Important Judgment

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

3. The State of West Bengal has approached this Court by way of this appeal for assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated 11th May, 2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.R. No. 3180 of 2022.

Brief Facts:-

Signature Not Verified

4. Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2024.04.18 Based on written complaint dated 1st January, 2022 filed by 17:08:38 IST Reason: the SI Raju Debnath, STF Police Station, Kolkata on 28th 1 December, 2021 informing about recovery of an unclaimed black coloured bagpack lying abandoned at Sahid Minar containing some written posters of CPI(Maoist) and some incriminating articles about the activities of CPI(Maoist), FIR No. 01 of 2022 came to be registered at STF Police Station, Kolkata for the offences punishable under Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’).

1. Leave granted.

2. The statement made by the Tribal Chief Seattle, way back in the year 1854, in his letter to the offer of George Washington, the former First President of the United States of America, to buy their land, is a pearl of wisdom not understood by the ignorant, educated modern mind.

“Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant for assailing the judgment dated 28th February, 2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 662-DB of 2003, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 26th July, 2003 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Hoshiarpur, vide which the appellant was convicted and sentenced as below:-

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2024.04.18 17:08:38 IST Reason: 1

Civil Appeal Nos. 4886 to 4889, 4892 and 5748 to 5750 of 2023

1. The present set of appeals challenge the judgment dated 3rd August 2022, passed by the Division Bench of the Signature Not VerifiedHigh Court of Judicature at Madras (‘Madras High Court’ for Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.16 short), whereby the writ appeals being W.A. Nos. 82 and 95 of 13:03:56 IST Reason:

2015 and 5251 of 2022 filed by the respondents herein were 1 allowed and the order dated 23rd December 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 11148 of 2017 was quashed and set aside.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeals are directed against the judgments dated 4th August, 2022 and 21st February, 2023 passed by the learned Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Writ Petition(S/B) No. 395 of 2022 and MCC Review Application No. 4 of 2022 in Writ Petition(S/B) No. 395 of 2022, respectively.

3. The learned Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court, vide Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by judgment dated 4th August, 2022 dismissed the Writ Petition(S/B) Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.16 16:28:33 IST Reason:

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th July, 2007 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior whereby Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 1998 filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 9th November, 1998 passed by the Vth Upper Sessions Judge, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Session Case No. 70 of 1987 was upheld. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.16 16:28:33 IST Reason: 1

1. Vide judgment and order dated 3rd May, 1999, learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and by an order of sentencing dated 10th May, 1999 awarded sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Signature Not Verified rigorous imprisonment of six months to the appellant. Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.16 16:28:34 IST Reason: 1

1. Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 11th April 2023, Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the appellants herein were dismissed.

FACTUAL ASPECTS CASE OF SABIHA HUSSAIN

3. A few factual details must be stated to appreciate the Signature Not Verified controversy. The appellant (Sabiha Hussain), in a Civil Appeal Digitally signed by ASHISH KONDLE Date: 2024.04.15 18:26:36 IST arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8416 of 2023, was Reason: initially appointed as a Reader on probation on an ad-hoc basis Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 1 of 20 by Jamia Milia Islamia, a University constituted under an Act of Parliament (for short, ‘the University’). The 1st and 2nd respondents represent the University. On 6th August 2008, she was appointed to a sanctioned post of Reader in the programme for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy in Dr. K.R. Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minority Studies. The appointment was made pursuant to the advertisement dated 1st May 2008. According to the appellant's case, her appointment was made through a properly constituted Selection Committee. The said appellant was later appointed as an Associate Professor. She was appointed a professor under the Career Advancement Schemes of 2010 of the University Grants Commission (for short, ‘UGC’), effective 6th August 2014. The 1st respondent vide order dated 23rd February 2016 gave her additional charge of the post of Director in Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women Studies (for short, ‘Sarojini Naidu Centre’).

1. By way of present appeal, the appellants challenged the judgment and order dated 20th April, 2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 3601/2010, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sessions Case No.213/2009 which had convicted appellants KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2024.04.10 16:32:33 IST Reason:

(accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4) under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced 1 them to life imprisonment. Additionally the High Court also upheld the conviction and sentence of appellant Nos.1 and 3 (accused Nos

1. The curative jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution has been invoked in regard to its decision in Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 1. The judgment remained undisturbed in the exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court.2 A. Factual Background

2. The petitioner, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation 3 is a state-owned company wholly owned by the Government of India and the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The respondent, Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited 4 is a special- purpose vehicle incorporated by a consortium comprising of Reliance Infrastructure Limited and Construcciones Y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles SA, Spain. The consortium bagged the contract for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Delhi Airport Metro Express Ltd 5 in 2008. The Concession Agreement 6 envisaged a public-private partnership for providing metro rail connectivity between New Delhi Railway Station and the Indira Gandhi International Airport and other points within Delhi.

1. The present civil appeal has been filed by the complainant, who is the daughter of the insured-deceased Sri Siriveri Venkateswarlu, who is also the nominee under the subject life insurance policies of her late father. The appellant is assailing the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to Signature Not Verified as “NCDRC”) in Revision Petition No.1268 of 2019. Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA Date: 2024.04.10 17:32:49 IST Reason: Civil Appeal No.3821 of 2024 Page 1 of 48

1. Leave granted in SLP (Criminal) Nos. 837 and 1174 of 2024.

2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos. Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.10 17:51:37 IST Reason:

194, 232 and 277 of 2013 wherein the Division Bench 1 dismissed the criminal appeals preferred by the appellants, namely Ravishankar Tandon (accused No.1), Umend Prasad Dhrutlahre (accused No.2), Dinesh Chandrakar (accused No.3) and Satyendra Kumar Patre (accused No.4) and upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 5th February, 2013 as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2012.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the order dated 4th February 2022, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 5275 of 2021, whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by Dr. M.V. Ramana Rao, respondent No. 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Borrower’). The High Court set aside the order dated 2nd February 2021, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRT’) and allowed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No. 97 of 2020 in Securitization Application (S.A.) No. 1476 of 2017 filed 1 by the Borrower for the restoration of the said S.A. No. 1476 of 2017 filed by him under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). The Borrower had filed S.A. No. 1476 of 2017 against the Notice dated 2nd September 2017 issued by the UCO Bank (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent-Bank’) for the sale of his mortgaged properties which was to be conducted by the Authorized Officer (Respondent No.2) of the Respondent-Bank in light of the default in repayment of loan by the Borrower. The DRT, in its aforementioned order dated 2nd February 2021, had dismissed the M.A. No. 97 of 2020 for the restoration of S.A. No. 1476 of 2017, which had been previously dismissed as withdrawn vide DRT vide order dated 21st September 2020. The Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned order, while setting aside the order of DRT dated 2nd February 2021, further directed DRT to proceed with S.A. No. 1476 of 2017 in accordance with law.

1. The dispute in the above two appeals is in connection with Signature Not Verified easementary rights over 20ft. wide road situated over land Digitally signed by RAVI ARORA Survey No.57 Hissa No.13A/1 which is presently owned by the Date: 2024.04.10 19:08:36 IST Reason: respondents herein (hereinafter the ‘Ramani’s’). 1

2. In Suit No.14 of 1994 instituted by Joki Woler Ruzer, the descendants of the subsequent purchaser Mahendra Gala were added as plaintiff Nos.2-4 (hereinafter the ‘Gala’s’). The suit was for declaration of their easementary rights over the 20ft. wide road situate in the property of the Ramani’s and for permanent injunction in respect thereof. The suit was decreed by the court of first instance vide judgment and order dated 06.02.2003. However, the aforesaid judgment and decree was set aside in appeal by the Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Raigad, vide judgment and order dated 12.03.2009 and the suit was dismissed. The High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2009 upheld the aforesaid judgment and order of the appellate court in Second Appeal No.305 of 2009.

1) The Sessions Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide the judgment dated 13th March 1995. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The decision of the Sessions Court has been confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th December 2017. The case is based on circumstantial evidence.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

2) The case of the prosecution will have to be briefly stated. The appellant and deceased (Sushildhar Dubey) were related and were residents of village Amgoan. They used to go together to drink liquor. On 29th September 1993, in the evening, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2024.04.10 18:06:58 IST Reason: around 7.00, the appellant went to the house of the deceased and asked the deceased to accompany him to drink liquor.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. The appellants, who are father and son, were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The incident occurred on 17th September 1996. The allegation is that the appellants assaulted one Punjabhai (the deceased) with pipes and sticks. The deceased suffered a large number of injuries and ultimately succumbed to the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2024.04.10 17:05:07 IST Reason: injuries. By judgment dated 5th July 1997, the Sessions Criminal Appeal no.334 of 2019 etc. Page 1 of 9 Court acquitted the appellants. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court, the respondent - State of Gujarat preferred an appeal against acquittal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 14th December 2018, the High Court interfered and converted the acquittal of the appellants into a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 and Section 323 of the IPC. By order dated 6th January 2020, this Court directed that the present appeal be listed for hearing. By order dated 18th May 2021, the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail by the first appellant was rejected by this Court. However, this Court continued the order dated 21st January 2019 by which exemption was granted to the second appellant from surrendering.

1. This appeal is directed against the final order dated 23rd January, 2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter being referred to as ‘Commission’) whereby, the learned Commission, while allowing the Consumer Case No. 612 of 2018 filed by the appellants, issued the following directions: -

“In view of the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to issue a fresh statement of account, duly crediting delayed compensation of Rs. 2433120/- as on 13.11.2017, within one month of the judgment. On the balance amount (except stamp duty and registration charges), the opposite parties will charge interest @9% per annum, from 14.11.2017 till the date of payment. The complainants be given one month time to deposit the amount. On settlement of the account, the opposite parties will execute conveyance deed in favour of the complainants and handover 1 possession of the unit, complete in all respect to them without any further delay.”

1. The appellant, claiming to be the owner of the vehicle being Eicher 10.80 (Blue) bearing no. GJ 05-BT-0899, seized as Muddamal Article in connection with the FIR bearing Criminal No.11200038231465/2023, for the offence Under Section 65-

(a)(e),81,98(2),116(2) of Gujarat Prohibition Act and U/s 465, 468, 471, 114 of IPC registered with the Pardi Police Station, District Valasad, had filed the Special Criminal Application No.6465 of 2023 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad seeking release of Signature Not Verified the said vehicle. The said Application having been dismissed by the Digitally signed by High Court vide the impugned order dated 08.06.2023, the present RAVI ARORA Date: 2024.04.08 18:04:57 IST Reason:

1. The instant Appeal filed by the appellant - Karim Uddin Barbhuiya (Original Respondent No. 1) is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati in I.A. (Civil) No. 1278 of 2021 in Election Petition No. 01 of 2021, whereby the High Court has dismissed the said IA filed by the present appellant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the Election Petition filed by the respondent No. 1 - Aminul Signature Not Verified Haque Laskar (Original Election Petitioner).

1. Leave granted.

2. Exercising power under Section 239 Cr.P.C, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court, Ghaziabad, discharged the appellants Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2024.04.08 herein of a charge under Sections 420 and 120B IPC, vide order dated 16:36:55 IST Reason:

31.08.2019 in Case No. 456 of 2012 arising out of RC-219 2011 (E) 0016 1 registered on the file of Police Station CBI, EO-1, New Delhi. Aggrieved thereby, the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, ‘CBI’) approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, by way of Application U/S 482 No. 11426 of 2021. By order dated 20.01.2023 passed therein, the High Court set aside the discharge order and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed with the case against the appellants.