Justice junction

Noting that mediation is proceeding "quite satisfactorily," the Supreme Court today said it was "hopeful" that the dispute between late industrialist Sunjay Kapur's mother Rani Kapur and his wife Priya Kapur over the family trust may be resolved amicably. A bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K Vindod Chandran took note of the preliminary mediation report filed by the mediator. "We take notice that the mediation proceedings so far have been conducted over 6 sessions. The Mediator has interacted with all members of the family. We are happy to note that the mediation is proceeding quite satisfactorily. We are happy to note that parties are cooperating," the bench said. The Apex Court also noted that the mediator has made a request to allow time for mediation till November 2. "...parties should go before the mediator with open mind and heart and see to it they don't get dragged in a long drawn litigation. Let the mediation proceed, we shall wait for one more report," the bench said. In its order, the Apex Court also directed that the fees of the mediator shall be paid from the RK Family Trust and there should not be any further debate in this regard. "If the mediation fails, we will allow you all to proceed in accordance with law. But don't allow that day to come," the bench told the parties. The Apex Court had earlier appointed former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud to act as a mediator in the dispute. On April 27, the Apex Court sought a response from Priya Kapur and others on a lawsuit by Sanjay Kapur's mother seeking directions to declare the family trust "null and void." During the hearing, the Supreme Court also asked the parties to explore mediation to resolve the dispute over the family trust. The 80-year-old Rani Kapur's plea alleges that the trust, which was constituted in her name in October 2017, was a product of "forged, fabricated and fraudulent" documents. The legal proceedings over control of the estate and assets are pending before the Delhi High Court, and the petition before the Apex Court seeks a status quo on alienation of all the properties of the trust. In the lawsuit, Rani Kapur has sought a direction to permanently restrain the defendants -- her daughter-in-law Priya Kapur and others, including grandchildren -- from utilising or acting in furtherance of the RK Family Trust in any manner whatsoever. Her plea submitted that she was the sole beneficiary of the entire estate of her late husband, Surinder Kapur, who was the promoter of various businesses, including the 'Sona Group of Companies', and a "systematic fraud" was committed on her when the assets were transferred to the 'RK Family Trust'. Till the time of his death, Sunjay never confirmed to Rani Kapur that she had actually been divested of all her rights, assets and legacy and never provided a copy of the purported RK Family Trust to her, the plea claimed. "By means of a complex web of illegal transactions undertaken by the defendant Nos. 1 to 9 (Priya Kapur and others) in an unfortunate collusion with the plaintiff's now deceased son, late Mr. Sunjay Kapur, all the plaintiff's assets vest in one fraudulent trust titled -- RK Family Trust, without her knowledge," the lawsuit said. Sunjay Kapur passed away on June 12, 2025, after collapsing during a polo match in England. He reportedly suffered a cardiac arrest. A plea by Karisma Kapoor's two children challenging the authenticity of the purported will of their late father is also pending in the Delhi High Court, with the kids accusing his wife Priya Kapur of being "greedy".

The Bench noted that the appellant was extended a raw deal by reason of his being discharged from service merely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. “The fact of discharge on the stated ground is admitted by the respondents. That the appellant at a later stage stood convicted under Section 324, IPC cannot cure the illegality vitiating the order of discharge when it was made. It is possible, because of ill-advice, the frame of the suit was not proper”, it added. The Bench also noted that the appellant did not challenge the order of discharge and even the prayers were defective. As per the Bench, the relief of reinstatement in service could not have been granted by the civil court in view of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. “It is only damages that the appellant could have claimed and been awarded”, it stated.Thus, invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs 5 lakh only to the appellant. Cause Title: SPO/Constable IRB Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 798) Appellant: Advocates Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mansi Gupta,Rakshit Rathi, Krishna Kumar, Nandani Gupta, AOR Mrs. Vipin Gupta Respondent: AOR Karan Sharma, Advocate Mohit Siwach

Can’t Remove Employee For More Than One Decade Solely On Ground Criminal Case Pendency: Supreme Court Grants ₹5L Compensation To Former Punjab SPOThe Supreme Court was considering an appeal challenging the reversal of an original decree in a first appeal.ByTulip Kanth|6 Aug 2026 10:00 AMJustice Dipankar Datta, Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has ordered the authorities to pay Rs 5 lakh to a former SPO who worked in Punjab while observing that no law authorises a public employer to either dismiss or remove an employee serving the police for more than a decade solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the reversal of an original decree in a first appeal, resulting in the dismissal of a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, which was affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held, “Appellant was discharged from service not because of his conviction on a criminal charge but merely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. He was not given an opportunity of raising his defence. We have not been shown any law which authorises a public employer to either dismiss or remove an employee serving the police for more than a decade solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. The act of termination of service, in the circumstances, cannot be justified.”Advocate Pardeep Gupta represented the Appellant while AOR Karan Sharma represented the Respondent.Factual BackgroundThe civil appeal by special leave, granted on 23rd September, 2016, was at the instance of the appellant who, as plaintiff, had successfully instituted a suit in the Trial Court. He had prayed for a declaration that the act of one of the authorities in not allowing him to join as a Constable in Indian Reserve Battalion and as a Special Police Officer in Batala district was illegal, invalid, unlawful, null and void. It was the case of the appellant that he was entitled to join as a Constable or Special Police Officer with consequential relief. The Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. However, the appellant was held not entitled to wages from the date of his dismissal till reinstatement. The Defendants in the suit carried the decree in appeal before the District Judge. They succeeded before the appellate court, which set aside the decree under challenge and dismissed the suit of the appellant. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.ReasoningOn a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that despite having reported on August 30, 2002, in the office of the Commandant, IRB, Patiala, the appellant was denied joining on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. At the relevant time, the appellant was an accused in a case registered under Sections 324,326,34, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was convicted under Section 324,326 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 and 3 years, respectively. The appellate court maintained the conviction under Section 324 but set aside the conviction under Section 326. In 2003, the appellant was discharged from service with reference to pending criminal proceedings against him.Referring to Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which provides for removal of disqualification attaching to conviction, the Bench held that the same cannot come to the rescue of a convict-employee released on probation insofar as the affectation of his service career is concerned.Considering that the appeal originated from a suit and not a writ petition and observing that the powers of the civil court are not as wide as the powers of a writ court, the Bench held that the appellant must be held to be bound by the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure.