Facts:

The petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the dismissal of their writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. They contended that compensation for 100 acres of land acquired in the Raisina Lutyen zone of New Delhi in 1911-12 had not been paid.

Issues:

The key issue before the court was whether the petition was liable to be dismissed due to delay and laches.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the case was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The court reasoned that a claim arising 105 years after the acquisition could not be entertained, labeling it a "stale claim."

The court emphasized that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act could not be invoked in cases of dead claims or stale claims. Additionally, the court noted that the claims were clouded and doubtful, suggesting potential misuse or abuse of the law.

The court further noted that the law does not permit the examination of barred or totally fraudulent claims, and it cannot be permitted to be defrauded or misused.

Consequently, the court concluded that not only had the law been misused in this case, but it had also been abused. Therefore, the petition was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioners amounting to Rs. 50,000.

Facts:

The petitioner challenges the decision of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, dated 31st May, 2017, debarring the petitioner college from admitting students for two academic sessions.

Issues:

The Competent Authority's decision-making process and whether it adequately considered the petitioner's explanations regarding deficiencies noted in assessment reports.

Held:

The court sets aside the decision of the Competent Authority dated 31st August, 2017, as it lacked proper reasoning. However, the court does not grant immediate relief to the petitioner due to significant deficiencies needing verification. The court orders the Medical Council of India to inspect the petitioner college and identify deficiencies within three months, with the final decision to be made by the Competent Authority within one month thereafter.

The judgment makes it clear that the inspection is for considering recognition/approval for the academic session 2016-17, with consequential directions for admitting students in the academic session 2018-19 if approved. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall not be encashed pending further orders from the Competent Authority. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

Facts:

Subharti Medical College applied for recognition to increase its MBBS seats from 100 to 150.

Medical Council of India (MCI) conducted an assessment and reported deficiencies including low bed occupancy, shortage of residents, and discrepancies in clinical data.

Central Government initially debars the college from admitting students for two academic years.

Supreme Court directs the Central Government to provide a reasoned order.

Fresh order passed reiterating earlier decision based on the recommendation of the Hearing Committee.

Issues:

Whether the deficiencies noted by the MCI warrant debarring the college from admitting students.

Whether proper procedures were followed in arriving at the decision.

Held:

The court observed that the Hearing Committee did not specifically address the issue of bed occupancy in its report, despite claims made by the college. Proper verification was deemed necessary.

The court directed the MCI to send an inspection team to identify deficiencies within three months. The college would then have an opportunity to rectify these within a specified timeframe. Final decision to be made by the Competent Authority within one month.

The court clarified that the inspection would be for considering the proposal to increase the intake capacity to 150 seats, effective from the academic session 2018-19. The petitioner's bank guarantee would remain active until further orders. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

Facts:

Vijay Singh filed a pre-emption suit against Shanti Devi based on the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.

Shanti Devi was proceeded against ex parte, leading to the passing of an ex parte decree.

Shanti Devi later filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, claiming she had not received the summons.

The appellate court set aside the ex parte decree.

The suit was retried, focusing on whether the appellant had a valid right to pre-empt the sale at the time of the decree by the court of first instance.

Issues:

Whether an ex parte decree can be considered the decree of the court of first instance in a pre-emption case.

Whether the appellant had a valid right to pre-empt the sale at the time of the decree by the court of first instance.

Held:

An ex parte decree is valid until set aside and has the same force as a decree passed on contest.

Setting aside an ex parte decree restores the parties to the position they were in before the decree was passed.

The ex parte decree ceases to exist and becomes non-est once set aside. The decree passed by the trial court on merits should be treated as the decree of the first court.

Restitution cannot be ordered by the Supreme Court; it is for the executing court to decide the matter.

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant did not have a valid right to pre-empt the sale as of the date of the decree by the court of first instance, considering the subsequent amendment to the 1913 Act.

Facts:

The suit involved a dispute over an agreement of sale regarding agricultural land. The parties settled the matter and entered into a compromise accepted by the Lok Adalat, resulting in an award. Subsequently, one party filed a suit challenging the validity of the award, alleging fraud and misrepresentation.

Issues:

Whether the suit challenging the award of Lok Adalat was maintainable or whether it should have been challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 or/and 227 of the Constitution.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the challenge to the award of Lok Adalat should be made through a writ petition under Article 226 or/and 227 of the Constitution, and only on very limited grounds. The Court reiterated the principle laid down in State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, which established the exclusive remedy of filing a writ petition for challenging Lok Adalat awards. The Court clarified that the term "law" in Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Code includes judicial precedents, and therefore, the suit challenging the Lok Adalat award was barred by law.

The Court set aside the High Court's decision, restored the trial court's order rejecting the plaint, and allowed the defendants' application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Code, resulting in the rejection of the plaint. However, the Court granted liberty to the respondents to challenge the award by filing a writ petition in the High Court and emphasized that it had not examined the merits of the case, leaving it to the writ court to decide accordingly.

Facts:

The respondent was accused in a case involving fraudulent inducement and financial irregularities.

The respondent's bank accounts were frozen during the investigation.

The respondent was granted bail under certain conditions, including monthly deposits of a specific amount.

The respondent sought modification of bail conditions, which was rejected.

Subsequently, the respondent filed a criminal application before the Bombay High Court seeking relief, including de-freezing of bank accounts.

This application was withdrawn with liberty reserved to apply for discharge if a charge-sheet was filed.

The respondent then filed another application for similar relief before a Single Judge of the High Court.

Issues:

Whether filing another application for similar relief after withdrawing a previous application constitutes an abuse of process.

Held:

The Supreme Court agreed with the state's argument and set aside the Single Judge's decision, stating that the filing of another application for the same relief after withdrawing a previous application constituted an abuse of process. The court did not address other legal questions raised in the case and kept them open for future consideration. Consequently, the respondent's application before the High Court stands dismissed.

Facts:

Meraj Ahmad was appointed on a temporary basis as a Livestock Development Assistant in Uttar Pradesh.

An FIR was lodged against him under Section 302 of the IPC, leading to the termination of his services.

Meraj Ahmad was acquitted of the charges and subsequently sought fresh appointment, explicitly stating he would not claim benefits from his prior service.

He was appointed as a Livestock Extension Inspector with the condition that he would not be entitled to the benefit of his past service.

Meraj Ahmad filed writ petitions challenging the termination of his previous service and seeking continuity in employment.

Issues:

Whether Meraj Ahmad is entitled to continuity of service despite his prior termination and explicit agreement to forego benefits from his previous employment.

Whether the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court granting him continuity of service were justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that Meraj Ahmad, by seeking fresh appointment and explicitly agreeing to forego benefits from his previous service, relinquished any claim to continuity of service. The Court found that the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court erred in granting him continuity of service, considering his voluntary acceptance of termination and subsequent appointment. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the direction to grant continuity of service to Meraj Ahmad from the date of termination. The Court made no order as to costs.

Facts:

The deceased was arrested by accused No. 2 and accused No. 5, who were serving as Inspector In-charge and Police Constable, respectively.

The deceased was brought to the police station in a fit condition but was later found dead in police custody with multiple injuries on his body.

Both accused No. 2 and accused No. 5 claimed alibi, stating they had left the police station around the time of the incident.

Issues:

Whether the plea of alibi set up by the accused respondents is tenable in law.

Whether the circumstances prove the accused respondents' responsibility for the injuries causing the death of the deceased.

Held:

The court held that the acquittal of the accused respondents under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC could not be legally sustained. The plea of alibi was rejected based on inconsistencies in the evidence.

Considering the circumstantial evidence and the fact that the deceased was in custody of the accused respondents at the time of his death, the court concluded that they were responsible for the injuries causing his death. The accused respondents were convicted of the offense under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The appeals consequently are allowed.

Facts:

The dispute arises between members of a Hindu family, including uncle, aunt, and nephews, regarding ownership and partition of agricultural lands.

The family tree is provided, showing the relationship between the parties involved.

The appellants filed a suit seeking declaration and partition of certain properties claimed to be self-acquired, while the respondents contested this claim, asserting that the properties were ancestral and had been partitioned previously.

Issues:

Whether the properties claimed by the appellants as self-acquired were indeed so.

Whether the partition of ancestral properties had occurred as claimed by the respondents.

Held:

The Court upheld the findings of the trial court and the high court, which concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case regarding the ownership of the properties in question.

The Court emphasized the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish their claims, which they failed to discharge.

The legal presumption of jointness in a Hindu family and the absence of evidence to the contrary led to the rejection of the plaintiffs' claims.

The appeal was dismissed.