Facts:

The Respondent filed a suit (Suit No. 608 of 1992) on 09.11.1992.

Defendants 3 and 4 (including the Appellant) filed written statements on 11.11.1992.

Issues were framed on 18.10.1993.

The Appellant filed a counter-claim on 17.06.1996, after the framing of issues.

Issues:

Whether the counter-claim filed by the Appellant was legally acceptable, considering the timing of its filing.

Held:

The Court clarified that a counter-claim must accrue before the defendant delivers their defense (files a written statement).

The judgment in Rohit Singh's case, cited by the High Court, was deemed not applicable to the present case.

Despite the delay in filing the counter-claim, the Court found that the cause of action had arisen before the written statement was filed.

The delay in filing the counter-claim did not justify rejecting it.

The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's decision to accept the counter-claim.

The Respondent-Plaintiff was allowed to raise all necessary pleas through the written statement in response to the counter-claim.

Referred Cases:

Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh, (2006) 6 SCC 498

Bollepanda P. Poonacha Vs. K.M. Madapa, (2008) 13 SCC 179

Himmat Singh Vs. I.C.I. India Ltd., (2008) 2 SCALE 152

Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, (2003) 7 SCC 350

Rohit Singh Vs. State of Bihar Now State of Jharkhand, (2006) 12 SCC 734

State of A.P Vs. M/s. Pioneer Builders, A.P., (2006) 9 SCALE 520

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCALE 597

Facts:

The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking relief.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the appellants the liberty to file a representation before the NTPC.

Simultaneously, the High Court issued an order restricting the appellants from moving the court again for the same cause of action.

Issues:

The High Court's restriction on the appellants, limiting their ability to approach the court again concerning the same cause of action.

Held:

The court acknowledges the grievance raised by the appellants and agrees that they should have the right to pursue legal remedies depending on the outcome of their representation to the NTPC.

The court partially allows the appeal and sets aside the part of the High Court's order that denied the appellants the liberty to move the court again.

The appellants are granted further liberty to take recourse to all legal remedies, approaching the appropriate court if necessary, in relation to the dispute for which they were granted liberty by the High Court to file the representation.

Facts:

The case involves the Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. and its dispute with the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESI Corporation) regarding the coverage of casual workers under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

Issues:

Whether casual workers are covered under the definition of an "employee" as defined in Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948?

Pertaining to the period for which Turf Club is liable to pay contributions – from 1978-79 or from 1987.

Held:

The Court held that casual workers are covered within the definition of an "employee" under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The definition is interpreted broadly, and the Act is considered a welfare legislation intended to extend benefits to employees.

The Court rejected the argument based on consent terms filed earlier by the Turf Club, emphasizing that the terms related to an earlier period and the 1978 notification clearly included the departments in question.

The ESI Corporation's appeal for contributions from 1978 onwards was allowed. The Turf Club was directed to make contributions as per the 1978 notification, along with interest, within three months.

Referred Cases:

Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, (1977) 1 LabLJ 54

Employees' State Insurance Corpn. Vs. Premier Clay Products, (1995) Sup 3 SCC 567

Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Gnanambikai Mills Ltd., (1974) 2 Lab. Law Journal 530 Mad

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Hyderabad Race Club, (2004) 6 SCC 191

Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh. Vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., (1980) LabIC 1064

Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras Vs. South India Flour Mills P Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 1686

Regional Director, ESIC, Bangalore Vs. Davangere Cotton Mills, (1977) 2 LabLJ 404

Facts:

A public notice was issued for the auction of Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat for the year 2008-2009.

The highest bid was Rs. 16,00,100/- by Sushil Kumar.

The Appellant-society accepted the settlement under protest and deposited one third of the total bid amount.

The Appellant-society filed a writ petition challenging the open bid process.

Issues:

Whether the auction process was justifiable for the settlement of Sand Ghats.

Whether the bid amount was arbitrary and too high.

Whether the Appellant-society, having participated and emerged as a successful bidder for other Ghats, can challenge the auction process.

Held:

The court held that the decision to go through the open auction process was justifiable to augment state revenue. The Appellant-society, having participated and emerged as the successful bidder for other Ghats, was not justified in challenging the auction inviting open bids for Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat. The court rejected the contention that the bid amount was arbitrary and too high. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

The appellant, Electro Optics (P) Ltd., engaged in the sale of electronic goods, faced a dispute on the classification of goods for tax purposes.

Appellant argued for classification under Entry 50, Part B of Schedule I, attracting a 3% tax rate.

Authorities contended that survey instruments, whether electronic or otherwise, fell under Entry 14, Part F of Schedule I, chargeable at 16%.

Issues:

Dispute centered around the correct classification of goods for tax assessment.

The assessing authority imposed a penalty under Section 12 for the alleged failure to submit a correct return.

Held:

The court observed that the dispute arose due to amendments in the Schedule in 1993 and was limited to the immediate two assessment years.

Considering the appellant's good arguable case and the stay on penalty orders during the legal dispute, the court found that the appellant submitted the return based on a bona fide belief in the correctness of their stand.

The court set aside the balance dues of the penalty but specified that the penalty already paid by the appellant would not be refunded and would be retained by the authorities as a cost of the litigation.

Referred Cases:

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sanjiv Fabrics, (2010) 9 SCC 630

M/s BPL Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 2 SCC 139

M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, (1969) 2 SCC 627

Facts:

The case involved the murder of Dashrath, the father of the appellant, Gajanan Dashrath Kharate.

Gajanan was accused of frequently demanding money from his father, engaging in altercations, and assaulting him.

On the night of April 7, 2002, Gajanan allegedly demanded money from his father, abused him, and assaulted him, leading to Dashrath's death.

Witnesses, including Nagorao Kharate (PW-1) and Madhukar Kharate (PW-4), provided an account of the events leading to the murder.

Issues:

The delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) was a point of contention.

The prosecution presented blood-stained clothes of the accused, matching the blood group of the deceased.

Held:

The court emphasized that delay in FIR registration is viewed with suspicion, but the prosecution satisfactorily explained the delay.

The recovery of blood-stained clothes and the absence of a plausible explanation from the accused strengthened the prosecution's case.

When a murder occurs inside a house, the initial burden is on the prosecution, but there is a corresponding burden on the accused to provide a plausible explanation.

The appellant's failure to offer a plausible explanation for the crime was considered a strong circumstance indicating guilt.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court, in its decision on Criminal Appeal No. 2057 of 2010, affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment sentence for Gajanan Dashrath Kharate. The court dismissed the appeal, ordered the cancellation of the appellant's bail bonds, and directed the appellant to be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.

Referred Cases:

Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681

Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106

Nika Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1972) 2 SCC 80

State of Rajasthan Vs. Parthu, (2007) 12 SCC 754

State of T.N. Vs. Rajendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679

State of U.P. Vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300

Facts:

The appellant filed a partition suit in 1988 based on her birthright to claim a share in the family property.

The property originally belonged to the appellant's mother and later vested equally between the appellant and her brother.

Dispute arose when the appellant's husband settled the property in her name, leading to a previous suit in 1962 that was dismissed.

The trial court initially held the partition suit barred by res judicata and upheld the defense of adverse possession.

Issues:

Applicability of res judicata to the partition suit.

Defense of adverse possession claimed by the respondent.

Whether ouster is a valid defense in a suit for partition.

Held:

The judgment addressed the issue of res judicata, emphasizing that the 1962 suit and the 1988 suit had different causes of action. Res judicata was held not to be applicable.

The Dealt with the defense of ouster, stating that it is a weak defense in a partition suit unless there is consistent and open denial of title, long and uninterrupted possession, and exercise of the right of exclusive ownership.

The Court suggested a settlement, and the parties agreed to a partition with the appellant entitled to 35% and the respondent to 65%. If partition by metes and bounds was not possible, the property was to be sold, and the proceeds shared accordingly. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Referred Cases:

Cores Vs. Appuhamy, (1912) AC 230

Secretary of State for India Vs. Debendra Lal Khan, (1933) LR 61 IA 78, 82

Jaswant Singh Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property, (1985) 3 SCC 648

Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair Vs. Narayanan Nair, (2004) 3 SCC 277

P.Lakshmi Reddy Vs. L.Lakshmi Reddy, AIR 1957 SC 314

Radhamoni Debi Vs. Collector of Khulna, (1900) LR 27 IA 136, 140

Sulochanna Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair, (1994) 2 SCC 14

Syed Shah Ghulam Ghouse Mohiuddin Vs. Syed Shah Ahmed Mohiuddin Kamisul Quadri, (1971) 1 SCC 597

Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash, (1995) 4 SCC 496

Facts:

The case involves a history of litigation between Nashik Municipal Corporation (Appellant) and R.M. Bhandari and others (Respondents) spanning about two decades.

The dispute originated from a municipal corporation tender for construction work, where the respondents were the successful bidders.

The appellant withdrew the work from the respondents due to lack of progress, incurring additional expenses, and filed a suit for recovery.

The trial court decreed in favor of the appellant, but the respondents filed an appeal, along with an application for stay of the decree.

Issues:

The extension of time for depositing a cost amount imposed by the High Court as a condition for restoring an execution petition.

The respondents had withdrawn their first appeal, and the appellant sought to restore the execution petition.

Held:

The court emphasized the discretion granted by Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code, allowing the court to enlarge the time for performing any act.

The court highlighted the principle of equity, citing legal precedents such as Chinnamarkathian alias Muthu Gounder v. Ayyavoo alias Periana Gounder (1982) 1 SCC 159.

Section 151 of the Code, conferring inherent power on the court, was also invoked.

The court considered the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay in depositing the cost and concluded that the time ought to be extended.

The order of the High Court, dismissing the application seeking an extension of time, was set aside.

The appellant was directed to deposit the cost within four weeks, and the execution petition was restored.

The respondents were granted liberty to restore their first appeal by making the necessary application before the first appellate court. The appeal is allowed.

Referred Cases:

Chinnamarkathian alias Muthu Gounder Vs. Ayyavoo alias Periana Gounder, (1982) 1 SCC 159

D.V. Paul Vs. Manisha Lalwani, (2010) 8 SCC 546

Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, (1985) 3 SCC 53

Jogdhayan Vs. Babu Ram, (1983) 1 SCC 26

Johri Singh Vs. Sukh Pal Singh, (1989) 4 SCC 403

Mhatarba Laxman Dongare Dead Vs. Central Bank of India, (2005) 2 ALL. M.R. 742

Salem Advocates Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344

Facts:

The Nashik Workers Union filed a complaint under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) seeking reinstatement of trainees with continuity of services and back wages. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the appropriate government for the purpose of the 1947 Act is the Central Government in relation to HAL, rendering the complaints filed by the Union against the company not maintainable.

Issues:

The determination of the appropriate government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for making a reference in the dispute between the Nashik Workers Union and HAL.

Held:

HAL 2 did not appropriately consider the earlier decision in HAL 1, where it was clearly held that, considering the dictionary clause of the ID Act, it is the State Government that has the authority to make the reference in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. The analysis in HAL 2, citing the decision in SAIL's case, is deemed to run counter to HAL 1 and is not considered a binding precedent.

The High Court did not delve into the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds. Given that HAL 2 did not correctly apply the ratio in SAIL's case and HAL 1 still holds as the correct law, the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits.

Decision: The appeals are allowed, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for a fresh adjudication on merits, considering the correct determination of the appropriate government in relation to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.

Referred Cases:

Air India Statutory Corpn. Vs. United Labour Union, (1997) 9 SCC 377

Food Corpn. of India Vs. Transport & Dock Workers Union, (1999) 7 SCC 59

Food Corpn. of India Workers' Union Vs. Food Corpn. of India, (1985) 2 SCC 294

Graham Vs. Public Works Commissioners, (1901) 2 KB 781 : 70 LJ KB 860 : 17 TLR 540

Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union Vs. The State of Bihar, (1969) 1 SCC 765

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Hindustan Aeronautical Canteen Kamgar Sangh, (2007) 15 SCC 51

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Workmen, (1975) 4 SCC 679

London County Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association Vs. Nichols, (1948) 2 All ER 432

Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corpn. Vs. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, (1980) 3 SCC 459

Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489

Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Model Mills, (1984) Sup SCC 443

State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, AIR 1963 SC 1811

Steel Authority of India Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1

Tamlin Vs. Hannaford, (1950) 1 KB 18, 25, 26

Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union Vs. Tata Memorial Centre, (2010) 8 SCC 480