Facts:

Miss Tapsi Rai, a 14-year-old patient, underwent surgery at Maharani Government Hospital due to abdominal pain. Despite the surgery, her condition worsened, and she died on the same day. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the patient's father, Surendra Nath Rai, alleging negligence against the doctors involved in the surgery.

Issues:

Whether prosecution against public servants for medical negligence requires sanction from the government, as per Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Held:

The court found that the doctors were discharging their public duties by performing surgery in a government hospital. Therefore, prosecution against them required sanction from the State Government, as per Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's order and granting relief to the appellants.

Facts:

H.S. Sidhu and Devendra Bapna were initially appointed as Assistant Directors and later promoted to Deputy Directors.

A dispute arose over the promotion to the position of Joint Director, with H.S. Sidhu ranked higher due to exceptional merit.

Legal challenges ensued, leading to writ petitions and appeals before the High Court and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the determination of seniority and promotion was in accordance with the relevant rules and principles.

The extent of judicial review over decisions made by promotion committees.

Held:

The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) had rightly considered exceptional merit in determining seniority and promotion, as per Rule 15(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Fisheries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987.

The High Court erred in emphasizing seniority over exceptional merit and suitability.

H.S. Sidhu's promotion to the position of Director was valid, and he was entitled to arrears of salary from the date of his reversion to the post of Joint Director until his reinstatement as Director.

Devendra Bapna, having retired, would be treated as having retired from the post of Director and entitled to pensionary benefits.

The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of the High Court were set aside.

Facts:

The Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corporation Limited (the Corporation) was wound up on December 8, 1999. The retrenched employees of the Corporation sought absorption under the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 (the 1991 Rules). The Single Judge referred to Rule 3(i) of the 1991 Rules which deals with the rights of retrenched employees. The Division Bench questioned the applicability of the 1991 Rules after the Rescission Rules of 2003 came into effect.

Issues:

Whether the retrenched employees were entitled to absorption into government service under the 1991 Rules or if their rights had ended with the Rescission Rules of 2003.

Held:

The Court criticized the Division Bench for delving into the analysis of earlier judgments when the matter had been settled by the court previously. It emphasized the importance of following precedents and judicial discipline. The Supreme Court directed the state government to absorb the retrenched employees within eight weeks and provide them with benefits such as seniority and increments. It also ordered payment of 40% of back wages to the appellants.

Facts:

Baljinder Pal Kaur, a former Assistant Sub Inspector with Punjab Police, appealed against her dismissal from service.

She was accused of accepting money and facilitating illegal immigration to the United States.

The departmental enquiry found her guilty, leading to her dismissal.

Despite being acquitted in the criminal trial, the court upheld her dismissal based on Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules.

Issues:

Whether the dismissal from service based on departmental enquiry following acquittal in a criminal trial is lawful.

Held:

The court upheld the dismissal based on Rule 16.3 of Punjab Police Rules, which allows departmental punishment even after acquittal under certain conditions.

The standard of proof in a criminal case differs from that in a departmental proceeding.

Even if acquitted in a criminal case, an officer may still face departmental consequences.

The dismissal was deemed lawful as the departmental enquiry was conducted properly and based on evidence independent of the criminal trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title, which was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court as time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Mizoram, formerly known as Lushai Hills District, was initially part of Assam and included in the tribal areas of Assam under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.

The Governor of Assam issued a notification on 14.03.1966, excluding the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 from the tribal areas of Assam, including the Mizo District (now Mizoram).

Mizoram was established as a Union Territory by the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, and the Mizo District became part of the Union Territory of Mizoram.

Over time, there were changes in tribal areas, including the exclusion of the Mizo District from tribal areas and the inclusion of other districts.

Mizoram was eventually established as a state in 1987.

Issues:

Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to Mizoram?

Whether the notification of 14.03.1966 continues to apply to Mizoram after it ceased to be part of the tribal areas of Assam?

Held:

The notification of 14.03.1966 ceased to apply to Mizoram once it ceased to be part of the tribal areas of Assam and became a Union Territory. The subsequent changes in tribal areas further affirmed this position.

Arguments based on the General Clauses Act were rejected as irrelevant to the case.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the High Court was affirmed.

Facts:

Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (the Appellant) was contesting a demand for additional motor vehicles tax under Sub-section (1A) of Section 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930. The dispute centered on whether the vehicles in question, used by the Appellant for various purposes including carrying employees' children to school and business activities, qualified as "Public Service Motor Vehicles" subject to additional tax.

Issues:

The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the definition of "Public Service Motor Vehicle" under the Act, particularly regarding the requirement of being used for hire or reward.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was unsustainable because it failed to address the Appellant's contention regarding the vehicles' use for hire or reward. The Court emphasized that for a vehicle to be considered used for hire or reward, it must benefit another party, either through hire charges or rewards received. The Court found that the vehicles in question were primarily used for the Appellant's business purposes or for the benefit of its employees, which did not constitute use for hire or reward. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, ruling that the Appellant was not liable for additional motor vehicles tax.

Facts:

The case involved the termination of services of the petitioner-worker, leading to an industrial dispute. However, the dispute was raised after a significant delay of fourteen years.

Issues:

Whether the appropriate government had the jurisdiction or power to make a reference of a non-existing dispute due to the considerable delay in raising the issue.

Held:

The court highlighted that while there is no specific limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1), it is for the appropriate government to consider whether it is expedient to make the reference.

The court emphasized that very stale claims should not be encouraged, considering the potential risks to industrial peace and the financial arrangements of employers.

The court discussed the principles of laches and delays, as well as the doctrine of acquiescence. These doctrines imply that if a party delays unreasonably in raising a dispute or does not object to an action inconsistent with their rights, they may lose their remedy or be presumed to have waived their rights.

The court applied these principles to the case, stating that if a dispute is raised belatedly without a satisfactory explanation for the delay, it may be considered non-existent.

Ultimately, the court upheld the decision of the High Court, which held that the appropriate government had no jurisdiction to make a reference in this case due to the significant delay in raising the industrial dispute without any justifiable explanation. Thus, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Facts:

The State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the acquisition of land for public purposes. Urgency provisions were invoked, denying landowners the opportunity to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. Legal challenges were raised against the acquisition proceedings, leading to various writ petitions before the High Court.

Issues:

Validity of the land acquisition proceedings.

Interpretation of Sections 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Applicability of the judgment in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu to the present case.

Effect of subsequent legal challenges on the acquisition proceedings.

Held:

The Court held that the acquisition proceedings were flawed due to violations of statutory provisions and precedents. The Division Bench's decision to quash the acquisition proceedings was upheld. The Court emphasized the strict interpretation of time limits prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as per the ruling in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu. It reiterated that no party should suffer due to a court's mistake. The Court clarified that quashing acquisition proceedings at the instance of one or two landowners does not nullify the entire acquisition. The judgment highlighted the importance of compensating landowners fairly and ensuring compliance with statutory procedures.

Facts:

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd., the appellant, was involved in manufacturing and selling automobiles.

The case pertains to the company's practices regarding the booking of Tata Indica cars in 1999.

Three complaints were filed against the company, alleging that the demanded booking amount for Tata Indica cars was excessively high and constituted an unfair trade practice.

Issues:

Whether the actions of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. constituted unfair trade practices under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

Whether the complaints filed against the company were valid and supported by evidence.

Held:

The court found that the allegations against the company did not satisfy the definition of unfair trade practices as outlined in the Act. Despite the complaints, the court ruled that there was no evidence to support the claim of unfair practices. The order passed by the Commission was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In the words of the court: "The order of the Commission appears to be largely influenced by a conclusion that the Appellant should not have asked for deposit of an amount above the basic price because in the opinion of the Commission it was unfair for the Appellants to keep excise and sales tax with itself for any period of time. Such conclusion of the Commission is based only upon subjective considerations of fairness and do not pass the objective test of law as per precise definitions Under Section 36A of the Act."

"Even after stretching the allegations and facts to a considerable extent in favour of Respondent Commission, we are unable to sustain the Commission's conclusions that the allegations and materials against the Appellant make out a case of unfair trade practice against the Appellant. Nor there is any scope to pass order Under Section 36-D(1) of the Act when no case of any unfair trade practice is made out. Hence, we are left with no option but to set aside the order under appeal. We order accordingly."