Search Judgments

(Industrial Disputes Act - Approval of Dismissal)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 33(2)(b) and 10 - The writ petition challenged the Labour Court's dismissal of the petitioner/Corporation's Approval Application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Corporation dismissed an employee for unauthorised leave following an ex-parte domestic enquiry where he was found guilty.
Subsequently, the Corporation sought approval for the dismissal from the Labour Court as per statutory requirements.
The Labour Court rejected the approval, primarily on the ground that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorised absence.
The petitioner/Corporation contended that the Labour Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b), exceeded its statutory limits.

(Minimum Wages Payment Order - Effect of Superseding Government Order)

This Writ Petition challenged an order from the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Authority under Minimum Wages Act) dated 20.06.2022.

The Authority had directed a hospital (petitioner) to pay Rs. 34,90,511/- as minimum wages, based on applications filed by employees under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, referring to G.O.2(D) No.24 Labour and Employment (J1) dated 02.03.2018.

The hospital contested the Authority's determination of its bed count (45 beds vs.

(Termination of Teachers - Eligibility and Natural Justice)

The Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012, specifically Rule 4 (Eligibility Criteria) and Rule 21 (Merit List Preparation). It also addresses principles of natural justice. The appellants, Intermediate Trained Teachers belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, were terminated from service. The grounds for termination were that they allegedly did not meet the minimum 40% marks in their intermediate examination and questions regarding their graduation certificates from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar.

The Supreme Court noted that the validity of the graduation degrees from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar (awarded before Feb 26, 2015), was subsequently confirmed by the State Government.

(Executability of Cryptic Ex-parte Decree)

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Section 47, Order 20 Rules 4, 5, and 6 - The application sought to declare an ex-parte judgment and decree as null and void for non-compliance with CPC. The original suit, O.S.No.470 of 1986, for declaration and recovery of possession, was decreed ex parte on 12.09.2002. During execution proceedings (E.P.No.46 of 2009), the judgment debtors (legal heirs) filed E.A.No.34 of 2014 under Section 47 CPC. They argued that the ex-parte judgment was cryptic, lacking discussion on the plaint, written statement, documents, or issues for determination, rendering it inexecutable. They also pointed out that the original prayer for recovery was only against the 2nd defendant, and subsequent applications by the decree holders to amend the prayer/schedule were withdrawn, indicating a known lacuna.

(Access to Animal Birth Control Centres and Stray Dog Management)

The Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 (Rules 10, 10(4), 11(18), 14) govern the management and oversight of Animal Birth Control (ABC) Centres, mandating hygiene, facilities, and empowering authorities for inspections and complaint resolution. The Supreme Court's Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2025 also plays a critical role, having issued comprehensive directions on stray dog management and consolidating related cases. 
The petitioner sought regulated access to ABC Centres, alleging unhygienic conditions and an unwritten blanket ban on animal welfare volunteers. Respondents countered that Supreme Court directives are followed, petitioner's photos lacked location specifics, and the petition was filed prematurely after a representation.

(Partition Suit, Proof of Will, and Estoppel by Attestation)

Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Section 63) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 68, 69) - Registration Act, 1908 (Section 60) - Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (Section 37(2)) - This appeal challenged the dismissal of a partition suit seeking a half share in suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Natchimuthu (junior), disputed a Will dated 02.08.1994, allegedly executed by Natchimuthu (junior) in favor of his brother Muthusamy, claiming it was forged and surrounded by suspicious circumstances. They also challenged the subsequent sale of 'B' schedule property based on this Will, contending that the second plaintiff (Manimaran) attested the sale deed without knowledge of its contents.

The defendants asserted the Will's validity and argued that Manimaran's attestation of the sale deed, which explicitly referenced the Will, estopped the plaintiffs from challenging it. The key issues were: (1) whether the Will was duly proved; (2) whether the sale deed, attested by the second plaintiff, bound the plaintiffs; and (3) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to partition.

Court's Analysis:  The Court found the Will duly proved under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the attesting witnesses had died, and their signatures, along with the testator's, were identified.

(Quashing of Criminal Proceedings in Medical Billing and Records Dispute)

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 405 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 420 (Cheating), 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482 (Inherent powers of High Court) - West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017: Sections 29 (Minor and major deficiencies), 34 (Offences and punishments), 35 (Adjudicating Authority), 36 (Regulatory Commission).

A complaint was filed against a hospital and its personnel alleging inflated billing for an unperformed test, non-supply of medical records, and improper behaviour, leading to a Magistrate’s summoning order under IPC Sections 405, 420, 120B, and Section 34 of the 2017 Act. The High Court set aside the summoning order but remanded the matter for reconsideration of territorial jurisdiction, while making a passing comment that an offence was prima facie made out (specifically Section 504 IPC for two individuals).

The Supreme Court found no prima facie case for criminal breach of trust (Section 405 IPC) or cheating (Section 420 IPC), as the billing discrepancy was an inadvertence with an offered refund, not dishonest intention or deception from the outset. Consequently, the criminal conspiracy charge (Section 120B IPC) was unsustainable.

(Land Acquisition Compensation under NH Act)

National Highways Act, 1956: Sections 3A(1), 3G(1), 3G(5) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Sections 34, 37 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 26(1) and its Explanations - The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenged the enhanced compensation awarded for land acquired for National Highway No. 547-E widening. The Competent Authority initially valued the land as agricultural. However, the landowner, Alfa Remidis Ltd., successfully argued before an Arbitrator that its land was used for industrial purposes, securing an award of Rs.

(Condonation of Delay and Competence of Appeal under IBC)

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) Section 61, alongside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLAT Rules) Rule 22(2) and Rules 14, 15, and 26(2). The core issue was whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) correctly condoned significant delays in the filing and refiling of an appeal, despite critical defects.

Respondent No. 1, challenging an NCLT order dated 14.08.2024, e-filed an appeal on 28.09.2024, 15 days beyond the initial 30-day limit. After defects were notified, the appeal was refiled on 10.03.2025, incurring an additional 150-day delay.

(Recognition and Implementation of Mother Tongue-Based Education and Regional Languages)

The Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21A, 350A, and The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009) Section 29(2)(f). It also refers to the National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP, 2020). The appellants challenged a Rajasthan High Court order dismissing a Public Interest Litigation. The PIL sought directions to include the Rajasthani language in the Teacher Recruitment Examination (REET, 2021) syllabus and to impart education in Rajasthani. The High Court dismissed it, stating no enforceable legal right or statutory duty failure.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the REET 2021 relief was infructuous but addressed the broader constitutional issue of language in education.