(2013) 4 SCC 275, Dhrup Singh v. State of Bihar, following (2010) 9 SCC 479
Even if the investigating authority is of the view that no case has been made out against an accused, the magistrate can apply his mind independently to the materials contained in the police report and take cognizance.
(2013) 4 SCC 210, Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Limited
Once the State Government took a conscious decision to release the lands of [an affected persons and four others], albeit by executing agreements with them, there could be no justification whatsoever for not according similar treatment to the appellants.
(2013) 4 SCC 210, Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Limited
Section 5-A(2), which represents statutory embodiment of the rule of audi alteram partem, gives an opportunity to the objector to make an endeavour to convince the Collector that his land is not required for the public purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) or that there are other valid reasons for not acquiring the same. That section also makes it obligatory for the Collector to submit report(s) to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him so that the Government may take appropriate decision on the objections. Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2) that particular land is needed for the specified public purpose then a declaration should be made. This necessarily implies that the State Government is required to apply mind to the report of the Collector and take final decision on the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. Then and then only, a declaration can be made under Section 6(1).
(2013) 4 SCC 186, Union of India v. Ajeet Singh
GCM is a substitute of criminal trial. While Army Act and Army Rules apply, as CrPC deals with principles of natural justice, thus, the principles applied therein may provide guidelines with respect to misjoinder of charges and a joint trial. (paragraph 16)
1991 Supp (2) SCC 363, Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of India
No rule or order which is meant to benefit employees should normally be construed in such a manner as to work hardship and injustice specially when its operation is automatic and if any injustice arises then the primary duty of the courts is resolve it in such a manner that it may avoid any loss to one without giving undue advantage to other..
Followed in State of UP v. Mahesh Narain, (2013) 4 SCC 169
(2013) 4 SCC 58, Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi
The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrpC. … Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure it is held that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.
(2013) 4 SCC 35, Deep Trading Company v. Indian Oil Corporation
Appointment by the Corporation during the pendency of proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is non est, as the appointment after forfeiture of its right is of no consequence.
