Independent assessment of evidence: commission report not binding

Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - In respect of criminal charges, an accused can be tried by a Court of law and not merely on the basis of the report of the Commissioner under the Inquiry Act. Such a report is not conclusive and an independent action has to be taken by the State or by the victims against the Organizers before the competent court of law to prove the criminal offences said to be committed by certain accused. (Para 49) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368 : (2022) 7 SCC 203

Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - The Commission under the Act shall be appointed either by the Executive or by the Legislature but not by the Judiciary in terms of the provisions of Inquiry Act. (Para 46, 50) Sanjay Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368 : (2022) 7 SCC 203

436-A release

Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 (for 7 yrs.)

 "2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

Final order must consider previous and interim orders passed in the same case

2012 2 SCC 294  C Shankuntala

2012 5 SCC 552 Om Prakash Asati

Dismiss in default without going into merit is not res judicata

Collector v. Ajit Jogi, (2011) 10 SCC 357

Transfer Cases

In Pooja Rathod v. Tarun Rathod, (2022) 4 SCC 514, the Hon'ble Supreme Court transferred a case filed by husband (at Chennai) against the wife 600 kms away from where the wife resides (at Hyderabad)

In Anju v. Pramod Kumar, (2005) 11 SCC 186, the Supreme Court transferred the case to a neutral place as both husband and wife expressed apprehension in travelling to each other's native places.

In Deepa Mohan Naik v. Chandra Bhusan Pal, (2022) 2 SCC 54, Supreme Court allowed transfer in favour of the wife and also directed for attempts at mediation to resolve the dispute.

In Eluri Raji Reddy v. State of Delhi, (2004) 4 SCC 479, the Supreme Court allowed transfer in favour of the husband as the husband sought transfer to Andhra Pradesh and the wife had a place of residence in Andhra Pradesh.

In Lalita v. Kulwinder Kumar, (2007) 15 SCC 667, the Supreme Court allowed transfer in favour of the wife and held that the convenience of the wife is to be looked into.

Details needed for job advertisement by Government

The Supreme Court in Renu v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, (2014) 14 SCC 50, emphasized the need to specify in the advertisement, number of posts, qualifications and eligibility criteria, schedule of recruitment process, Rules under which selection is to be made or the procedure in the absence of Rules, in the interest of transparency and to avoid arbitrariness and change of criteria of selection. Thus, the appointment letter in so far as it is contrary to or at variance with advertisement will have to give way to the stipulations in the advertisement and the latter part of Clause 2(a) in the appointment letter to the extent it provides for extension of probation period and the requirement of confirmation in writing, shall not bind the Petitioner

Recall - mistake of counsel

He placed reliance upon G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 54, wherein the Supreme Court considered the scope of 'sufficient cause' in the context of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. It was held that unless sufficient cause is shown for non-appearance of the defendant on the date of hearing, the Court would have no power to set aside an ex parte decree and that the words, 'was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing' must be liberally construed to enable the Court to do complete justice between the parties, particularly when no negligence or inaction is imputable to the erring party.

While stressing upon the need to restrain from victimising the petitioners for the fault of their counsel, he cited the observation made by the Apex Court in Smt. Lachi Tewari & Ors. v. Director of Land Records & Ors., 1984 (Supp) SCC 431, wherein the Court relied on its earlier observations in Rafiq and another v. Munshilal & Anr., (1981) 2 SCC 788, that after engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer would look after his interest and the personal appearance of the party would not only be not required but would hardly be useful.

Further, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Balaji v. Virendra Singh & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 1638, wherein it was reiterated that laws of procedure are meant to effectively regulate, assist and aid the object of substantial and real justice and not to foreclose an adjudication on the merits of substantial rights of citizens under personal, property, and other laws.

He, again, referred to the findings in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107, where the Supreme Court observed that the power to condone delay has been conferred to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merit and the expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature was adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice.