Constitution of India — Arts. 21, 14, 141, 226, 32 and 136 — Unlawful arrest — Compensation for: In this case arrest was made without evidence on record regarding espionage against ISRO scientist by State Police. CBI filed closure report and court discharged appellant. Appellant, held, entitled to compensation, even if there is no allegation of physical torture. [S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews, (2018) 10 SCC 804]
Constitution of India — Arts. 21, 14, 32 and 142 — Criminal Investigation: There is no need to go into disputed questions of fact or else it would prejudice trial. Accused has no say in choice of investigating agency or manner of investigation but court can pass appropriate directions if there has been mala fide exercise of power by investigating officer. However, in this case, the writ petitioners have not alleged any specific fact about mala fide exercise of power by investigating agency. There were communal and caste clashes and incidents of stone throwing and arson due to alleged provocative speeches, slogans and distribution of objectionable and provocative books and pamphlets in events allegedly organised by accused through banned organisation CPI (Maoist). Though said allegations are disputed. Prayer seeking appointment of SIT and court-monitored investigation, rejected as Court has to exercise this extraordinary power with caution. CBI cannot be unnecessarily overburdened with cases. Alternative remedy is also available under substantive and procedural criminal law. Accused have already resorted to such remedy and can avail such remedies. If there is no evidence against them, they may as well be discharged by competent court. [Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753]
Constitution of India — Arts. 21, 19(1)(a) to (c) & (2) to (4) and 32 — Agitations, bandhs and hartals: Interim preventive, remedial and punitive measures were issued regarding mob violence and crime by self-appointed keepers of public morality terrorising common man without legal sanction and causing loss of life and destruction of property in Destruction of Public & Private Properties, In re, (2009) 5 SCC 212. For implementation of said recommendations/direction, additional interim recommendations/directions issued. [Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 713]
Corporate Laws — Company Law — Liquidation — Approbate and reprobate: Adoption of contradictory stand, where the appellant Company contended to have never sought the status of a secured creditor but desired to be adjudged a transferee of an actionable claim, not permissible. [Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings (P) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, (2018) 10 SCC 707]
M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 — Ss. 2(d) and 7 — Adjudication by arbitration when works contract between the parties itself is terminated — Permissibility of: Affirming the opinion expressed by Ganguly, J. in M.P. Rural Road Development Authority, (2012) 3 SCC 495, held, that in view of S. 2(d), the State Act will cover a dispute even after termination of the works contract. VA Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 261, overruled. [M.P. Rural Road Development Authority v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers And Contractors, (2018) 10 SCC 826]
