Facts:

The case revolves around an industrial dispute between the Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary UC Employees Association and the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The dispute arose over the absorption of certain temporary employees who had served the LIC between January 1, 1982, and May 20, 1985. The employees sought absorption as regular and permanent service employees. (Para 1)

Issues:

Whether the compromise reached between the parties nullified the original award directing absorption of the temporary employees into permanent positions.

Whether the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) had the authority to adjudicate the dispute and override contractual agreements.

Whether the awards passed by previous authorities remained operative until lawfully terminated by either party under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Held:

The compromise between the parties did not set aside the original award or its terms. The CGIT had the authority to adjudicate the dispute and override contractual agreements if necessary. (Para 1.1)

The awards passed by previous authorities remained operative until terminated by either party under the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the CGIT's decision to uphold the absorption of the employees was legally sound. (Para 1.2)

The actions of the LIC in terminating the employees were deemed as unfair labor practice under the Industrial Disputes Act, and appropriate penalties were applicable. (Para 1.3)

The LIC was directed to implement the CGIT's award by absorbing the concerned employees into permanent positions and providing them with consequential benefits, including monetary benefits based on applicable pay scales. (Para 1.4)

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the CGIT's award in favor of the employees, emphasizing the importance of adhering to industrial dispute resolution mechanisms and honoring previous awards unless lawfully terminated. (Para 1)

Facts:

Zile Singh was reported missing, and his father lodged a First Information Report (FIR) stating that the deceased was last seen with the appellant and other co-accused.

Subsequently, Zile Singh's body was found in a well, and the appellant, along with others, was charged with murder and disposal of evidence.

The trial court convicted the appellant, and the High Court upheld the conviction.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

Issues:

Whether the chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether there is any credible evidence indicating motive or enmity between the appellant and the deceased.

Held:

The court noted that the case relied on circumstantial evidence. It emphasized the need for the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove the appellant's guilt. The court found that the evidence presented did not conclusively establish the appellant's involvement in the murder or the disposal of the body.

The court observed that there was no evidence indicating any motive or enmity between the appellant and the deceased. It emphasized that while motive is not necessary to prove a crime, it cannot be ignored in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Based on the shortcomings in the prosecution's case and the lack of conclusive evidence against the appellant, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

Facts:

The case involves the challenge to a notification issued by the Central Government on March 4, 2014, which included the 'Jat Community' in the Central List of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for nine states. This decision was made despite the contrary view taken by the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).

Issues:

Whether the inclusion of the Jat community in the OBC list was justified, considering the advice of the NCBC and the relevant legal provisions.

Held:

The court observed that the advice of the NCBC is ordinarily binding on the government, as per the Indra Sawhney case and Section 9 of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act.

The decision of the NCBC not to recommend the Jats for inclusion in the OBC list was based on valid reasons and supported by detailed consideration of various reports and expert opinions.

The court emphasized that the crucial test for determining entitlement of Jats in the OBC list is social backwardness, not just educational backwardness, as highlighted by Article 16(4) of the Constitution.

It criticized the government for relying on outdated data and stressed the importance of using contemporaneous data in decision-making.

The court highlighted the need for a continuous evolution in understanding backwardness, moving away from caste-centric definitions.

Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the inclusion of Jats in the OBC list was not justified and quashed the notification dated March 4, 2014.

Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions challenging the notification and set aside the inclusion of Jats in the Central List of Other Backward Classes for the concerned states.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over the payment of royalty on coal under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

Issues:

Whether royalty on coal is payable on processed coal or on raw (unprocessed) coal at the pithead.

The applicability of Rules 648 and 64C inserted into the Mineral Concession Rules in determining the point of royalty payment.

Held

The court interpreted Rule 648 of the Mineral Concession Rules, which indicates that royalty is payable only on removal of the mineral from the boundaries of the leased area, whether it's unprocessed (ROM coal) or processed coal. This interpretation aligns with the insertion of Rules 648 and 64C, shifting the point of royalty payment to the stage of removal from the leased area.

With effect from September 25, 2000, royalty is payable on all minerals including coal at the stage mentioned in Rules 648 and 64C. For the period prior to that, the law laid down in Central Coalfields Ltd. will operate as far as coal is concerned, from August 10, 1998, when the Steel Authority of India Ltd. case was decided.

Decision: The court held that royalty on coal is payable on removal of the coal from the boundaries of the leased area, whether it's unprocessed or processed coal. Tata Steel is entitled to a refund of royalty paid from August 10, 1998, to September 25, 2000, and from September 25, 2000, onwards, Tata Steel is obliged to pay royalty as per Rules 648 and 64C of the Mineral Concession Rules.

Facts:

Naval Kishore was convicted and sentenced under Sections 498A, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khampur.

The conviction was based on the prosecution's case that Naval Kishore subjected his wife, Jyoti, to cruelty leading to her death, which was initially claimed to be suicide by the defense.

Medical evidence indicated injuries on Jyoti's body prior to her death, suggesting physical assault.

Issues:

Whether Naval Kishore was responsible for Jyoti's death.

Whether the defense's claim of suicide was credible.

Held:

The court dismissed Naval Kishore's appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The court found substantial evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, supporting the prosecution's case. The court rejected the defense's claim of suicide, noting discrepancies in the evidence and lack of credibility. Additionally, objections raised regarding the investigation process were deemed immaterial to the prosecution's case.

Facts:

The appellant company, along with its directors and promoter, was accused of cheating and conspiracy under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the respondent, who was a consultant.

The dispute arose from a loan settlement agreement between the company and the Industrial Investment Bank of India (IIBI), where the respondent assisted in settling the loan but was allegedly not paid the promised consultancy fee.

Issues:

Whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offense of cheating under the IPC.

Whether the complaint and legal proceedings against the appellants constitute an abuse of the court's process.

Held:

The court emphasizes that for an offense of cheating to be established, there must be fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or representation. The court observed that the complaint did not demonstrate any intention on the part of the accused to cheat from the beginning, thus failing to disclose a criminal offense. Paragraph 10 concludes that the complaint and legal proceedings against the appellants constitute an abuse of the court's process. The court, therefore, allows the appeals and quashes the complaint and proceedings against the appellants.

Facts:

Delhi International Airport Ltd. (DIAL) detained aircraft belonging to International Lease Finance Corporation and others (Respondents) due to non-payment of fees.

Respondents challenged the detention and the validity of Regulation 10 of the Airport Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulations, 2003.

The High Court relied on minutes of a meeting held on 26-03-2013, where it was decided to release the detained aircraft, to order their release.

Issues:

Whether the minutes of the meeting constituted a valid order by the Central Government under the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 and Regulations thereunder.

Whether the release of the aircraft based on the meeting minutes overrides Regulation 10.

Held:

The Court held that the minutes of the meeting did not fulfill the requirements of a general or special order by the Central Government under Article 77(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, they could not override Regulation 10. The decision involving financial implications must comply with the constitutional scheme, including obtaining concurrence from the Finance Department and approval from the concerned minister. Therefore, the High Court's order was set aside, allowing DIAL to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the Respondents and recover arrears of fees charges.

Facts:

The appellant, Chander Prakash Tyagi, represented a client seeking guardianship of his grandson under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Subsequently, the appellant accepted a brief from another party in a suit against the client's grandson.

A complaint was filed against the appellant for misconduct, alleging a conflict of interest.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's acceptance of a brief against a former client constitutes misconduct.

Whether the proceedings in both cases were of a different nature, justifying the appellant's actions.

Held:

The court upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, finding the appellant guilty of misconduct under Rule 33 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

The court emphasized the importance of upholding ethical standards in the legal profession and maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to bear the costs.

Facts:

The appellants, units of Grasim Industries Limited, were paying entry tax on coal, gypsum, and bauxite as per the rates specified by the state. In 1999, the state issued a notification reducing the entry tax rates to 1% for a specific period. However, the notification also included an explanation stating that amounts already paid at higher rates would not be refunded.

Issues:

Whether the explanation appended to the notification regarding entry tax violates Article 14 of the Constitution and Article 265, and whether it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Held:

The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's arguments. It held that the explanation in the notification led to discrimination between taxpayers who were identically situated, with no reasonable basis for differentiation. The court emphasized that Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits arbitrariness in state action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It reiterated that any classification for the purpose of legislation must be founded on intelligible differentia and must have a rational relation to the objective sought to be achieved.

Additionally, the court observed that the explanation violated Article 265, which mandates that taxes be levied and collected strictly in accordance with law. It noted that the state could consider the principle of unjust enrichment while determining refund eligibility on a case-by-case basis but could not justify withholding refunds through a blanket explanation. We, accordingly, allow the appeal.