Interference in ongoing investigation - completion of investigation and filing of final charge-sheet - consideration of bail application on meritsInterference in ongoing investigation - completion of investigation and filing of final charge-sheet - Whether the Court should interfere by granting relief while the CBI investigation into multiple distinct conspiracies remains pending - HELD THAT: - The CBI informed the Court that investigation into seven distinct matters involving substantial sums was still in progress and undertook to complete the investigation and submit a final charge-sheet. On the material before it and having heard counsel, the Court declined to intervene at the interim stage while investigations continue. The Court recorded the CBI's assurance of diligent and prompt investigation and found no basis to grant the petitioner relief in the special leave petition prior to completion of that process. [Paras 2, 3, 4]Special leave petition dismissed and no interference ordered with the ongoing investigation.Consideration of bail application on merits - Whether the petitioner is precluded from applying for bail once the investigation is complete and a final charge-sheet is filed - HELD THAT: - The Court expressly left it open to the petitioner to renew an application for bail before the trial court after completion of the CBI investigation and submission of the final charge-sheet. The trial court was directed to consider any such bail application independently on its own merits and uninfluenced by the dismissal of the special leave petition. [Paras 6, 7]Petitioner permitted to renew bail application post-investigation; trial court to decide on merits without being influenced by this dismissal.Final Conclusion: The special leave petition is dismissed; the CBI is to complete its investigation and submit a final charge-sheet, and the petitioner may renew any bail application before the trial court, which shall decide it independently on merits.

Summary order. Civil appeal dismissed on default for non-deposit of the costs directed to the Supreme Court Employees Mutual Fund.

Right of appeal arising from amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure (effective 31.12.2009) - Duty to decide on merits where right of appeal accrues post-amendment - Restoration of appeal for adjudication on meritsRight of appeal arising from amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure (effective 31.12.2009) - Duty to decide on merits where right of appeal accrues post-amendment - High Court should have decided the complainant's appeal on merits because the right of appeal arose only after the CrPC amendment effective 31.12.2009. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not deciding the matter on its merits since the complainant's right of appeal became available only after the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure which came into effect on 31.12.2009. Consequently, the impugned High Court order dated 16.9.2010 was set aside and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits. The Court exercised its supervisory power to ensure that the appeal is heard on substance given the temporal effect of the statutory amendment.Impugned order dated 16.9.2010 set aside; appellant's appeal restored to its original number for decision on merits by the High Court.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed: the High Court's order is set aside and the complainant's appeal is restored to be decided on merits in light of the right of appeal arising from the CrPC amendment effective 31.12.2009.

Summary order. Delay condoned and special leave petition dismissed.

Summary order. [Hearing adjourned on request of respondent No.3; matter to be listed in September, 2012.]

Summary order. Notice issued; direction contained in paragraph 24 of the impugned High Court judgment is stayed during the pendency of the special leave petition; matter listed for final disposal on October 03, 2012.

Grant of bail - inclusion of a person as accused despite being named as prosecution witness - weight of investigating agency's charge-sheet and discharge recommendation - custodial detention period as factor in bail consideration - application for impleadmentGrant of bail - weight of investigating agency's charge-sheet and discharge recommendation - custodial detention period as factor in bail consideration - Petitioner to be released on bail. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner had been in custody for about three years and ten months in the fake encounter case. In the charge-sheet submitted by the CID (Crime) the petitioner was not named as an accused but was cited as a prosecution witness; subsequently one accused procured an order resulting in the petitioner being arrayed as an accused. After investigation was entrusted to the CBI, the CBI's further charge-sheet likewise did not name the petitioner as an accused and expressly stated that no evidence of his complicity emerged and that he was an important witness, requesting his discharge. Having considered these material circumstances, including the investigative agency's position and the prolonged custody, the Court was satisfied that the petitioner deserved to be released on bail and directed his release on furnishing a bail bond with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000 with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.Application for impleadment - Application for impleadment requires no order. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that no order need be passed on the application for impleadment.No order to be passed on the impleadment application.Final Conclusion: Special leave petition disposed of; petitioner granted bail on the stated terms and no order made on the impleadment application.

Maintainability of writ petition - alternative statutory remedy - liberty to agitate points before appellate authority - independence of appellate decision from High Court observationsMaintainability of writ petition - alternative statutory remedy - liberty to agitate points before appellate authority - independence of appellate decision from High Court observations - Writ petition ought not to have been filed before the High Court; petitioner should pursue the normal statutory remedy and is granted liberty to press the same points before the appellate authority (CIT(A)), which must decide uninfluenced by High Court observations. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the High Court was not the appropriate forum for the petitioner's challenge and that the petitioner should have availed the prescribed statutory remedy. Notwithstanding this objection to forum, the petitioner was permitted to raise the same contentions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court emphasised that the pending appeal before CIT(A) must be decided on its own merits and without being influenced by observations contained in the High Court's impugned judgment. The special leave petition was therefore disposed of while expressly leaving all substantive contentions open for consideration by the appellate authority.Writ was inappropriate; petitioner granted liberty to agitate the points before CIT(A) and CIT(A) directed to decide uninfluenced by High Court observations; SLP disposed.Final Conclusion: Special leave petition disposed of; petitioner remitted to the normal statutory appellate process with liberty to raise all contentions before CIT(A), which shall decide the matter independently; all contentions expressly kept open.

E-auction - continuation of mining operations subject to sale through e-auction by the Monitoring Committee - disbursement of sale proceeds by the Monitoring Committee - exclusive jurisdiction of this Court to entertain challenges to the e-auction - CBI investigation - illegal mining - inter-state routing/transshipment of illegally extracted mineral - encroachment on another lessee's mining lease - consideration of representations by Central Empowered Committee after hearing partiesE-auction - continuation of mining operations subject to sale through e-auction by the Monitoring Committee - disbursement of sale proceeds by the Monitoring Committee - exclusive jurisdiction of this Court to entertain challenges to the e-auction - Acceptance of the Central Empowered Committee's recommendation permitting M/s NMDC to continue mining in ML Nos.2396 and 1111 subject to sale of entire production through e-auction and limited disbursement of proceeds, and protection of the process from challenge except before this Court. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that e-auction of accumulated iron ore has fetched significant realisation and agreed with the Monitoring Committee's proposal that M/s NMDC may continue operations in the specified mining leases on the conditions that all production from those leases be sold only by e-auction under the Monitoring Committee's supervision and that the Monitoring Committee will for the present disburse 80% of sale proceeds to M/s NMDC. The Court clarified that e-auction shall proceed notwithstanding any long-term contracts entered into by M/s NMDC and directed that no Court other than this Court should entertain challenges to the e-auction process.Recommendation accepted; e-auction to continue for ML Nos.2396 and 1111 with stipulated conditions and exclusive forum for challenge being this Court.CBI investigation - illegal mining - inter-state routing/transshipment of illegally extracted mineral - Directing CBI to investigate alleged illegalities in mining lease No.2434 of M/s. Associated Mining Company, including prima facie linkages between illegal mining in Bellary Reserved Forest (Anantpur, Andhra Pradesh) and illegalities in Bellary District, Karnataka, and routing of illegally extracted material to Vishakhapatnam port. - HELD THAT: - On perusal of the CEC Report, the Court was prima facie satisfied that serious illegalities were shown in respect of mining lease No.2434-including irregular renewal, mismatch of boundary pillars with sanctioned sketch and production/dispatch quantities exceeding physically possible levels-and that material illegally extracted may have been routed through Anantpur district in Andhra Pradesh to Vishakhapatnam port. In view of these findings, the Court directed that investigations into those alleged illegalities be undertaken by the CBI and sought the status of CBI's investigations, including those arising from FIR No. RC 17A/2009 (CBI Hyderabad) concerning M/s Obulapuram Mining Company.CBI directed to investigate the specified alleged illegalities and to report status of its investigation including in respect of the Obulapuram-related FIR.CBI investigation - illegal mining - encroachment on another lessee's mining lease - Directing CBI to investigate alleged large-scale illegal mining by a third party, M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate, within M/s NMDC's mining lease No.1111 and related alleged official inaction and interpolated complaints. - HELD THAT: - The CEC and Joint Team reported that a third party was allegedly carrying out massive illegal mining within NMDC's lease No.1111 and that NMDC's repeated complaints, including one to the Police Circle Inspector at Sandur, were not acted upon and in at least one instance were interpolated. Given these prima facie findings, the Court directed CBI to investigate the encroachment and the circumstances of official inaction or tampering with complaints.CBI directed to investigate encroachment and associated illegal mining in ML No.1111 by the third party and related interpolations/inaction.Consideration of representations by Central Empowered Committee after hearing parties - further adjudication on CEC findings - Permitting the Central Empowered Committee to consider representations received from lease holders against Joint Team findings after hearing the parties, and requiring CEC to place its findings before this Court for appropriate directions. - HELD THAT: - The Court acknowledged that CEC and the Joint Team had received numerous representations from lessees disputing the Joint Team's findings. The Court allowed CEC to consider those representations after hearing the concerned parties and directed that CEC's consequent findings be placed before this Court for further directions. The order signals that subsequent reports and contested matters will be considered separately as and when submitted.CEC authorised to hear representations and reconsider findings; its conclusions to be placed before this Court for further orders.Final Conclusion: The Court accepted the CEC's recommendation to continue e-auction sales from specified NMDC leases under Monitoring Committee supervision and restricted challenges to this Court; directed the CBI to investigate specified instances of alleged illegal mining, interstate routing of material and encroachment into NMDC's lease; and authorised the CEC to hear and reconsider lease-holders' representations and to place its findings before the Court for further directions.

Obligation of hospitals to provide free treatment - Proportionate free treatment quotas - Right to health - Permissibility of internal funding, sponsorships and donations to meet social welfare obligationsObligation of hospitals to provide free treatment - Proportionate free treatment quotas - Order that 25% of OPD patients and 10% of IPD patients are to be given treatment free of cost and must not be charged. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that a fixed proportion of patients attending the hospital are to receive treatment without any charge: 25% of out-patient department patients and 10% of in-patient department patients. The mandamus is absolute as to non-charging of those entitled to free treatment. The order imposes an obligation on the hospital to provide the specified quota of free treatment to eligible patients, thereby giving practical effect to the entitlement to health-care services within the proportions stated.The hospital must provide 25% OPD and 10% IPD patients with free treatment and shall not charge them.Permissibility of internal funding, sponsorships and donations to meet social welfare obligations - Right to health - Hospitals permitted to meet the cost of free treatment from their funds or by way of sponsorships, endowments or donations. - HELD THAT: - While mandating free treatment for the specified proportions of patients, the Court clarified that this obligation does not preclude the hospital from arranging funds to meet the cost of such treatment. The hospital is expressly allowed to discharge the financial burden either from its own resources or through external funding mechanisms such as sponsorships, endowments or donations. This preserves institutional autonomy in financing the social-welfare obligation imposed by the order.Hospitals may meet the cost of the mandated free treatment from their own funds or by securing sponsorships, endowments or donations.Dismissal of special leave petitions - Special leave petitions dismissed. - HELD THAT: - Upon hearing counsel, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions filed against the order(s) under challenge. No further modification of the directive on free treatment was made in the order reported.The special leave petitions are dismissed.Final Conclusion: The special leave petitions were dismissed; the hospital is directed to provide 25% of OPD and 10% of IPD patients free treatment without charging them, and is permitted to meet the cost of such treatment from its own funds or by securing sponsorships, endowments or donations.

Summary order. The matters are directed to be tagged with C.A. No. 5642 of 2009 (Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Commr. Of Cen. Exc. Nashik) for expeditious hearing.

Issue of notice - Service of notice dispensed - Nominee director - service dispensed - Filing of counter-affidavit and rejoinder within fixed time frame - Continuation of interim orderIssue of notice - Notice issued and matter listed on a returnable date. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that notice be issued in the special leave petition and that the matter be listed on the returnable date six weeks hence. This is an administrative direction to secure service of process and to fix a timetable for further adjudication before the Court.Notice issued and matter ordered to be listed on the returnable date.Service of notice dispensed - Nominee director - service dispensed - Service of notice on respondents (including the former nominee director) dispensed with. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that all respondents except respondent No.4 were represented on caveat and therefore dispensed with service on those respondents. As respondent No.4 was a nominee director no longer on the Board, service on that respondent was likewise dispensed with. The order dispenses with formal service in view of representation and changed status.Service of notice dispensed for all respondents, including the former nominee director.Filing of counter-affidavit and rejoinder within fixed time frame - Timelines for filing of pleadings fixed. - HELD THAT: - The Court granted respondents four weeks to file their counter-affidavits to the special leave petition and allowed the petitioners two weeks thereafter to file any rejoinder. The direction establishes a procedural timetable for pleadings to facilitate hearing on the returnable date.Respondents to file counter-affidavits within four weeks; rejoinder permitted within two weeks thereafter.Continuation of interim order - Interim order dated 22nd July, 2011 to continue in force pending further orders. - HELD THAT: - The Court ordered that the interim order previously passed on 22nd July, 2011 shall remain in effect in the meantime. This preserves the status quo until the matter is further considered on the returnable date.Interim order of 22nd July, 2011 shall continue in the meantime.Final Conclusion: Notice issued; service on all respondents (including the former nominee director) dispensed with; respondents granted four weeks to file counter-affidavits and petitioners two weeks for rejoinder; the interim order dated 22nd July, 2011 to continue until further orders; matter listed for hearing on the returnable date.

Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - anticipatory bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - discretion to refuse bail and appellate interference - fresh bail application after framing of chargesBail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - discretion to refuse bail and appellate interference - Validity of the High Court's refusal to entertain petitioners' prayers for bail and propriety of this Court intervening in those orders. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court examined the reasons given by the Special Judge and the Single Judge of the High Court for refusing bail and found no legal infirmity in their conclusions. On review of the record and hearing of counsel, the Court held that there was no basis for interference with the High Court's order rejecting the Section 439 CrPC petitions. Consequently, the special leave petitions seeking to challenge those refusals were dismissed.The High Court's order refusing bail was upheld and the special leave petitions were dismissed.Fresh bail application after framing of charges - anticipatory bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Whether petitioners may seek fresh bail applications and the manner in which such applications are to be dealt with by the Special Court. - HELD THAT: - Although the earlier refusals to grant bail were upheld, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to file fresh applications under Section 439 CrPC before the Special Court after framing of charges. It further specified that petitioner no.2 may again seek relief under Section 437 CrPC. The Court directed that the Special Court shall decide these fresh applications on their merits and shall not be influenced by the prior rejections.Petitioners permitted to file fresh applications after framing of charges; petitioner no.2 may invoke Section 437 CrPC; Special Court to decide afresh uninfluenced by earlier orders.Final Conclusion: Special leave petitions dismissed; earlier refusals of bail by the Special Judge and Single Judge of the High Court upheld, but petitioners granted liberty to file fresh bail applications after framing of charges (petitioner no.2 may invoke Section 437 CrPC) which the Special Court must decide afresh without being influenced by prior rejections.

Summary order. Notice issued on the application for condonation of delay and on the special leave petition; dasti service permitted.

Special leave petition under Article 136 - Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction - Judicial discretion to refuse special leaveSpecial leave petition under Article 136 - Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction - Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 in the facts of the case - HELD THAT: - The Court, having considered the facts presented, concluded that the matter was not appropriate for invocation of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136. No reasons for further interference were found to justify exercise of discretionary appellate relief. The order records the Court's satisfaction that the case does not warrant grant of special leave.Special leave petition dismissed; Article 136 jurisdiction not exercised.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 and dismissed the special leave petition.

Summary order. Office directed to ascertain fate of registered-post notice with postal authorities; counsel to confirm service by dasti in addition to usual mode; matter listed on 9.2.2011.

Compliance with Section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - validity of shareholders' approval for amalgamation - Reserve Bank of India's approval of amalgamation - judicial review of approval processCompliance with Section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - validity of shareholders' approval for amalgamation - Whether the scheme of amalgamation of Bank of Rajasthan with ICICI Bank was vitiated because no General Body Meeting of the shareholders in terms of Section 44A was convened and approved before Reserve Bank of India accorded its approval. - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the petitioners' contention that RBI's approval was tainted because no General Body Meeting under Section 44A had been convened and approved by the shareholders. Respondents produced a communication dated 22 June 2010 from the Chairman of the Extra-ordinary General Meeting addressed to the Company Secretary of Bank of Rajasthan, which stated that the scheme of amalgamation, as set out in the notice dated 23 May 2010, had been passed by the required majority in accordance with the terms of Section 44A. In light of that communication, the Court found no merit in the challenge to the validity of the shareholders' approval or to RBI's approval of the amalgamation and therefore saw no basis for interference with the scheme on the ground urged by the petitioners.Petition dismissed; no interference as shareholders' approval under Section 44A was shown to have been passed and the amalgamation approval is not vitiated on that ground.Final Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the amalgamation on the ground that no General Body Meeting under Section 44A was convened is dismissed because a communication from the Chairman of the Extra-ordinary General Meeting established that the scheme was passed by the required majority, removing any basis for interference.

Summary order. Notice issued; service dispensed with as respondent represented on caveat; respondent permitted two weeks to file counter affidavit and petitioner two weeks thereafter for rejoinder; parties directed to maintain status quo as to management of the Company, without affecting proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Rehabilitation and the Appellate Authority (A.A.I.F.R).

Summary order. Matter adjourned to August 16, 2010 as the first adjourned motion for filing the affidavit of service; the first defendant applicant to intimate all parties of the date; urgent certified photocopies of the order may be supplied to parties on compliance with requisite formalities.

Constitutionality of legislative amendments - Judicial Impact Assessment - Requirement of statistical data for policy assessment - Disposition of writ petitionConstitutionality of legislative amendments - The original challenge seeking to declare the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 unconstitutional no longer survives and the writ petition is disposed of as to that challenge. - HELD THAT: - The Court records that the question of the constitutional validity of the cited amendment Acts, which was the primary challenge in the original writ petition, has been 'sorted out' and does not survive at this stage. As a consequence, there is no continued adjudication of the substantive challenge to those amendment Acts in this writ petition. The Court therefore disposes of the writ petition insofar as it pertained to the constitutional challenge to the amendment legislation.The constitutional challenge to the 1999 and 2002 amendments does not survive; the writ petition is disposed of in respect of that challenge.Judicial Impact Assessment - Requirement of statistical data for policy assessment - The question of conducting a Judicial Impact Assessment is not finally decided in this writ petition and is left open for appropriate proceedings requiring statistical data. - HELD THAT: - The Court recognises Judicial Impact Assessment as an important issue and notes prior general directions given by the Court. It also observes that this issue was not part of the original writ petition and that its proper resolution requires collection and consideration of statistical data. Consequently, rather than deciding the matter on the present record, the Court leaves the issue open and indicates that the exercise must be undertaken in an appropriate proceeding where the requisite statistical material can be produced and examined.The Judicial Impact Assessment issue is kept open for determination in an appropriate proceeding after collection and examination of statistical data.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed of insofar as the constitutional challenge to the 1999 and 2002 amendments does not survive; the question of Judicial Impact Assessment remains open and must be pursued in an appropriate proceeding with necessary statistical data. The Report of the Justice M. Jagannadha Rao Committee is taken on file.