Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 & Order 41, Rules 23, 23A and 25 — Remand by High Court in Second Appeal — Justification

 R. NAGARAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER

Vs.

RAJMANI AND OTHERS

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 & Order 41, Rules 23, 23A and 25 — Remand by High Court in Second Appeal — Justification — Remand in second appeal should only be ordered when specific conditions under Order 41 are met or when absolutely necessary — Remanding a case solely for framing an issue (like limitation) and fresh trial is unwarranted and impermissible, particularly when the High Court possesses sufficient material on record to decide the substantial question of law itself, and where concurrent findings on the issue already exist from the courts below — Such remand unnecessarily prolongs litigation contrary to judicial efficiency.

Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020

 PRABHJOT KAUR

Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No(s)……of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17747 of 2023]

Decided on : 09-04-2025

Punjab Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 2020 — Reservation for Women — Horizontal Reservation — Implementation via advertisement — Where an advertisement was issued subsequent to the notification of the 2020 Rules providing 33% horizontal reservation for women, and specified certain posts (like DSP ‘SC Sports’) as reserved for women (‘SC Sports (Women)’), this reservation specification within the advertisement, implementing the mandate of the 2020 Rules, is valid for that recruitment process, unless the advertisement itself is successfully challenged or withdrawn.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(r) & (s) — “Public View” Requirement

 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(r) & (s) — “Public View” Requirement — For an offence under Section 3(1)(r) (intentional insult/intimidation) or Section 3(1)(s) (abuse by caste name) of the SC/ST Act, the act must occur “within public view” — Where a key prosecution witness (PW-1, complainant’s husband) explicitly states in evidence that only immediate family members were present during the alleged incident and no other member of the public was present, the essential ingredient of “public view” is not established, and conviction under these clauses cannot be sustained.

HUTU ANSARI @ FUTU ANSAR AND OTHERS

Vs.

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 17 (Second Proviso) & Section 13(1)(b)

 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 17 (Second Proviso) & Section 13(1)(b) — Investigation of Disproportionate Assets — Order of Superintendent of Police — Preliminary Enquiry — The second proviso to Section 17 mandates that an investigation into an offence under Section 13(1)(b) (disproportionate assets) requires an order from a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP) — However, this provision does not explicitly require the SP to conduct a separate preliminary enquiry before issuing such an order — While a preliminary enquiry in corruption cases is desirable (Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1), it is not mandatory.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

Vs.

SRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. AND ANOTHER

Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 91 & 92 — Interpretation of Written Agreements (Deeds)

 Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 91 & 92 — Interpretation of Written Agreements (Deeds) — Exclusion of Oral Evidence — The terms of a written contract, grant, or disposition of property must primarily be ascertained from the document itself — Oral evidence contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from the terms of such a written instrument is inadmissible between the parties, unless the situation falls within the specific exceptions provided in the Provisos to S. 92 (such as fraud, mistake, illegality, want of execution, separate oral agreement on a silent matter, condition precedent, subsequent modification, usage/custom, or relating language to existing facts) — Evidence to show that there was no agreement at all is admissible, but not evidence to vary the terms of an admitted agreement.

ANNAYA KOCHA SHETTY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS

Vs.

LAXMIBAI NARAYAN SATOSE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS

Service Law — Recruitment — Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 — Reservation — OBC

 Service Law — Recruitment — Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 — Reservation — OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL/EWS — Cut-off Date for Eligibility — Certificate Validity — The eligibility of a candidate claiming reservation benefits under categories like Other Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) [OBC-NCL], Most Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) [MBC-NCL], or Economically Weaker Section [EWS], whose status is dynamic and dependent on current socio-economic criteria, must be established as existing on the cut-off date for the recruitment process — In the absence of a specific date mentioned in the recruitment advertisement or rules, the last date for submission of applications (31.08.2021 herein) is the determinative cut-off date — Candidates must possess a category certificate valid as per the applicable rules and government circulars as of this cut-off date to be considered eligible under the reserved category

SAKSHI ARHA

Vs.

THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 149 (pre-amendment 2019

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 149 (pre-amendment 2019) — Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 — R. 9 — Driving Licence — Endorsement for Hazardous Goods — Breach of Policy Condition — Pay and Recover — The absence of a specific endorsement on the driver's transport vehicle licence, certifying completion of the training course prescribed under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for driving a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods, constitutes a fundamental breach of the insurance policy conditions when the driver operates such a vehicle — This breach justifies an order directing the insurer to pay the compensation to third-party claimants and recover the same from the insured owner, particularly where the accident resulted from the driver's rash and negligent driving

M/S. CHATHA SERVICE STATION

Vs.

LALMATI DEVI AND OTHERS

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR/Chargesheet

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR/Chargesheet — Scope of Power — The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and with caution — The court cannot embark upon an inquiry into the reliability, genuineness, or veracity of the allegations made in the FIR or chargesheet, nor conduct a ‘mini-trial’ — The allegations must be taken at face value to determine if they prima facie constitute an offence and make out a case against the accused.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Deductibilit

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Deductibility — Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — Financial assistance received or receivable by dependents of a deceased government employee under the Haryana Rules of 2006, specifically under the head equivalent to ‘pay and other allowances’ last drawn by the deceased, must be deducted/excluded while computing compensation for loss of income/dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — This is to avoid double payment towards the same component of loss.

Only Bombay HC Should Hear Cases Related To New Bombay HC Land : Supreme Court Transfers Cases From Other Courts

 Only Bombay HC Should Hear Cases Related To New Bombay HC Land : Supreme Court Transfers Cases From Other Courts

In the suo moto case involving the issue of additional land allotment for Bombay High Court's new complex, the Supreme Court was informed today that out of an area of 4.09 acres, which was to be handed over by March 31, 1.94 acres has been handed over and the remaining (2.15 acres) shall be transferred by April 30.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and posted it to July, while appreciating the efforts made by the state government towards expediting handing over of the possession of the land for construction of the new building.

Considering that there may be multiple proceedings over the remaining tranche of land, thus protracting transfer of its possession, the bench further directed consolidation of all proceedings related to the subject matter before the Bombay High Court.

"[Dr. Saraf] submits that out of an area of 4.09 acres, the possession of which was to be handed over for the construction of the High Court, an area of 1.94 has already been handed over. He submits that insofar as the remaining area of 2.15 acres is concerned, since there are a large number of slums [...], efforts have been taken by the Slums Rehabilitation Authority...he submits that by April end, the state would be in a position to allot vacant possession of the said land also for the construction of the High Court.

...It is informed that there are 21 [cases] pending before the High Court with respect to the subject matter. We therefore request the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to assign all the matters which are already pending with regard to the said issue and which may be filed in future to one and the same bench so that they can be decided expeditiously. we further direct that no other court, except the High Court, shall entertain any other proceedings with regard to any issue pertaining to the [...] construction of the High Court. In the event any such proceedings are pending before any of the Courts or Tribunals, the same are directed to be transferred to the High Court",

 IN RE: HERITAGE BUILDING OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND ALLOTMENT OF ADDITIONAL LANDS FOR THE HIGH COURT