Juvenile Justice – Age Determination – Appellant charged under Sections 376, 302, and 201 IPC – Claimed juvenility, presenting school leaving certificate showing date of birth as 10.05.1991 – JJ Board rejected claim based on Medical Board’s assessment of age as 20 years at the time of the incident – Sessions Judge accepted school certificate, giving benefit of doubt to appellant – High Court reversed Sessions Judge's order [Paras 1-6].

Evidence – Acceptance of School Records – Supreme Court emphasized proper authentication of school records – Headmistress testified to authenticity of school leaving certificate – High Court’s dismissal of certificate without cogent reasons deemed erroneous – Medical examination unnecessary when school record is valid and unchallenged [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Precedent – Reference to Ashwani Kumar Saxena Case – Affirmed principle that medical examination for age determination is secondary to valid school records – Emphasized accurate adherence to procedural guidelines for juvenility claims [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Supreme Court set aside High Court's order, restored Sessions Judge’s order – Directed that appellant, being juvenile, be tried by JJ Board [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Appeals against prosecution without obtaining prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 CrPC – Supreme Court reviewed necessity of sanction when public servant misuses office – Held that sanction required only if abuse is directly related to the office held at the time of offense – Concluded that appellant's role as nominee Director, not as Industries Commissioner, was crucial in the alleged misconduct, thereby not necessitating sanction from higher offices [Paras 1-16].

Statutory Interpretation – Role of Nominee Director – Court clarified that nominee Director's actions, distinct from other public office functions, determine need for prosecution sanction – Emphasized independence of responsibilities within statutory framework of Companies Act and relevant penal provisions [Paras 12-15].

Judicial Precedent – Established Principles – Referred to landmark cases including R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay and Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab to affirm principles of sanction necessity in public servant prosecutions – Reinforced criteria of direct office abuse for sanction applicability [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court upheld decisions of lower courts rejecting necessity of sanction – Directed trial court to expedite proceedings of Special Case No. 7 of 2007 on a weekly basis, highlighting prolonged delay since charge sheet filing [Para 22].

Land Reforms – Grant of Occupancy Rights – Appeal against remand by High Court to verify Form No. 7 – Land Tribunal had earlier admitted Form No. 7 and concluded no tenant rights for respondent – Supreme Court found High Court's remand unnecessary – Held Tribunal’s findings based on sufficient enquiry should stand [Paras 1-14].

Procedural Law – Remand Orders – High Court’s remand for verification of Form No. 7 despite existing Tribunal findings deemed inappropriate – Emphasized finality of Tribunal’s decision on admitted Form No. 7 and tenant status [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Review – Review and Remand – Supreme Court criticized High Court for ordering redundant remand, thus nullifying Tribunal’s effective order without basis – Reinstated Tribunal’s order to maintain judicial efficiency and fairness [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Supreme Court set aside High Court's orders and reinstated Tribunal’s decision rejecting tenant rights claim by respondent – Highlighted unnecessary remand undermines finality of competent Tribunal findings [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed – Supreme Court examined principles of territorial jurisdiction under Sections 177, 178, and 179 CrPC and Section 138 NI Act – Held that courts where the cheque was presented for encashment have jurisdiction to entertain complaints under Section 138 NI Act [Paras 1-14].

Negotiable Instruments – Place of Presentation – Clarified that the place where the cheque is presented and dishonoured is crucial for determining jurisdiction – Reaffirmed principles from K. Bhaskaran and Harman Electronics cases – Court where cheque is presented for encashment, notice is issued, or payment is demanded, can all have jurisdiction [Paras 7-9].

Statutory Interpretation – Components of Offense – Emphasized five essential components of offense under Section 138 NI Act: drawing of cheque, presentation, dishonour, notice of demand, and failure to pay – Jurisdiction can be established at any place where these acts occur [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Supreme Court set aside High Court's order and affirmed that courts in the jurisdiction where the cheque was presented for encashment have the right to entertain complaints under Section 138 NI Act – Directed appropriate jurisdictional court to proceed with the complaint [Paras 7-9].

Family Law – Mental Disorder as Ground for Divorce – Appeal against High Court’s order setting aside trial court's decree of divorce – Appellant sought divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act alleging respondent-wife suffered from schizophrenia – High Court found no conclusive evidence proving wife’s mental disorder to the extent required for divorce – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, stating mental illness must be proven as incurable and severe to justify dissolution of marriage [Paras 1-19].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – High Court's Judgment – Respondent-wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act allowed by High Court – Supreme Court affirmed the decision, emphasizing the need for reconciliation and support in marriage, especially considering the welfare of the child born from the union [Paras 23-24].

Medical Evidence – Relevance and Interpretation – Examination of medical evidence and expert testimony – Court found that respondent’s condition was treatable and not severe enough to disrupt marital life – Referenced medical reports and testimony indicating respondent’s ability to lead a normal life with medication [Paras 14-16].

Judicial Precedent – Application of Prior Decisions – Cited cases like Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta and Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit – Reiterated principles that mental disorder must be substantial, not mere existence, to justify divorce – Emphasized legislative intent to protect marriages from dissolution on insubstantial grounds [Paras 15, 18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld High Court's judgment setting aside divorce decree and granting restitution of conjugal rights to the respondent – Emphasized reconciliation and welfare of the child [Para 24].

Civil Procedure – Issuance of Charge Sheet – Respondent, a retired employee of PSEB, challenged a charge sheet issued four years post-retirement – High Court quashed the charge sheet, citing Rule 2.2(B) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules which prohibits departmental proceedings for events occurring more than four years prior to their institution – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, affirming that the charge sheet was issued beyond the permissible time frame [Paras 1-4].

Costs – Frivolous Appeals by Government Bodies – Supreme Court emphasized the irresponsible tendency of government bodies to file meritless appeals, overburdening the judiciary – High Court’s imposition of costs on the officer who authorized the frivolous appeal upheld – Emphasized the need for responsible litigation by government agencies to avoid unnecessary burden on courts [Paras 5-18].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed with further costs of Rs. 10,000/-, to be recovered from the officer who authorized the filing of the appeal.

Motor Vehicles – Compensation for Disability – Appellants sought compensation for their 17-year-old son who suffered 80% disability due to a motor vehicle accident – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,875,800/- with interest; High Court reduced compensation to Rs. 1,245,800/- – Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's award, recognizing the lifelong care required and financial burden on the parents [Paras 1-14].

Medical Expenses and Dependency – Appellants substantiated expenses for medical treatment, nursing, and physiotherapy totaling Rs. 349,128/- – Supreme Court acknowledged the lifelong dependency of the injured on his parents and the necessity of compensation to cover ongoing care and support [Paras 12-13].

Application of Sarla Verma Case – High Court applied the principles from Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reducing compensation – Supreme Court found the Tribunal’s higher award more just and appropriate given the severity of the injury and lifelong implications [Paras 9-11].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Tribunal's award of Rs. 1,875,800/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of presentation of the claim petition until realization restored – No order as to costs.

Education Law – Increase of Admission Capacity – Petitioner, a charitable trust, sought to increase BDS course capacity from 50 to 100 seats – Application rejected by the Central Government as the existing course was not recognized at the time of application – High Court dismissed Writ Petition challenging the rejection – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing adherence to statutory timeframes and criteria [Paras 1-16].

Recognition and Eligibility Criteria – Petitioner’s application incomplete as existing course recognition was pending – Central Government required to return incomplete applications as per Regulation 20(2) – Supreme Court found no fault with DCI or Central Government’s actions [Paras 5-12].

Discretionary Power – Request for modification of time schedule under Note (2) of the Regulations – Supreme Court held that such discretion lies with the Central Government and cannot be directed by mandamus – Importance of adhering to statutory timeframes for professional course admissions reiterated [Paras 13-15].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – No modification to statutory time schedule granted.

Civil Procedure – Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage – Government of Karnataka sought to adduce additional evidence (a map) indicating disputed land as a public road at the appellate stage – Application rejected by the High Court – Supreme Court upheld rejection, emphasizing the conditions under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC which were not met by the appellants [Paras 3-8].

Government Authority and Public Land – Supreme Court noted the appellants, being a public authority, should have had knowledge of the evidence (road map) at the trial stage – Reiterated that additional evidence at appellate stage requires due diligence and knowledge criteria to be met, which were not fulfilled by the appellants [Paras 7-8].

Discretion of Acquisition – Court observed that the Government of Karnataka is not barred from acquiring the disputed land through appropriate legal means if deemed necessary for public road construction – Dismissed appeal without interfering with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts [Paras 9-12].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – Appellants free to pursue legal avenues for land acquisition if required for public use.