Criminal Law - Conviction upheld, sentence reduced - High Court reduced the sentence of Respondent Bawa Singh, who, along with his wife, was convicted under Sections 323 and 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for assaulting the complainant with a gandasa after a property dispute - Trial court sentenced Bawa Singh to rigorous imprisonment, which was reduced by the High Court to the period already served – Supreme Court finds High Court’s reduction of sentence without proper consideration of the gravity of the offense as legally inappropriate - Remands matter back to High Court for re-assessment of the sentence, emphasizing the need for proportionate punishment in line with the nature of the offense and societal expectations. [Paras 1-19]

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s reduction of the sentence and remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing adherence to the principles of proportionate sentencing and the need for the punishment to reflect societal condemnation of the crime. The appeal by the State of Punjab was allowed with directions to the High Court to reassess the sentence in light of the Supreme Court's observations on the importance of proportionate punishment.

Referred Cases:

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surendra Singh, (2014) 4 CCR 469

Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 359

Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and Another Vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC 254

Dhananjay Chatterjee alias Dhana Vs. State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC 220

Hazara Singh Vs. Raj Kumar and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 516

Mahesh and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1346

Sevaka Perumal, etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991 SC 1463

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bablu, AIR 2015 SC 102

Family Law - Divorce Proceedings – Appellant husband challenges High Court's decision which set aside the Family Court’s divorce decree, alleging the appellant had committed fraud in obtaining the decree by misusing the respondent wife’s signed Vakalatnama - High Court directed re-trial and criminal proceedings against appellant for fraud - Supreme Court reviews the records and submissions, finding that the High Court based its decision on presumptions and not concrete evidence. [Paras 3-17]

Evidential Analysis – Supreme Court notes discrepancies and absence of concrete evidence regarding the respondent wife's claims of not engaging a counsel or appearing in court, pointing out specific court records indicating her participation through legal representation in earlier proceedings - High Court's findings questioned due to reliance on conjecture over documented evidence [Paras 5, 12, 16-17].

Judgment Reversal – Supreme Court sets aside the High Court judgment, reinstating the original divorce decree by the Family Court, ruling that the evidence does not substantiate fraud by appellant - Indicates misinterpretation and undue assumptions by the High Court [Paras 12, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; original divorce decree reinstated; no order as to costs.

Referred Cases:

None

Background and Appeal - State of Kerala appeals High Court order allowing review petitions by respondents, declaring conditions set by government as violative of Direct Payment Agreement and University Statutes, thereby directing State to pay salaries for new course teachers appointed by private managements – Appeals consolidate due to similarity in issues [Paras 2-4].

Government's Conditions and High Court Review - Initial government approval for new courses in 1998 required no additional financial commitment from the State or University – High Court review in 2009 countered earlier Division Bench decision, stating Direct Payment Agreement applies, entitling teachers to salary [Paras 5-7].

Legal Arguments and Court Analysis - State argued against financial burden based on initial conditions, countered by respondents through legal and statutory obligations under Direct Payment Agreement and University Statutes – Court finds government's obligations under agreement enforceable, rejecting State's appeal [Paras 8-12].

Final Decision - Supreme Court upholds High Court's review decision, confirming teacher salaries under Direct Payment Agreement, emphasizing government’s responsibility towards quality education and lawful obligations despite financial constraints – All related appeals dismissed [Paras 13-20].

Referred Cases:

None

Employment Law - Misconduct and Dismissal - Appeal against dismissal for misconduct involving submission of a false certificate - Labour Court reinstates with reduced punishment citing discrimination in punishment among similarly situated employees, withholding four annual increments - High Court reverses, supporting dismissal; Supreme Court sets aside High Court's judgment - Finds Labour Court’s decision to modify punishment as justified under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act due to similar cases treated with leniency - Emphasizes the importance of consistent treatment in disciplinary actions among similarly situated employees - Delay in proceedings considered unreasonable without justification - High Court’s interference with Labour Court's discretion found unwarranted under Article 227 - Supreme Court restores Labour Court's order of reinstatement without backwages. [Paras 3-16]

Decision: The appeal is allowed - High Court's judgment is set aside, and the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with modified punishment is restored.

Referred Cases:

Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329

The State of Mysore v. The Workers of Gold Mines, AIR 1958 SC 923

Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192

Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, AIR 1964 SC 477

Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board and Another v. Ram Sajivan and Another, (2007) 9 SCC 86

Conviction Suspension in Wildlife Act Case – Appeal against High Court judgment suspending conviction under Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 to enable Salman Khan to travel abroad - Conviction upheld by Appellate Court but suspended by High Court, pending revision under CrPC Sections 397/401 - Supreme Court assesses whether such suspension for convenience in traveling abroad aligns with legal precedents [Paras 2-14].

Impact of Conviction on Professional Travel – High Court allowed Khan's application for suspension of conviction, noting his profession’s requirement for travel and the denial of a UK visa due to his conviction - Supreme Court scrutinizes the basis of High Court’s decision, emphasizing that suspension should only occur under exceptional circumstances [Paras 3, 5-7].

Legal Precedent and Suspension of Conviction – Examination of precedents where suspension of conviction was granted only in exceptional cases to prevent irreversible consequences - Court observes that the High Court must demonstrate that non-suspension would lead to irreparable harm or injustice to the respondent, which was not established in the present case [Paras 9-13].

Remittal for Fresh Consideration – Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s suspension of conviction and remits the matter for reconsideration, directing a fresh assessment of whether non-suspension of conviction would lead to irreversible consequences or injustice [Para 14].

Decision: The appeal stands disposed of - The case is remitted back to the High Court to decide afresh on the suspension of conviction, highlighting the need for showing specific irreversible consequences or injustice due to the conviction, which was not adequately demonstrated previously.

Referred Cases:

State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Jaganathan, (1996) 5 SCC 329

Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali, (2007) 1 SCC 673

Compassionate Appointment - Challenge against High Court decision which denied the appellant, a married daughter, the compassionate appointment under earlier government policies which only recognized unmarried daughters as eligible - The appeals question the application and interpretation of compassionate appointment policies prior to and after the appellant's marriage - Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s orders and remands the case for fresh consideration on multiple legal questions including the interpretation of the eligibility of married daughters for compassionate appointment as per the policy change on 26.02.2013 - Directions for High Court to consider the appellant’s applications dated 29.12.1997 and 19.03.1998 for compassionate appointment which were not addressed for years [Paras 2-12]

Decision: High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition and review application set aside - Appeals allowed - Case remanded back to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law - Court orders rapid and comprehensive re-evaluation on eligibility for compassionate appointment, considering the state government's policy changes. [Paras 9-12]

Referred Cases:

The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Lucknow and Others Vs. Prabhat Singh, , (2013) 287 ELT 393 : (2013) 136 FLR 858 : (2013) 1 JT 494 : (2013) 1 SCALE 506 : (2013) 2 SCT 58 : (2013) 1 SLJ 315

Shreejith L. Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala and Others, , AIR 2012 SC 2665 : (2012) 134 FLR 680 : (2012) 6 JT 94 : (2012) 7 SCC 248 : (2012) 3 SLJ 263 : (2012) AIRSCW 3835 : (2012) 4 Supreme 279

Factual Background – On 22.11.1998, an altercation over right of way led to the appellant and others assaulting the deceased and witnesses, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased, Nripen Debnath, and injuries to others - After due investigation and trial, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302/34 and 326/34 IPC, with life imprisonment for the former and three years for the latter - High Court upheld the life sentence but set aside Section 326 IPC conviction - Appellants claim false implication due to political rivalry and question witness reliability.

Legal Proceedings – Supreme Court examined witness testimonies, especially of PW-3 (the deceased's brother) and PW-10 (deceased’s son), who sustained injuries during the incident - Despite discrepancies in witness accounts, core accusations remained consistent - Defence arguments of sudden fight not accepted by High Court as not established during trial - Supreme Court re-evaluates the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, considering the sudden fight without premeditation.

Supreme Court Decision – Finds that the incident qualifies under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC due to lack of premeditation and the spontaneous nature of the fight - Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, with reduced sentence to ten years imprisonment. The appeal is partly allowed.

Referred Cases:

Sridhar Bhuyan Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2004 SC 4100

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Conviction under Section 304B IPC upheld by Supreme Court despite appellant's challenge - Evidence of cruelty and harassment related to dowry demands substantiated by family witnesses - Death occurred under non-normal circumstances within seven years of marriage - High Court's dismissal of appeal and affirmation of trial court's decision justified given the evidence and legal standards [Paras 2-14]

Appellant's argument that death could be natural and not related to dowry demands countered by medical evidence of poisoning by aluminium phosphide, confirmed by forensic experts [Para 9]

Essential elements of Section 304B IPC met as deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death; presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act applied - Conviction based on continuous harassment for dowry and direct evidence from family members reporting specific instances of cruelty and threats [Paras 7-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Conviction and sentence under Section 304B IPC upheld - Directing the appellant to be taken into custody to serve the remainder of the sentence.

Referred Cases:

Kaliyaperumal and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828

Hira Lal and Others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865

Banking and Finance – Letter of Credit – Responsibility of the Opening Bank in international trade – Appellant opened a Letter of Credit for USD 352,250 favoring the respondent through Bank of India, alleging subsequent discrepancies in shipping documents and claiming damages and goods shortages reported by the importer – Discrepancies led to a protracted legal dispute over the payment obligations under the Letter of Credit – Supreme Court emphasized the strict liability of the Opening Bank to ensure payment unless documentation is defective or the invocation of the Letter of Credit is discrepant – Appellant’s certification of photocopies of shipping documents without notifying the exporter or negotiating bank led to misuse and unauthorized clearance of goods by the importer – Held, the Opening Bank breached its fiduciary duty by enabling the importer to access the consignment without ensuring payment, violating international banking norms – Appeal dismissed, upholding the High Court’s decree for the sum secured by the Letter of Credit. [Para 1-6]

Referred Cases:

Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. V.M. Jog Engineering Ltd. and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3166

Tarapore and Co. Vs. V/O Tractoroexport and Another, AIR 1970 SC 891

United Commercial Bank Vs. Bank of India and Others, AIR 1981 SC 1426

Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs. Coal Tar Refining Company, AIR 2007 SC 2798

U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Vs. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd., (1988) 1 SCC 174