Facts:

The appellant (P.R. Yelumalai) entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent (N.M. Ravi) for a property. Despite a decree by the Trial Court for specific performance of the contract, directing the appellant to deposit the balance sale consideration within a stipulated time, the appellant failed to comply.

Issues:

The appellant's failure to deposit the balance sale consideration within the specified time frame and the subsequent legal proceedings.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming that the suit stood dismissed due to non-compliance with the decree. The appellant's arguments regarding extension of time, implied grant of extension, and notice of deposit were rejected by the Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The Umrāla Gram Panchayat, established under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993, employed workers as safai kamdars (sanitation workers) on a daily wage basis.

The workers, having served for many years, demanded permanency and the associated benefits.

The matter was referred to the Labour Court, which ruled in favor of the workers, directing the Gram Panchayat to grant them permanent status and benefits.

The Gram Panchayat appealed to the High Court, which upheld the Labour Court's decision.

The Gram Panchayat further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the workers were entitled to permanent status and benefits.

Whether the actions of the Gram Panchayat constituted unfair labor practice.

Held:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts and directed the Gram Panchayat to grant permanent status and benefits to the workers. The court held that the workers were entitled to equal treatment as permanent employees under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court emphasized that the Gram Panchayat's failure to provide proper benefits amounted to unfair labor practice. The court cited relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and previous case law to support its decision.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal against the acquittal of three accused persons by the High Court while maintaining the conviction of the main accused, Shyamu, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The incident occurred in the context of ongoing enmity and litigation between the families of the deceased and the accused. The complainant, Ranbeer Singh, and his son, Pooran Singh (the deceased), were irrigating their field when the accused approached them and made threatening remarks. Subsequently, Pooran Singh was held by three of the accused while Shyamu shot him.

Issues:

Whether the acquittal of the three accused by the High Court under Section 34 of the IPC was justified given the circumstances of the case.

Held:

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's acquittal of the three accused respondents. They found sufficient evidence to infer a shared intention among all the accused, including the three respondents. Factors such as the carrying of a weapon and the exhortation made by the accused indicated their wrongful intentions. Therefore, the High Court's decision to acquit the three accused was overturned.

The Supreme Court reinstated the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, which had convicted the main accused, Shyamu, and the three other accused under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.

Additionally, the Supreme Court granted six weeks' time for the respondents to surrender, considering a request related to a family event.

Decided on : 27-03-2015

Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302, Section 34

Acquittal—Appeal by Complainant against the impugned judgment and order passed by High Court. In the impugned judgment the High Court had allowed the appeal of three accused persons and acquitted them while maintaining the conviction of the main accused. The present appeal before us has been filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the three accused by the High Court. The Sessions Court after trial had convicted the main accused Shyamu Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code along with Section 25 of the Arms Act while it convicted the other three accused persons—There is indeed enough material to infer the common and shared intention of the present accused-Respondents with that of main accused.—There was no justifiable reason for the 4 accused persons to go 100-150 yards inside the field of the complainant. Second, the fact that they carried a weapon being 315 bore country-made pistol with them clearly shows that they had all the wrong intentions. Nowhere in the case of defence has this come out that the present three accused-Respondents were not aware of the fact that Shyamu carried the weapon.—That the High Court erred in acquitting the present accused-Respondents.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Manoj Swarup, Lalita Kohli and Abhishek Swarup, Advocates for Manoj Swarup and Co., for the Appellant; Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Ajay Kumar Jain, U.R. Bokaida, Advs. for Irshad Hanif, Adv., Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Mukesh Verma and Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Advocate

Final Result : Allowed

Facts:

The case revolves around the re-amalgamation of a separate cadre for electronic data processing responsibilities with the existing ministerial cadre within the Customs and Central Excise Department.

Issues:

The controversy surrounding the reconstitution of cadres and the promulgation of rules regarding seniority and promotion.

The dispute specifically involves the alteration of chances of promotion and whether such alterations were arbitrary or justified.

Held and Decision:

The Supreme Court held that chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of service.

However, alterations in promotion chances may warrant judicial interference if done arbitrarily or based on perverse/mala fide considerations.

The court found that the merger of posts and determination of seniority based on pay scales were justified under the TA Rules, 2003, and STA Rules, 2003.

Posts in equivalent pay scales were placed at the same level, with superiority given to posts with higher pay scales in terms of seniority.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeals filed by those who transitioned to the new cadre from the ministerial cadre, directing the authorities to implement the relevant rules without further delay.

Facts:

The case concerns the determination of inter se seniority among Sub-Inspectors of Police in Andhra Pradesh. The dispute arose regarding whether seniority should be based on the merit list at the time of selection or on the aggregate marks obtained by each probationer at the final examination after training.

Issues:

The Court was to determine the basis for establishing inter se seniority among Sub-Inspectors of Police.

Held:

The Court held that seniority should be determined based on the aggregate marks obtained by each probationer at the final examination after training, rather than the merit list at the time of selection. This decision affirmed that even those who were deputed for training later were entitled to have their seniority determined along with those initially selected. The delay in deputing candidates for training did not affect their entitlement to seniority.

Decision: Consequently, the Court dismissed the case, affirming the decision of determining seniority based on final examination marks after training.

Facts:

The case revolves around the termination of a tube-well operator, who was considered a temporary employee. The worker was provided one month's wages in lieu of notice upon termination. The industrial tribunal ruled the termination illegal, ordering the reinstatement of the worker without granting any back wages. The worker was subsequently offered a position as a fisherman by the state but declined the offer.

Issues:

Whether the termination of the worker's employment was legal under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

Whether the worker was entitled to back wages.

Whether the denial of livelihood to the worker violated constitutional rights.

Held:

The termination of the worker's employment was deemed illegal by the courts due to non-compliance with the relevant provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The industrial tribunal and the High Court rightly set aside the termination and awarded reinstatement (Para 1.2, 1.3).

The worker was found entitled to back wages. The denial of back wages by the industrial tribunal and the limited award by the High Court were deemed unjustified. The Supreme Court exercised its power under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to award back wages to the worker, even though a separate petition was not filed for the same (Para 1.4, 1.5).

The denial of livelihood to the worker for over four decades was considered a violation of constitutional rights, particularly Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The prolonged litigation deprived the worker and his family of their livelihood, thereby denying them their constitutional rights (Para 1.6).

Decision: The Supreme Court directed the state to pay 50% of the back wages to the worker from the date of termination to the date of the industrial tribunal's award. Additionally, the High Court's decision to award full back wages for the period 24.02.1997 to 31.01.2005 was upheld.

Facts:

The appellant, S. Satyanarayana, filed a private complaint as a Promoter Director of a company against several individuals and companies for various offenses under the Companies Act and IPC. The complaint alleged conspiracy, cheating, and false statements by the accused parties in inducing investment in a biomass-based power project.

Issues:

Whether the Special Court has jurisdiction to try offenses under both the Companies Act and IPC for the same transaction.

Whether the trial could continue against accused parties for offenses under IPC, even if they were not subject to prosecution under specific sections of the Companies Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ruling of the High Court. The Court held that if the Special Court had jurisdiction to try offenses under both the Companies Act and IPC, the trial could continue for offenses not requiring the complainant to belong to specified categories under Section 621 of the Companies Act.

The Court observed that the complainant had made allegations against certain accused parties only under IPC, and there was no legal basis to quash the complaint against them on the grounds of immunity from prosecution under Section 621 of the Companies Act.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Special Court had jurisdiction to try all offenses based on the same transaction, whether under the Companies Act or IPC, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Facts:

The respondent sought to import a trophy of a stuffed leopard, a protected species, into India, having hunted it in Zambia.

The leopard falls under Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and is also listed as an endangered species under CITES.

The respondent applied for permissions from various authorities, including the Regional Deputy Director and the DGFT, which were granted conditionally. However, CITES refused permission.

The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that permissions from the DGFT and the Chief Wildlife Warden were sufficient.

The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing the importance of CITES in regulating international trade to protect endangered species.

Issues:

Whether the permissions granted by the DGFT and Chief Wildlife Warden were sufficient for the importation of the leopard trophy.

The role and jurisdiction of CITES in regulating the importation of endangered species.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the permissions granted were conditional and subject to approval from CITES, which had been refused. Thus, the conditions for importation were not met.

The Court emphasized the significance of CITES in regulating international trade to prevent over-exploitation and ensure the survival of endangered species.

The judgment set aside the orders of both the High Court and CITES, directing the respondent to apply to the Scientific Authority for necessary permission within four weeks.

The Scientific Authority would then have three months to consider the application and pass an order. Depending on the outcome, the respondent would either be allowed to keep the trophy or surrender it to Customs authorities.

Facts:

The case revolves around the dismissal of Ved Mitier Gill (VMG) and other jail staff after a jailbreak incident where four under-trial prisoners, including those facing trial for serious charges like the assassination of a former Punjab Chief Minister, escaped through a 94 feet long underground tunnel. The dismissal was carried out by the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory under Article 311(2) clause (b), which allows for dismissal from service without holding a departmental inquiry if it is not reasonably practicable to do so.

Issues:

Whether the dismissal of VMG and the other jail staff was justified under the circumstances of the jailbreak incident and whether all the necessary conditions for invoking Article 311(2) clause (b) were met.

Held:

The punishment of dismissal from service was justified based on the lapses committed by VMG and the other jail staff, which directly contributed to the escape of the prisoners (Para 20, 21).

The competent authority was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular departmental inquiry against the employees due to various reasons, including fear of retaliation from VMG and the potential influence of the escaped prisoners' connections with a terrorist organization on witnesses (Para 22, 23).

All the parameters laid down for a valid application of Article 311(2) clause (b) were duly complied with (Para 24).

VMG's senior position distinguished him from the other staff, and the argument that witnesses appearing in open court proceedings should also appear in a departmental inquiry was rejected (Para 26, 27).

Decision: The court upheld the dismissal of VMG and the other jail staff, finding it justified under the circumstances of the jailbreak incident.