Facts:

Brij Bihari Singh, an Assistant General Manager at the Bihar State Financial Corporation, was accused of various instances of misconduct, including financial irregularities and negligence of duty. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, following which he was dismissed from service.

Issues:

The procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings against Brij Bihari Singh.

Held:

The court held that the disciplinary proceedings against Singh were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. It found serious procedural errors, including the absence of proper representation for the employer and the lack of recording of evidence. Additionally, it criticized the deviation from prescribed procedure, wherein the managing director referred the case to the Board of Directors instead of passing a final order. This arbitrary and discriminatory procedure deprived Singh of his right to appeal. Consequently, the dismissal order was set aside, and the court ordered a fresh disciplinary process to be conducted, starting from the stage of the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority was directed to pass a reasoned order after providing Singh with a full opportunity for hearing. It also ensured Singh's right to appeal any subsequent order.

Facts:

The appellant challenged a detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act.

The appellant's representation for legal representation before the Advisory Board was denied.

The Detaining Authority was represented by officers at the Advisory Board hearing, but the appellant was not allowed such representation.

The appellant sought relief through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Issues:

Whether denial of legal representation before the Advisory Board violated the appellant's rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Whether other grounds for challenging the detention order were necessary to be examined.

Held:

The Court held that denying the appellant the opportunity for legal representation before the Advisory Board violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court referred to the decision in A.K. Roy's case, stating that if the Detaining Authority or the Government takes the aid of a legal practitioner or legal advisor before the Advisory Board, the detenu must be allowed the facility of appearing before the Board through a legal practitioner. Since the appellant was denied this facility while the Detaining Authority was represented, it amounted to a breach of Article 14. The Court ruled that since one ground was sufficient to quash the detention order, it didn't examine other grounds raised by the appellant. Therefore, the detention order against the appellant was quashed, and the petition was allowed.

Facts:

The Municipal Corporation invited tenders for the replacement of existing street lights with LED fittings and the refurbishment of street light infrastructure on a BOT basis. Elektron Lighting Systems Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant), one of the bidders, offered to reduce its bid price if exclusive advertising rights were granted to it. The technical bid of the appellant was accepted, and negotiations were held for the price bid. Eventually, a work order was issued to the appellant. Subsequently, an unsuccessful bidder challenged the grant of the work order by filing a writ petition, leading to the High Court quashing the work order.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to quash the work order was justified?

Whether the advertising rights offered by the appellant were severable from the main contract?

Held:

The High Court erred in holding that the work order was illegally granted to the appellant for the replacement of street lights by LED fittings and refurbishment of street light infrastructure on a BOT basis.

The High Court's adverse view regarding the non-submission of the MOU between the appellant and LED manufacturer was unwarranted, as it was not challenged by any of the writ petitioners and the MOU was part of the tender bid.

The High Court's criticism of the appellant for not providing attested copies of VAT returns was unfounded, as the statement of VAT returns for the relevant financial years was duly filed with the technical bid.

The process of awarding the contract was not hurried, as demonstrated by the exhaustive pre-bid meetings and extensions of the submission deadline. Therefore, the High Court's characterization of the process as rushed was incorrect.

The doctrine of severability, as contained in section 57 of the Contract Act, applies in this case. The proper test for deciding the validity of an agreement is "substantial severability," and the court must separate trivial and technical parts from the main or substantial part.

The advertising rights offered by the appellant were severable from the main contract and were not part of the tender floated by the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the grant of advertising rights to the appellant without inviting tenders was unfair, and the contract regarding advertising rights was liable to be quashed.

Decision: The appeals stand disposed of. The work order for the replacement of street lights by LED fittings and refurbishment of street light infrastructure on a BOT basis was upheld. However, the contract regarding advertising rights was quashed due to the unfair manner in which they were granted to the appellant without proper tendering processes.

Facts:

The wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking the seizure of her Stridhan articles from her husband's possession.

The application was dismissed on the grounds that the wife was no longer considered an 'aggrieved person' under Section 2(a) of the Act due to judicial separation between the parties. Additionally, it was held that the application was barred by limitation.

Issues:

Whether the wife, despite judicial separation, remains an 'aggrieved person' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Whether the application for seizure of Stridhan is barred by limitation.

Held:

The court emphasized the purpose of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is to provide effective protection of women's rights guaranteed under the Constitution, especially in cases of domestic violence.

A more sensitive approach is expected from the courts when dealing with cases under this Act. Before dismissing a petition on grounds of maintainability, thorough deliberation on the raised issues is necessary.

The court clarified the distinction between divorce and judicial separation. In judicial separation, the marital relationship continues, and the aggrieved person's status is not severed.

The concept of 'continuing offence' applies to situations where Stridhan remains in the custody of the husband even after judicial separation. The wife can submit an application under Section 12 of the Act as long as the marital status remains.

Decision: The court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of a sensitive approach towards cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Facts:

Sheela, daughter of Ramesh, died on 28.04.1999, with Ramesh reporting it as suicide by hanging.

Prosecution argued Sheela was murdered based on medical evidence and witness testimonies.

Autopsy revealed injuries around Sheela's neck, indicating asphyxia.

Witnesses testified Ramesh slapped Sheela and took her inside the house on the night of her death.

Issues:

Whether Ramesh was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Held:

The Court found Ramesh guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC based on the evidence presented, overturning the High Court's decision to acquit him. The evidence, including medical reports and witness testimonies, proved Ramesh's involvement in Sheela's death beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal by the State of Rajasthan was allowed, and Ramesh was convicted for the culpable homicide of Sheela, with his sentence modified to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

Facts:

The case revolves around allegations of unauthorized and illegal transfer of a plot against the appellants and others, who are public servants. It is alleged that they abused their official positions to transfer the plot illegally and obtain an undue pecuniary advantage. The process of transfer was initiated by the then Director of ICPO, based on a representation prepared by the Administrative Officer of ICPO. Final approval for the transfer was given by the appellant, the then Director General of ICMR. The allegations suggest a conspiracy by the appellants to commit offenses under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Issues:

Whether Section 197 of the CrPC, which mandates prior sanction for prosecution of public servants for offenses committed in discharge of official duties, is applicable to the facts of the case.

Held:

The FIR and the charge-sheet both contain references to the allegations made against the appellants, suggesting a conspiracy to commit offenses under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, Section 197 of the CrPC is applicable to the facts of the case.

The allegations in the charge-sheet indicate that the appellants entered into an agreement to commit an illegal act, punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC. Hence, Section 197 CrPC is squarely applicable. Prior sanction of the Central Government was necessary before the Special Judge could take cognizance of the offense.

It is imperative that the alleged offense is committed in discharge of official duty by the accused for the application of Section 197 CrPC. Since the allegations made against the appellants suggest the offenses were committed in discharge of their official duty, previous sanction from the Central Government was necessary before the Special Judge could take cognizance and issue summons to the appellants.

The judgment and order of the High Court, which dismissed the application seeking quashing of proceedings, are set aside. The proceedings initiated by the Special Judge without prior sanction from the Central Government are quashed.

Facts:

The appeals concern the taxation of interest received by banks when bills of exchange, which they have discounted, are defaulted on, resulting in the payment of compensation.

The main issue is whether such compensation constitutes "interest" liable to tax under the Interest Tax Act, 1974.

There is a division of opinion among different High Courts on this matter.

Issues:

Whether the compensation received by banks on defaulted bills of exchange falls within the definition of "interest" under the Interest Tax Act, 1974.

Held:

The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of "interest" under the Interest Tax Act and concluded that it is narrow and exhaustive.

The Act defines interest primarily as interest on loans and advances made in India and includes specific types of charges, but excludes others.

Compensation received after the due date of a bill of exchange is not in the nature of interest under the Interest Tax Act.

The Act does not include service fees or other charges in respect of money borrowed or debt incurred, unlike the definition of interest under the Income Tax Act.

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of the revenue authorities and allowed the appeals of the banks.

Facts:

The appellants, who were Grade-II Police Constables, sought parity in pay with another group of individuals who were promoted to Naik and Havaldar. The appellants' representation for parity in pay was rejected, leading to writ petitions before the High Court. The single judge initially allowed the writ petitions, but the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order and dismissed the appellants' petitions.

Issues:

Whether the appellants were entitled to parity in pay with their counterparts and whether the excess amount paid to them during a certain period should be recovered.

Held:

The Court partly allowed the appeals. It directed the respondents not to recover any excess amount from the appellants in relation to the payment made towards stepping up of their pay scale.

The court applied the principle laid down in a previous case, Shyam Babu Verma and Others vs. Union of India, where it was held that excess payments made to employees due to no fault of theirs should not be recovered.

The court noted that the appellants did not commit any fault in seeking the benefits and rendered their services during the period in question.

Facts:

Dr. Ram Lakhan Singh, a retired member of the Indian Forest Service, alleged that he was unlawfully detained and implicated in false vigilance cases by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh.

The petitioner contended that the vigilance proceedings initiated against him were at the behest of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, following his refusal to comply with directives related to the denotification of a bird sanctuary.

Despite court orders directing proper procedures to be followed, the state allegedly conducted the vigilance enquiry unlawfully, leading to the petitioner's arrest and suspension from his official duties.

Issues:

Whether the petitioner's rights were violated by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh through unlawful detention and malicious prosecution.

Whether there were procedural lapses in the conduct of the vigilance proceedings against the petitioner.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the actions of the state authorities.

Held:

The court found procedural lapses on the part of the state government, which caused significant harm to the petitioner.

Despite the state's argument that its actions were lawful and justified, the court noted the absence of substantial evidence to support the allegations against the petitioner.

Emphasizing the importance of maintaining a balance between prosecuting guilty officers and protecting innocent ones from malicious prosecution, the court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the petitioner.

The state government was directed to pay this compensation within three months.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.