Land Acquisition – Determination of Market Value – Appeals arise from the High Court's judgment enhancing the compensation for land acquired by the State for the establishment of a Medical Research Centre by ICMR – High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 7,000/- per gunta to Rs. 99,000/- per gunta – ICMR contended the enhancement was excessive and unsupported by evidence – High Court relied on a sale deed (Ex-P-10) of a small, developed plot to determine the market value – Supreme Court acknowledged the principles for determining compensation, emphasizing deductions for undeveloped land – Court referred to precedents on deductions for development costs ranging from 20% to 75% – Supreme Court held that the fair market value should be Rs. 70,000/- per gunta, instead of Rs. 99,000/- – Adjustment accounts for location, potentiality, and required development – Directed recalculations of compensation including statutory benefits – [Paras 1-27]

Referred Cases:

Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769

A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy (2010) 12 SCC 707

Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M.K. Rafiq Saheb (2011) 7 SCC 714

Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust (1982) 1 SCC 419

Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 3 SCC 751

Kasturi v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354

Chandrashekar v. Land Acquisition Officer (2011) 13 SCALE 48

Recruitment and Criminal Antecedents - Assessment of Acquittal:The Appellant, Joginder Singh, applied for the post of Constable in 1997. During the verification process for a subsequent recruitment in 2001, it was found he was involved in a criminal case (FIR No. 200 dated 14.04.1998) under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 IPC - Acquitted on 04.10.1999 by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani - The Appellant sought a directive for appointment from the CAT which was granted, but the High Court set aside the CAT’s order citing unsuitability based on antecedents - The Supreme Court assessed whether the acquittal was “honourable” and the impact of rules governing police recruitment. [Paras 1-25]

Acquittal and Suitability for Police Service: CAT directed appointment based on acquittal - High Court ruled CAT’s decision illegal, emphasizing character suitability despite acquittal - Supreme Court held the acquittal was honourable as prosecution failed to prove charges - Rejected High Court’s reliance on Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar as distinguishable due to non-concealment of facts by the appellant - Noted CAT’s observation that prosecution witnesses turned hostile undermining prosecution’s case - Highlighted the distinction between “mere acquittal” and “honourable acquittal” critical for recruitment suitability - Held Appellant’s antecedents were clean per Punjab Police Rules emphasizing character and absence of conviction. [Paras 5-22]

Precedents and Legal Principles: Referred decisions in The Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, Secy. Deptt. of Home Secy. A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Dhaval Singh, and Jagtar Singh v. Director, CBI, to underscore principles distinguishing honourable acquittal from mere procedural acquittal - Supreme Court found Appellant’s acquittal aligned with principles of honourable acquittal and entitled him to the post without prejudice from past criminal allegations. [Paras 14-22]

Decision:The appeals were allowed - High Court’s order set aside - CAT’s directive for appointment upheld - Respondents directed to issue appointment letters to the Appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. [Para 23-24]

Referred Cases:

Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605

The Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram AIR 2013 SC 14

Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Dhaval Singh AIR 1999 SC 2326

Jagtar Singh v. Director, CBI (1993) 3 SCC 49 Supp

Secy. Deptt. of Home Secy. A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu (2005) 2 SCC 746

Industrial Law - Proportionality of Punishment - Appeal against the dismissal from service - Appellant, a semi-skilled workman at L.M.L. Ltd., Kanpur, dismissed after being found guilty of throwing jute/cotton waste balls at a foreman and allegedly using abusive language - Labour Court and High Court upheld the dismissal - Supreme Court considered if the punishment was disproportionate.

Facts - Appellant admitted to throwing jute balls accidentally in an apology letter but did not admit to using abusive language - The Enquiry Officer and courts below relied heavily on the apology letter, treating it as an admission of all charges - The Supreme Court observed that the apology letter admitted only to throwing jute balls mistakenly, not to using abusive language - The act of throwing jute balls, weighing 5 to 10 grams, was minor and did not justify dismissal.

Assessment - The Supreme Court highlighted the principle of proportionality in judicial review, emphasizing that the punishment should correspond to the gravity of the misconduct - Found the punishment of dismissal to be harsh and disproportionate - Noted the long service of the appellant and the elapsed time since dismissal - Instead of reinstatement, awarded lump sum compensation.

Decision - The punishment of dismissal from service was set aside - Appellant awarded Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages, and other benefits - Compensation to be paid within six weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum would apply.

Referred Cases:

Davalsab Husainsab Mulla vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, (2013) 10 SCC 185

Ex-Naik Sardar Singh vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 213

Ved Prakash Gupta vs. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 569

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B. Naravade, (2005) 3 SCC 134

Ram Kishan vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 157

Jai Bhagwan vs. Commissioner of Police, (2013) 11 SCC 187

Rama Kant Misra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 3 SCC 346

Dev Singh vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., (2003) 8 SCC 9

Om Kumar vs. Union of India, (2001) SCC(L&S) 1039

Union of India vs. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463

Criminal Law - Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences – Appeal against High Court judgment upholding the trial court’s direction for consecutive sentences for convictions under Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Prosecution established that appellant’s ill-treatment led to the victim’s suicide – Appellant employed abroad, visited India intermittently – Supreme Court examined Section 31 CrPC discretion on concurrent sentences – Referenced cases showed concurrent sentencing favored for single transactions – Held: Considering the appellant’s intermittent presence in India and efforts for mediation, sentences to run concurrently – Appeal allowed in part – Sentences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC to run concurrently [Paras 1-24].

Referred Cases:

Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad, AIR 1988 SC 2143

Ramesh Chilwal @ Bombayya v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 11 SCC 629

V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 211

Manoj @ Panu v. State of Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 153

Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa, (2014) 8 JT 273

The appeal challenges the conviction of Nar Singh for murder under Section 302 IPC and unlawful possession of a firearm under Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act - The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, witness testimonies, recovery of a firearm, and ballistic expert opinions - Conviction was initially upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana - Appellant's main contention was the non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 313 CrPC, arguing the failure to question him on vital evidence (Ex P-12 FSL report) prejudiced his defense - Supreme Court reiterated the importance of Section 313 CrPC, emphasizing it ensures the accused has the opportunity to explain incriminating evidence - Not all omissions to put questions under Section 313 CrPC automatically vitiate the trial unless substantial prejudice is demonstrated - In this case, the omission was seen as prejudicial, necessitating a remand for retrial from the stage of Section 313 CrPC examination - Conviction and sentence were set aside, directing the trial court to re-examine the accused and afford him an opportunity to defend afresh - The matter to be expedited and disposed of within six months - Appellant given liberty to apply for bail.

Referred Cases:

Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, (2008) CLT 1053

Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab

Kuldip Singh v. State of Delhi, (2003) 12 SCC 528

State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2100

Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701

Usha K. Pillai v. Raj K. Srinivas, AIR 1993 SC 2090

State of U.P. v. Kapil Deo Shukla, AIR 1973 SC 494

State of Punjab v. Hari Singh, AIR 2009 SC 1966

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622

Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 612

Ganeshmal Jashraj v. Government of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 264

Machander v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 792

State (Delhi Administration) v. Dharampal, AIR 2001 SC 2924

Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, AIR 1971 SC 1367

Bhoor Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1256

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622

S. Veerabadran Chettiar v. E.V. Ramaswami Naicker, AIR 1958 SC 1032

Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2000 SC 3214

Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200

Santosh Kumar Singh v. State thr. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 747

Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 3802

Wasim Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 400

Constitutional Law - Gender Equality - Discrimination by Trade Union - Writ Petition under Article 32 challenging discriminatory practices by the Cine Costume Make-up Artists and Hair Dressers Association of Mumbai, which denied membership to female make-up artists on the grounds of gender and lack of five-year residency in Maharashtra - Supreme Court held that such practices violate Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, as well as provisions under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 - The Court quashed the discriminatory clauses in the Association's bye-laws and directed immediate registration of the petitioners as make-up artists - Court emphasized the constitutional mandate of gender equality and the right to livelihood - Directed police administration to ensure no harassment of female make-up artists [Paras 1-55].

Referred Cases:

Ashoka Smokeless Coal Ind. P. Ltd. v. Union of India (2007) 2 SCC 640

Mrs. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University (1996) 3 SCC 545

M/s. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D'costa (1987) 2 SCC 469

Mrs. Neera Mathur v. LIC (1992) 1 SCC 286

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545

Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654

Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India (2013) 4 SCC 1

Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 1

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 1

Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012) 5 SCC 1

Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608

A.I.I.M.S. Students Union v. A.I.I.M.S. (2002) 1 SCC 428

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241

Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 146

Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 10 SCC 237

Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996) 5 SCC 125

Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 186

Contempt of Courts - Conviction of Promoter Director - Criminal Appeals filed against the High Court's judgment which set aside the conviction and sentence of K.S. Raju (Promoter Director of NFL) and other directors for contempt of court - Supreme Court restored the conviction and sentence of K.S. Raju - Held: K.S. Raju's resignation was a deliberate attempt to evade liability and his failure to repay depositors was wilful disobedience of CLB's order and breach of undertakings given to CLB - Conviction and sentence of six months simple imprisonment and Rs. 2,000/- fine reinstated for K.S. Raju - Other directors acquitted by the High Court remained acquitted due to lack of opportunity to defend themselves initially. [Paras 1-29]

Court held that CLB orders, not being executable as a civil decree post Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, warrant the use of contempt proceedings to ensure compliance. CLB, performing judicial functions, is a subordinate court to the High Court for contempt jurisdiction - Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to provide a 60-day window for K.S. Raju to repay depositors, failing which the prison sentence would be enforced - Observed that a company functions through its directors, making them responsible for its contemptuous actions. [Paras 12-29]

Referred Cases:

N. Venkata Swamy Naidu vs. Sri Surya Teja Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2007) 6 ALT 439: (2008) CriLJ 227

Mohammedbhikhan Hussainbhai and etc. vs. The Manager, Chandrabhanu Cinema and Others etc., AIR 1986 Guj 209: (1986) 1 GLR 1

Facts:

The suit premises were let out in 1971 at Rs. 70/- per month, with standard rent fixed in 1971. The petitioner issued a legal notice in 1987 for arrears of rent exceeding six months and other breaches. The eviction suit was filed under various grounds, including arrears of rent (Section 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b)), bona fide requirement, and causing nuisance.

Trial and Appellate Court: The Small Causes Court dismissed the suit- the appellate bench reversed this, holding that the tenant did not comply with Section 12(3)(b) as rent due was not fully deposited by the first hearing date (3.8.1994) - rent fell short by Rs. 270/-.

High Court: Reversed the appellate decision, interpreting Section 12(3)(b) purposively to allow substantial compliance if the tenant showed readiness and willingness to pay rent - found the shortfall of Rs. 270/- insignificant.

Supreme Court Assessment: Cited precedents establishing the mandatory nature of Section 12(3)(b) - tenant must strictly comply by depositing full rent due on the first hearing date - rejected the High Court's purposive interpretation - held that discretionary jurisdiction under Section 12(3)(b) is not permissible - set aside the High Court's judgment - restored the appellate bench's eviction order.

Decision: Petition allowed - eviction decree restored as per the appellate court's order.

Referred Cases:

Ratilal Balabhai Nazar vs. Ranchhodbhai Shankerbhai Patel and Others, AIR 1968 Guj 172: (1968) 9 GLR 48

Mranalini B. Shah and Another vs. Bapalal Mohanlal Shah, AIR 1980 SC 954: (1980) 4 SCC 251

Jamnadas Dharamdas vs. Dr. J. Joseph Farreira and Another, AIR 1980 SC 1605: (1980) 3 SCC 569: (1980) 3 SCR 1015: (1980) 12 UJ 665

Vasant Ganesh Damle vs. Shrikant Trimbak Datar and Another, AIR 2002 SC 1237: (2002) 2 JT 576: (2002) 2 SCALE 441: (2002) 4 SCC 183: (2002) 2 SCR 198: (2002) 1 UJ 415: (2002) AIRSCW 1028: (2002) 2 Supreme 262

Ganpat Ladha vs. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, AIR 1978 SC 955: (1978) 2 SCC 573: (1978) 3 SCR 198: (1978) 10 UJ 218

This appeal addresses the direction issued by the High Court of Madras to conduct a caste-wise census - The direction arose from a writ petition challenging the appointment of an individual based on Scheduled Tribe status in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, where there was no Presidential notification under Article 342 of the Constitution indicating the presence of Scheduled Tribes - The High Court directed the Census Department to conduct a caste-wise census, which was challenged by the Census Commissioner as an overreach into executive policy-making - The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial review should not extend to formulating policies or directing their specifics unless such policies are unconstitutional or arbitrary - Referencing various judgments, the Court highlighted the distinction between reviewing policies for legality and framing or directing policies - The Census Act and notifications issued under it did not provide for caste-wise enumeration other than for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - The Court concluded that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing such directions without any deliberation on the implications or the statutory framework - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders, underscoring the necessity of judicial restraint in policy matters. [Paras 1-30]

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the judgments and orders of the High Court of Madras in W.P.(C) No. 25785/2005 and W.P.(C) No. 10090/2010 are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

Referred Cases:

Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others (2009) 1 SCC 768

Suresh Seth vs. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation and Others (2005) 13 SCC 287

State of Kerala and Another vs. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit and Others (2009) 8 SCC 46

Khetrabasi Biswal vs. Ajaya Kumar Baral and Others (2004) 1 SCC 317

Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam vs. Union of India (2009) 7 SCC 561

N.D. Jayal and Another vs. Union of India and Others (2004) 9 SCC 362

Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India and Others (2000) 10 SCC 664

Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association and Others vs. Union of India and Another (1989) 4 SCC 187

State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. A.R. Zakki and Others (1992) 1 SCC 548

State of Punjab and Others vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga Etc. Etc. (1998) 4 SCC 117

Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar (1963) 1 SCR 676 Supp

Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248

A.K. Roy and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1982) 1 SCC 271

Premium Granites and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (1994) 2 SCC 691

H.C. Kulwant Singh vs. H.C. Daya Ram (2014) 8 SCALE 150

Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (2011) 7 SCC 639

M.P. Oil Extraction and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others (1997) 7 SCC 592

Prabodh Verma and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (1984) 4 SCC 251

Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others (2007) 6 SCC 44

Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651