu Cinema and Others etc., AIR 1986 Guj 209: (1986) 1 GLR 1

Facts:

The suit premises were let out in 1971 at Rs. 70/- per month, with standard rent fixed in 1971. The petitioner issued a legal notice in 1987 for arrears of rent exceeding six months and other breaches. The eviction suit was filed under various grounds, including arrears of rent (Section 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b)), bona fide requirement, and causing nuisance.

Trial and Appellate Court: The Small Causes Court dismissed the suit- the appellate bench reversed this, holding that the tenant did not comply with Section 12(3)(b) as rent due was not fully deposited by the first hearing date (3.8.1994) - rent fell short by Rs. 270/-.

High Court: Reversed the appellate decision, interpreting Section 12(3)(b) purposively to allow substantial compliance if the tenant showed readiness and willingness to pay rent - found the shortfall of Rs. 270/- insignificant.

Supreme Court Assessment: Cited precedents establishing the mandatory nature of Section 12(3)(b) - tenant must strictly comply by depositing full rent due on the first hearing date - rejected the High Court's purposive interpretation - held that discretionary jurisdiction under Section 12(3)(b) is not permissible - set aside the High Court's judgment - restored the appellate bench's eviction order.

Decision: Petition allowed - eviction decree restored as per the appellate court's order.

Referred Cases:

Ratilal Balabhai Nazar vs. Ranchhodbhai Shankerbhai Patel and Others, AIR 1968 Guj 172: (1968) 9 GLR 48

Mranalini B. Shah and Another vs. Bapalal Mohanlal Shah, AIR 1980 SC 954: (1980) 4 SCC 251

Jamnadas Dharamdas vs. Dr. J. Joseph Farreira and Another, AIR 1980 SC 1605: (1980) 3 SCC 569: (1980) 3 SCR 1015: (1980) 12 UJ 665

Vasant Ganesh Damle vs. Shrikant Trimbak Datar and Another, AIR 2002 SC 1237: (2002) 2 JT 576: (2002) 2 SCALE 441: (2002) 4 SCC 183: (2002) 2 SCR 198: (2002) 1 UJ 415: (2002) AIRSCW 1028: (2002) 2 Supreme 262

Ganpat Ladha vs. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, AIR 1978 SC 955: (1978) 2 SCC 573: (1978) 3 SCR 198: (1978) 10 UJ 218

This appeal addresses the direction issued by the High Court of Madras to conduct a caste-wise census - The direction arose from a writ petition challenging the appointment of an individual based on Scheduled Tribe status in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, where there was no Presidential notification under Article 342 of the Constitution indicating the presence of Scheduled Tribes - The High Court directed the Census Department to conduct a caste-wise census, which was challenged by the Census Commissioner as an overreach into executive policy-making - The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial review should not extend to formulating policies or directing their specifics unless such policies are unconstitutional or arbitrary - Referencing various judgments, the Court highlighted the distinction between reviewing policies for legality and framing or directing policies - The Census Act and notifications issued under it did not provide for caste-wise enumeration other than for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - The Court concluded that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing such directions without any deliberation on the implications or the statutory framework - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders, underscoring the necessity of judicial restraint in policy matters. [Paras 1-30]

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the judgments and orders of the High Court of Madras in W.P.(C) No. 25785/2005 and W.P.(C) No. 10090/2010 are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

Referred Cases:

Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others (2009) 1 SCC 768

Suresh Seth vs. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation and Others (2005) 13 SCC 287

State of Kerala and Another vs. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit and Others (2009) 8 SCC 46

Khetrabasi Biswal vs. Ajaya Kumar Baral and Others (2004) 1 SCC 317

Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam vs. Union of India (2009) 7 SCC 561

N.D. Jayal and Another vs. Union of India and Others (2004) 9 SCC 362

Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India and Others (2000) 10 SCC 664

Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association and Others vs. Union of India and Another (1989) 4 SCC 187

State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. A.R. Zakki and Others (1992) 1 SCC 548

State of Punjab and Others vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga Etc. Etc. (1998) 4 SCC 117

Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar (1963) 1 SCR 676 Supp

Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248

A.K. Roy and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1982) 1 SCC 271

Premium Granites and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (1994) 2 SCC 691

H.C. Kulwant Singh vs. H.C. Daya Ram (2014) 8 SCALE 150

Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (2011) 7 SCC 639

M.P. Oil Extraction and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others (1997) 7 SCC 592

Prabodh Verma and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (1984) 4 SCC 251

Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others (2007) 6 SCC 44

Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651

Civil Law - Nuisance and Noise Pollution – Appeal arising from the High Court order dismissing the appellant's petition against noise and disturbances caused by political protests near his residence – Appellant, a retired Director General of Police, faced severe disruptions due to frequent protests, loudspeakers, and misuse of residential walls – Despite complaints, the State and Police did not take adequate measures – NHRC and RSHRC acknowledged the issue and directed the State to implement specific remedial measures, which were inadequately followed – Appellant sought writ reliefs for protection of his right to peaceful living – Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court noted the State's assurances and deemed further orders unnecessary – Supreme Court held that the nuisance infringed on the appellant's fundamental rights under Articles 19(1) and 21 – Emphasized the need for strict compliance with the Noise Pollution Rules and past Supreme Court directions on noise pollution control – Directed the State to ensure the implementation of remedial measures suggested in their counter-affidavit and modify them if necessary for better effectiveness – Appeal partly allowed, modifying the High Court's order to ensure strict compliance with the directions and further necessary actions by the State to protect residents' rights. [Paras 1-35]

Referred Cases:

Firm Kaluram Sitaram v. The Dominion of India, AIR 1954 Bom 50

In Re: Noise Pollution, AIR 2005 SC 3136

Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1

Consumer Protection – Appeal: Complaint for non-delivery of goods exported to Bangladesh – National Commission directed payment for loss – Appellant claimed delivery at Bangladesh customs but no proof of delivery produced – National Commission found appellant’s documents bogus – Appeal dismissed – Burden on appellant to prove delivery not discharged [Paras 1-54].

Facts: Respondent (Ganesh Polytex Ltd.) engaged in manufacturing and exporting yarn and fabric – Appellant (Transport Corporation of India Ltd.) engaged in transportation of goods – Respondent received export order to Dhaka, Bangladesh, and dispatched five consignments through appellant – Consignee copies of consignment notes provided to respondent – Goods to be delivered upon production of consignee copy – Respondent sent documents through bank for negotiation with Bangladesh bank – Bank returned documents unpaid – Respondent requested appellant to rebook goods back to India – Appellant assured rebooking but subsequently claimed goods were exported – Respondent filed complaint with National Commission [Paras 3-17].

Court Assessment: National Commission found appellant’s invoices did not match respondent’s documents and declared them bogus – Customs procedure for export not followed – No bill of export or export report produced by appellant – Section 40, 41, 46 of Customs Act, 1962 requires bill of export and export report for export – No evidence appellant complied – Foreign law must be pleaded and proved – Appellant did not provide details of Bangladesh customs procedures – Claim for duty drawback by respondent does not prove delivery – Appellant failed to establish delivery beyond Indian customs [Paras 18-53].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant failed to prove goods were delivered as claimed – National Commission’s order upheld – Appellant to pay Rs. 29,74,321.45 with 12% interest from complaint date to realization and Rs. 25,000 as costs [Para 54].

Referred Cases:

None

Criminal Law - Dowry Death and Cruelty - Appeal by accused Hari Om (A-1) against conviction and life sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC - High Court upheld conviction but acquitted co-accused (A-2 to A-5) - Appellant challenged sentence only - Supreme Court reduced life sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment - Appellant's persistent dowry demands led to wife's suicide - Evidence and suicide note confirmed dowry harassment - Appellant already served 9 years - Extreme sentence of life imprisonment deemed excessive - [Paras 1-27].

Assessment of Evidence - Dowry Demands and Suicide - Evidence showed continuous demands by A-1 for money and goods post marriage - Deceased's suicide note corroborated harassment - Post mortem confirmed death by poison - Defence failed to weaken prosecution's case - [Paras 5-10, 17-19].

Quantum of Sentence - Life Imprisonment Reduction - Supreme Court observed life imprisonment not mandatory in all dowry death cases - Considering totality of circumstances and Appellant's 9 years' incarceration, reduced sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment - Referenced previous judgments for similar reductions - [Paras 20-25].

Right to Equality - Arbitrary Discrimination: The Supreme Court underscored the principle that equals must be treated equally under Article 14 - Held that the Andaman and Nicobar Administration's exclusion of the posts of Information Officer (IO) and Tourist Information Officer (TIO) from the encadrement in DANICS was arbitrary and discriminatory - [Paras 2, 10-12, 17].

Directions for Encadrement: The Court directed the Union of India to encadre all seven posts (three DRCs, two TIOs, and two IOs) in DANICS with retrospective effect from the date of notification - Found the process adopted by the Cadre Review Committee to be arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 - [Paras 11, 17].

Failure to Challenge Tribunal Order: The Court noted that the Union of India did not challenge the Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing reconsideration of the encadrement, implying acceptance of its findings - [Para 10(a)].

Common Seniority and Equal Treatment: The Court emphasized that the posts of IO, TIO, and DRC share the same seniority list, pay scale, and professional content, thus warranting equal treatment in encadrement - Any deviation would result in unjust promotion of juniors over seniors - [Paras 10(e), 17].

Decision: The appeal was allowed, directing the Union of India to encadre the posts of IO, TIO, and DRC in DANICS within one month from the communication of the judgment. The encadrement would be effective from the same date as the original notification. The appellant was awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 to be borne by the Union of India - [Para 18].

Facts - The appeals arose from the High Court's decision upholding the convictions and sentences of the appellants under Sections 302 read with 149 and 148 IPC - The appellants were accused of forming an unlawful assembly and committing murders of five individuals due to village disputes and Panchayat elections.

Judgment and Decision - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision - It found the deaths to be homicidal based on medical evidence and eye-witness testimonies - Key testimonies from Madhubala Bai (PW-1) and Saraswati Bai (PW-3) were deemed credible, despite their close relation to the victims - The evidence showed the appellants' active participation in the murders - The court rejected arguments about non-examination of certain witnesses and minor discrepancies in testimonies, emphasizing the reliability of the primary witnesses.

Assessment - The court relied on legal principles from precedent cases like Masalti vs. State of UP and Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra to affirm that the presence in an unlawful assembly with common object suffices for liability under Section 149 IPC - The court dismissed the appeals, affirming the life imprisonment sentences and fines imposed by lower courts - The court's discussion highlighted the vicarious liability principle under Section 149 IPC and the credibility of related witnesses when supported by corroborative evidence.