Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 – Sections 70(2) and 95(1) – Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak(Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005 – Rule 7A – Appointment – Denial of – Appellant was denied appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III despite passing the selection exam and the High Court’s ruling in her favor – The main issue was the State Government’s refusal to appoint the appellant based on amended rules, which were applied retrospectively – The appellant argued that the denial of appointment was illegal and arbitrary, and that she fulfilled all qualifications for the post – The State contended that the appellant was not eligible for appointment due to the retrospective application of Rule 7-A – The Supreme Court directed the appellant’s appointment to an equivalent post, without back wages but with compensation for the arbitrary denial of her rightful claim – The Court found the State’s actions to be mala fide and arbitrary, as they denied the appellant’s legitimate claim despite multiple court orders – Referencing the case of Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, the Court emphasized the duty to provide restitution for arbitrary actions – The Court allowed the appeals, ordered the appellant’s appointment, and granted compensation, highlighting the need for restitutive relief.
2024 INSC 378 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMITA SHRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…
Pre-emption Suit – The case revolves around a dispute over land in Haryana, where a pre-emption suit was filed and decreed, requiring a deposit of Rs. 9,214 minus 1/5th already deposited. The appellants deposited Rs. 7,600 instead of Rs. 7,614 due to a calculation error. The main issue was whether the appellants should suffer for a minor deficit due to a bona fide error and if the court can extend the time for deposit in such cases. The appellants argued that the error was not intentional and even the court ordered the deposit of 7,600. The respondents argued that the appellants failed to comply with the decree’s terms and did not provide sufficient reason for the delay in depositing the correct amount. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellants to deposit the deficit of 14 and directed them to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the respondents for prolonged litigation. The court concluded that parties should not suffer due to errors in judicial proceedings and granted relief to the appellants.
2024 INSC 374 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. SUKHI RAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and…
Transfer of Property Act, 1882- Sections 41 and 52 – Sale deed executed during the pendency of a suit for permanent injunction is invalid under the principle of lis pendens – The court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to maintain status quo and prevent multiple proceedings by parties in different forums – The court further clarified that even if Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable in its strict sense, the principles of lis pendens, which are based on justice, equity, and good conscience, would certainly be applicable – The court set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and directed the defendant to accept the balance sale consideration and execute the agreement to sell in favor of the plaintiff within three months from the date of the judgment.
2024 INSC 377 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGH — Appellant Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia…
“Acquittal in Murder Case: Prosecution Fails to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 149 – Murder – Acquittal – The court found that the prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence linking the appellants to the crime, and the testimony of eyewitnesses was inconsistent and contradictory – The court also noted that the theory of “last seen together” was not sufficient to establish guilt, as the deceased was seen in the company of other individuals after being seen with the accused – The court set aside the convictions of the appellants and ordered their release, unless their custody was required for some other offences.
2024 INSC 376 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALAUDDIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and…
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992 – Rule 6(h) – House Rent Allowance (HRA) – The appellant, a retired Inspector(Telecom) in Jammu and Kashmir Police, was charged with unauthorized House Rent Allowance (HRA) drawals and asked to repay Rs.3,96,814/-.- The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to HRA while sharing government accommodation allotted to his retired father – The appellant argued that the quarter was allotted to his father, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, and he only occasionally shared it, thus he should not be charged HRA – The State contended that the appellant was not entitled to HRA as per Rule 6(h)(i) and (ii) because he shared rent-free accommodation allotted to his father – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision and the recovery notice – The Court found no application for Rule 6(h)(iv) in the appellant’s case and held that clauses 6(h)(i) and (ii) covered the controversy – The Court reasoned that since the appellant shared accommodation with a retired government servant, he was not entitled to claim HRA – The appeal is dismissed as devoid of force, and the recovery notice was justified in the eyes of the law
2024 INSC 365 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R.K. MUNSHI — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…
”High Threshold Not Met: Supreme Court Blocks Trial of Additional Accused in Murder Case” Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 and 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Issuing of the summons – The appeals concern a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the appellants to face trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC, based on a High Court decision dated 04.04.2023 – The main issue is the sufficiency of material against the appellants prompting the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C – The appellants argue that they were incorrectly named in the FIR and subsequent statements due to a longstanding family enmity, and there is no strong evidence against them – The State contends that even if the trial against existing accused has abated, there is no bar in summoning the appellants to start the trial afresh – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the summoning order, and the High Court’s judgment dismissing the Section 482 petition – The Court found that the evidence against the appellants was not strong enough to meet the higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C – The Court referenced the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for strong and cogent evidence – The Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in issuing the summons, and the High Court should have quashed the order under Section 482 Cr.P.C – The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.
2024 INSC 366 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…
”Backlog Vacancies Get Priority: Supreme Court Orders Re-appointment Based on Reservation Rules” Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 – Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved For Persons Belonging to the SC’s and ST’s) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 – Rule 6 – Appointment – The case revolves around a service dispute regarding the appointment to a Scheduled Tribes (ST) reserved post at Bangalore University – The appellant was appointed based on merit, while respondent no. 7 was within the preferential age bracket – The main issue is whether the 2001 Rules apply to the university’s appointment process and if the appointment of the appellant, who was outside the age bracket, was legal – The appellant argued that the university should be governed by the Universities Act, not the 2001 Rules – Respondent no. 7 claimed that the university’s advertisement declaring the ‘Mode of Selection’ as per the 2001 Rules was correct – The court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the university’s advertisement was binding and the 2001 Rules were applicable – The court cited the amendment to Sec. 4(1A) of the Reservation Act, 1990, and subsequent government letters as mandating the university to follow the 2001 Rules for filling backlog vacancies – The court found that the university’s conduct in advertising the ‘Mode of Selection’ as per the 2001 Rules was in compliance with statutory requirements and government demands – The court concluded that respondent no. 7 should be appointed as per the 2001 Rules and suggested the university consider creating a supernumerary post to accommodate the appellant.
2024 INSC 367 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar,…
“The charge sheet needs to include witness statements and include complete, clear entries that specify each accused person’s role” Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 173(2) – The appeals concern the nature of chargesheets filed by the state/police in some jurisdictions, particularly when they lack sufficient details of facts constituting the offense or relevant evidence – The main issue is whether chargesheets are being filed without adequate details or evidence, often merely reproducing the complainant’s details from the FIR, and whether this meets the legal requirements – The judgment discusses the legal position on the contents of a chargesheet as per Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with reference to the recent judgment in Dablu Kujur vs. State of Jharkhand – The Court quashed the chargesheet and summoning order, discharging the appellants, and clarified that the observations made will not affect any civil proceedings.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHARIF AHMED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…
