Facts:

Raj Singh, an ex-Sepoy in the Territorial Army, died on 04.08.2008 in a disembodied state due to a heart attack.

The appellant, his wife, sought family pension, which was denied based on the argument that territorial army personnel in a disembodied state without completing fifteen years of embodied service were not entitled to service pension.

The appellant contended that such denial was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issues:

Whether the denial of family pension to the next of kin of a Territorial Army personnel who died while in a disembodied state is discriminatory and violative of Article 14.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the tribunal, emphasizing the distinction between regular army personnel and territorial army personnel in terms of their terms and conditions of service. The court agreed that there was no violation of Article 14.

However, considering the anomaly in the system and the appellant's plight, the court, in the interest of justice and under Article 142, awarded an ex-gratia grant of rupees ten lakhs to the appellant. The court modified the tribunal's order, directing the respondents to pay the ex-gratia amount within three months. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Facts:

The dispute pertains to land in the village Sarai Aziz, and the appellants succeeded before Consolidation Authorities. The non-official respondents challenged these orders before the High Court, leading to the present appeal.

Issues:

Applicability of res judicata in cases involving issues of fact and pure questions of law.

Whether findings on issues of law in previous judgments are binding in subsequent proceedings for different properties.

Held:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that res judicata applies to issues of fact but not necessarily to pure questions of law in subsequent proceedings involving different causes of action and different properties. Once a judgment attains finality, it binds the parties on all issues related to the subject matter of the suit or proceeding. The Court distinguished between issues of fact and pure questions of law and emphasized that even an erroneous decision on a question of law is binding unless superseded through higher tribunals, review, or appeals.

Facts:

The respondent, Dr. Rajiv, was accused of murdering his wife, Dr. Suman Lata, through the forcible administration of poison. The prosecution alleged a strained relationship due to dowry demands and the accused's drinking habits. Incidents of abuse and violence were reported, culminating in the tragic event on 26.5.2000.

Issues:

Whether the circumstances surrounding the case were sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense.

Held:

The trial court convicted the respondent based on a chain of circumstances, including consistent maltreatment, the purchase of poison, and the victim's injuries. The High Court, however, acquitted the respondent, citing inconclusive circumstances.

The trial court found the circumstantial evidence, including the nature of injuries, the accused's conduct, and the purchase of poison, sufficient to establish guilt. The respondent's failure to explain the injuries and his delay in seeking medical help were crucial factors leading to conviction.( Para 10)

The High Court, in contrast, raised doubts on the conclusive nature of the circumstances, emphasizing that the accused might have administered poison to save the victim through gastric lavage. It questioned the reliability of the evidence regarding the purchase of poison and criticized the absence of stains on the victim's clothes.( Para 11)

Section 106 of the Evidence Act, requiring a person with special knowledge to explain facts, was invoked. The accused's failure to explain the victim's unconscious state was considered a grave circumstance against him.( Para 15)

The victim's gesture of raising her hand towards the accused, coupled with her crying to save herself, indicated the accused's involvement. The High Court's skepticism towards the purchase of poison was unwarranted.( Para 18)

Referring to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court emphasized the four crucial circumstances for convicting in poisoning cases, asserting that the prosecution had proven the case beyond doubt.( Para 21)

The Court rejected leniency based on the accused's care for the deceased's child, highlighting the severity of the offense, including causing the death of a pregnant wife.( Para 22)

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's acquittal and restoring the trial court's conviction. The respondent was directed to surrender, or he would be taken into custody forthwith.

Facts:

Aligarh Development Authority initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Emergency clause invoked, claiming possession, and part of compensation deposited.

Respondent No.1 challenged acquisition; High Court quashed notification and declaration due to the non-passage of an award within four years.

Section 24 of the 2013 Act was invoked during the proceedings, asserting the lapse of acquisition proceedings.

Issues:

Applicability of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

The impact of non-passage of an award on land acquisition proceedings.

Held:

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applies when an award has been made, but possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid for five years or more before the commencement of the Act. Since no award had been passed in this case, there was no lapse, and land acquisition proceedings would continue. However, the court directed the Aligarh Development Authority to complete the acquisition proceedings by passing an award under the 2013 Act within six months. Compensation must be calculated under the 2013 Act and deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector or disbursed to Respondent No.1 within one month.

In emphasizing the proper approach in land acquisition, the court rejected the appellant's claim that it had deposited 80% of the compensation, stating that the approach should be 'go and give,' not 'come and get.'

The appeal is disposed of.

Facts:

Mohd. Rashid Alam, a constable in District Police Force, was killed while on duty.

The widow of the deceased, being illiterate, submitted a petition to the State, seeking compassionate appointment for the appellant (brother of the deceased).

The appellant was appointed as constable in 1991, providing an undertaking to support the deceased constable's widow and children.

After 15 years of satisfactory service, the State issued a show cause notice stating that the appellant, being a "devar (brother of deceased)," was not eligible for compassionate appointment.

The appellant's services were terminated, leading to an appeal and subsequent legal proceedings.

Issues:

Whether the termination of the appellant's services on the ground of ineligibility for compassionate appointment was justified.

Applicability and interpretation of the compassionate appointment policy.

Held:

The Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, held as follows:

The State was not justified in terminating the appellant's services after 15 years of appointment. The ground for termination did not appear well-founded.

The appellant and the deceased constable's widow had truthfully disclosed their family relations and conditions while seeking compassionate appointment. The appellant had undertaken to support the family.

The Court disapproved of the State's action, emphasizing that the appellant's appointment was a conscious decision by the State to help the family facing financial hardship.

The Court found no justification for the State to raise the eligibility issue after 15 years, especially when the appellant had not committed any fraud or suppression of material facts.

The appellant was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages, seniority, and notional promotions as per rules. The State was directed to pay arrears of back wages within three months, and the appellant was to be reinstated within a month.

The appellant was awarded costs of Rs. 5000/-, payable by the respondent-State.

FACTS:

Appellant (M/S GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LTD.) was awarded a contract by North Central Railway for "earth work in embankment and cutting including provision of machine crushed/blended material blanketing layer and construction of RCC Box type minor bridges."

Another contract was granted to the appellant for the construction of a New Station Building (G+2) and associated works (Anand Vihar works).

Appellant furnished a Bank/Performance Guarantee for the Anand Vihar works.

The contract related to earthwork faced delays due to various reasons, leading to its termination.

Appellant completed the Anand Vihar works, obtained a completion certificate, and sought the release of the Bank Guarantee.

ISSUES:

• Whether the Bank Guarantee, pertaining to a completed contract (Anand Vihar works), could be encashed for dues related to a terminated contract (earthwork)?

• Could the respondents invoke Clause 62 of the General Conditions of Contract for encashing the Bank Guarantee before the final determination of arbitration proceedings?

HELD:

The Division Bench allowed the appeal and granted an injunction against the encashment of the Bank Guarantee. The key findings include:

The Bank Guarantee was related to the completed Anand Vihar works, and the respondents had no right to encash it for dues from the terminated earthwork contract.

The pending arbitration proceedings for the terminated contract made it inappropriate to encash the Bank Guarantee before determining liabilities.

The respondents had no right under Clause 62 to recover dues until the final determination of liability through arbitration.

The District Judge's initial injunction order, which attained finality, was binding on the parties.

Facts:

The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a disputed property and mesne profits.

Dispute arose over the ownership of the property after the death of Rajaiah.

Plaintiff claimed title through a sale deed executed by Smt. Gandla Buchamma.

Issues:

Ownership of the property after the death of Rajaiah.

Validity of the sale deed and passing of consideration.

Adoption of defendant no. 3 by Yashoda.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was not required to seek a declaration of title as there was no serious cloud on the title.

Denial for want of knowledge is not a valid denial, and execution of the sale deed was not specifically denied in the written statement.

The Court emphasized that passing of consideration under a sale deed cannot be questioned by a third party.

The High Court's decision to dismiss the suit was set aside, and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court were restored.

The circumstances, appeal is allowed.

Facts:

Three appellants convicted under Sections 302 and 364 read with Section 34 IPC.

Original charge: Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide).

Alteration of charge during trial: "Alternative Charge" under Section 302 IPC without proper procedure.

Failure to recall or re-summon witnesses for the altered charge and absence of an adjournment.

Issues:

Compliance with procedural requirements for altering charges during the trial.

Whether the alteration of the charge created prejudice to the accused.

Held:

The court held that the alteration of charges during the trial without following the prescribed procedures led to the vitiation of the trial. The failure to recall or re-summon witnesses for the altered charge and the absence of an adjournment violated the mandatory provisions of Sections 216 and 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The altered charge should have been treated as an original charge, and the trial should have proceeded accordingly. The court allowed the appeals and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, directing the release of the appellants forthwith if not required in any other case.

Facts:

The State Printing and Writing Articles Department of Madhya Pradesh placed an order for printing booklets with M/S. Ruchi Printers.

The contract specified a time-bound basis for the supply of booklets.

The order for printing booklets was placed on 16.1.2008.

The booklets were to be supplied on a time-bound basis by 25.2.2008.

Despite extensions, it was made clear that after 31.3.2008, no booklets would be accepted.

Issues:

The time sensitivity of the contract and the unauthorized printing of booklets after the cancellation of the order.

Held:

The High Court was criticized for enforcing a palpably illegal communication of 22.5.2008, which was later recalled on 30.1.2009.

Printing of booklets after 31.3.2008 was deemed wholly unauthorized.

The Division Bench erred in directing the acceptance of booklets printed after the cancellation of the order.

The contract came to an end after the order for printing booklets stood canceled, and there was no justification for printers to continue printing after 31.3.2008.

No communication existed between 31.3.2008 and 22.5.2008 instructing printers to print and supply booklets.

The Division Bench's direction to accept booklets printed till 22.5.2008 was set aside.

Payment for booklets supplied till 31.3.2008, if not made, was ordered to be made forthwith.