Search Judgments

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Principles and Scope – This case involves appeals against a High Court judgment directing the appointment of the respondents as Junior Assistants, after they were initially appointed as sweepers on compassionate grounds following the deaths of their fathers.

The appellants argued that compassionate appointment is not a right, but a concession to alleviate sudden financial crises. Once an appointment is accepted, the individual cannot later claim entitlement to a higher post based on better qualifications. They also cited delays in filing the writ petitions and misinterpretation of Government Orders.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 498-A & Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 372 & Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005- Section 12 & 2(a) – This judgment addresses an appeal against the acquittal of an elderly husband (Accused No. 1) who was initially convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC for subjecting his wife (P.W.1) to cruelty. The wife also filed revision petitions under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking maintenance and protection. The trial court convicted the husband, but the first appellate court reversed the decision.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 200 and 156(3)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 405, 406, 415, 417, 418, 420, 504, 506, 384 and 120B read with 34 – The case revolves around a private complaint filed by the respondent/complainant concerning a property dispute. The complainant alleged cheating and breach of trust by the appellants/accused, leading to an FIR being registered against them. The appellants sought to quash the FIR, but the High Court dismissed their petition.

The Supreme Court examined whether the criminal proceedings against the appellants were justified, considering the factual background and the ongoing civil suit concerning the same matter.

Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 – Section 3 – Writ Petitions challenging awards granting permanent status to workmen.

TANGEDCO’s claim that constitutional mandates, recruitment rules, and lack of sanctioned posts preclude granting permanent status, is rejected, as there were no existing posts or formal recruitment processes violated. The Electricity Board qualifies as an “industrial establishment” under the Act. Section 3 is a deeming provision, mandating permanent status for workmen with 480 days of service within two years. The Act cannot be interpreted to exclude its applicability to Public Sector Undertakings with statutory rules, and is not limited to cases of “illegal appointments.”

Workmen’s benefits cannot be restricted due to subsequent contractor employment, it is established that, despite non-employment, the authority’s award must be implemented if the workmen have completed 480 days of service within a two-year period.

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 14B & Section 7L – This writ petition was filed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) challenging the order of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, which partly allowed the appeal of M/s. Salem Textiles Limited (respondent). The Tribunal had reduced the damages levied under Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, due to delays in Provident Fund contributions from March 1997 to October 2016.

The respondent argued financial difficulties, being declared a sick unit, and takeover by banks under SARFAESI Act.

(Criminal Contempt and Senior Advocate's Conduct)

This appeal challenged the conviction of Mr. Yatin Narendra Oza, a senior advocate and President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association, for criminal contempt under Sections 2(c)(i)(ii)(iii) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The High Court initiated suo motu proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 15 of the 1971 Act, after his 2020 press conference where he made "unwarranted and contentious allegations," calling the High Court a "Gambling Den."

The Appellant tendered unconditional apologies, citing emotional distress during COVID-19. However, the High Court rejected these apologies, noting a history of similar misconduct in 2006 and 2016, where prior apologies were accepted but conduct repeated. His senior designation was also recalled by the Full Court under Rule 26 of the Gujarat High Court Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2018.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, and 506(2) read with Section 149 – The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) Section 372 – Criminal appeals were filed by victims (P.W.1-P.W.3) challenging the acquittal of eight accused involved in a 2005 assault incident. The accused faced charges under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 149 IPC for forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries with deadly weapons.

Initially, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (acting as Assistant Sessions Judge) convicted the accused for various offences but acquitted them of attempted murder (Section 307 IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 506(2) IPC). Subsequently, the III Additional District Court acquitted all accused entirely.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) 352 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) – This criminal appeal challenges the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to Respondent No. 2, who is accused of offenses under Sections of the BNSS and the POCSO Act, related to the sexual assault and kidnapping of a minor. The FIR was registered based on allegations that the accused repeatedly established physical relations with the minor victim by threatening her with a firearm, and also committed gang-rape. The appellant argued that the High Court overlooked the seriousness of the charges, the victim’s statements, and the medico-legal evidence.

 The Constitution of India Article 142; Dentists Act, 1948 Section 10D; Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 (amended in 2012-  Admission to Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) Course in Rajasthan (2016-17) – This case concerns the legality of BDS admissions in Rajasthan for the academic year 2016-17, where the minimum percentile for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) UG was lowered. The Dental Council of India (DCI) challenged the High Court’s judgment that had partly regularized these admissions.

Key Issues:

1. Whether the State of Rajasthan had the authority to lower the NEET percentile for BDS admissions.

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 & Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1988 – Section 9 & 9A – The case revolves around a memo issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Registration, Jharkhand, mandating a recommendation from the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, as a precondition for Cooperative Societies to avail stamp duty exemption under Section 9A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1988.

The appellant, a cooperative society, challenged this memo, arguing it created an unnecessary hurdle, impinged on their independence, and violated natural justice principles. The High Court upheld the memo, stating it ensured only validly registered cooperative societies benefited from the exemption.

The Supreme Court analyzed the legality of the memo, emphasizing that administrative decisions should consider relevant factors and avoid irrelevant ones.