Domestic Violence – Retrospective Application – Complaint under Section 12 of the PWD Act can consider conduct of parties prior to the Act's commencement – Even if the wife is no longer in the shared household at the time the Act came into force, she is entitled to protection under the Act – Supreme Court upheld the view that the Act’s provisions apply to past conduct of domestic violence [Paras 1-10].

Protection Orders – Residence Rights – Petitioner required to provide a portion of his residence to the Respondent, with necessary amenities, as per Section 19 of the PWD Act – Supreme Court modified High Court order to ensure Respondent’s safety and dignity – Monetary relief set at Rs. 6000 per month for maintenance, and additional Rs. 4000 if alternative accommodation is required [Paras 10-11].

Constitutional Safeguards – Articles 14, 15, 21 – PWD Act enacted to protect rights of women under the Constitution – Supreme Court emphasized protection and effective remedy for women victims of domestic violence, in line with Articles 14, 15, and 21 [Paras 5-6].

Judicial Review – High Court Decision – High Court’s decision to allow the appeal and provide relief under Sections 18 and 19 of the PWD Act upheld – Petitioner's conduct during litigation, including refusal to honor settlement, considered in decision [Paras 7-9].

Decision: SLP disposed of – Petitioner directed to provide a suitable portion of residence to Respondent and pay Rs. 10,000 per month for maintenance and expenses – Liberty granted to parties to seek further directions if required – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Representing Advocates:

For Appellant: Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Anjali Bhargva, Sandeep Singh

For Respondent: Anil Kumar Bakshi, Sushil Balwada, Rakesh Kumar, Rajeshwar Tyagi, Ashok Kumar Shukla

Corporate Law – Sale of Assets – Jurisdiction of BIFR and AAIFR – Sick Industrial Companies Act – Appeal from the High Court's decision allowing the sale of assets of a sick industrial company – BIFR declared NRC Limited a sick company and restricted the sale of assets – AAIFR modified BIFR's order allowing sale of land subject to conditions – High Court upheld BIFR's restrictions – Supreme Court held BIFR has wide powers to suspend contracts and restrict asset disposal to protect the rehabilitation scheme – Provisions of Sections 22 and 22A extensively discussed and applied [Paras 1-88].

Implementation of Revival Scheme – Role of BIFR – Legislative Intent – Purpose of Sick Industrial Companies Act to ensure effective implementation of revival schemes – BIFR’s powers to suspend legal proceedings and restrict asset disposal – Emphasis on uninterrupted execution of revival schemes to achieve legislative objectives – All other proceedings stayed or modified to aid the rehabilitation process [Paras 19-31].

Conflict of Judicial Decisions – Interpretation of Sections 22 and 22A – Prior conflicting judicial decisions on the scope of BIFR’s powers reconciled – Broad interpretation favored to encompass all actions that could impede rehabilitation – Supreme Court provides clarity on BIFR’s authority over pre-existing contracts and ongoing proceedings [Paras 25-30].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – BIFR's original restrictions on asset disposal upheld – Directions for ensuring compliance with the Sick Industrial Companies Act provided [Paras 32-35].

Criminal Law – Death Sentence – Appellant convicted for the brutal murder of his mother by severing her head – Trial court awarded death sentence, upheld by High Court citing the case as one of the 'rarest of rare' – Supreme Court examines the mental state and circumstances leading to the crime – Court observes the act was impulsive, driven by anger towards his mother whom he blamed for his wife's departure – Sentence commuted to life imprisonment [Paras 1-88].

Mental Condition and Sentencing – Consideration of Accused’s Mental State – Court emphasizes the importance of considering the accused’s mental condition at the time of the crime – Refers to previous judgments highlighting that impulsive actions in emotionally charged situations may warrant life imprisonment rather than the death penalty – Appellant’s actions deemed impulsive and unplanned, resulting in commutation of the death sentence [Paras 3-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Death sentence converted to life imprisonment – Emphasis on the need for proportionality in sentencing and consideration of mitigating factors, such as the accused’s mental state and the circumstances leading to the crime [Paras 7-8].

Motor Vehicles – High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) – Non-compliance by States – Persistent default by several States in implementing the HSRP scheme – Supreme Court’s directions for immediate compliance – Contempt proceedings against non-compliant States and officials – Court emphasizes the mandatory nature of HSRP installation for public safety and security – States directed to complete implementation within specified timeframes [Paras 1-25].

Judicial Enforcement – Contempt of Court – Non-compliance with Court Orders – Supreme Court’s strict stance on non-compliance – Notices issued to defaulting State officials – Imposition of fines and costs for delay and non-compliance – Emphasis on adherence to judicial orders for effective governance and administration [Paras 5-18].

Implementation Timeline – Extension and Final Deadlines – Supreme Court grants final extensions for compliance – Specific deadlines set for different States based on progress – No further extensions allowed – Emphasis on completing HSRP installation by 30th April 2012 for new vehicles and 15th June 2012 for old vehicles [Paras 8-20].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of – Strict directions for compliance issued – States mandated to ensure HSRP scheme is fully implemented within the extended deadlines – Liberty granted to initiate contempt proceedings for any future non-compliance [Paras 21-25].

Pharmacy Registration – Qualifications and Validity – Appellant’s registration as a pharmacist in Rajasthan based on registration in Sikkim – Rajasthan Council cancelled registration after inquiry revealed appellant lacked requisite qualifications and experience – Supreme Court upheld the cancellation, emphasizing the importance of valid registration and necessary qualifications to practice pharmacy [Paras 1-17].

Regulatory Authority – Powers and Duties – Pharmacy Act empowers State Pharmacy Councils to ensure pharmacists meet necessary qualifications – Councils can review and cancel registrations if obtained through misrepresentation or error – Importance of maintaining professional standards and public safety in pharmacy practice [Paras 8-13].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Supreme Court supports State Council’s decision after due process – Highlights the role of judicial oversight in ensuring compliance with statutory provisions – References previous judgments affirming similar regulatory actions by professional councils [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirms the cancellation of appellant’s registration by the Rajasthan Pharmacy Council – Emphasizes the need for strict adherence to qualifications and proper registration procedures [Paras 16-17].

Civil Procedure – Withdrawal of Suit – Application for withdrawal of compromise applications – Trial court allowed withdrawal of earlier applications for compromise – High Court dismissed revision petition under Article 227 – Supreme Court holds inherent powers under Section 151 CPC must be exercised to secure justice – Remits case to High Court for proper examination [Paras 1-27].

Judicial Powers – Inherent Powers – Scope and Exercise – Supreme Court emphasizes the need for careful exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC – Powers must be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Examines previous cases to support judicial discretion and oversight [Paras 23-24].

Evidence and Procedural Integrity – Examination of Affidavits and Statements – Court to scrutinize conflicting affidavits and statements alleging forgery and misrepresentation – Necessity for trial courts to verify claims to maintain judicial integrity and public trust in legal processes [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s dismissal of revision set aside – Case remitted to High Court for further examination – Trial of suit stayed until High Court’s final decision – Directions for High Court to consider relevant factors, possibly take evidence, and ensure justice [Paras 26-27].

Municipal Law – Disqualification of Panch Member – Appellant challenged her disqualification on grounds of her husband's contract with the Panchayat – High Court upheld the State Election Commission’s decision of disqualification – Supreme Court affirms disqualification under Section 10(f) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, due to indirect monetary interest derived from marital property laws and shared income [Paras 1-24].

Property and Income Tax Law – Community of Property – Applicability of Portuguese Civil Code – Appellant and her husband governed by community of property system under Articles 1098 and 1108 of the Portuguese Civil Code, 1860 – Income from husband’s contract is shared equally under Section 5A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – This shared income creates an indirect monetary interest for the Appellant in her husband’s contract [Paras 14-22].

Conflict of Interest – Public Office and Private Interest – Disqualification ensures no conflict between private interest and public duty – Importance of maintaining purity in Panchayat administration – Broad interpretation of disqualification clauses to prevent indirect monetary interest affecting public duties [Paras 11, 23].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upholds the disqualification of the Appellant as a Panch member due to indirect monetary interest in her husband's contract with the Village Panchayat – No order as to costs [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law – Rape of Minor – Sentencing – Appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the IPC for raping a seven-year-old girl – Trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000, in default, to undergo further RI for three years – High Court affirmed the sentence – Supreme Court reviews sentence, considering the appellant’s age (18-19 years at the time of the crime), socio-economic background, and the time elapsed since the incident – Sentence reduced to 10 years RI with fine reduced to Rs. 1,000, in default, RI for one month [Paras 1-13].

Sentencing Guidelines – Discretion of Courts – Section 376(2)(f) IPC mandates rigorous imprisonment for not less than 10 years but which may extend to life imprisonment – Courts can impose lesser sentences for adequate and special reasons – Emphasizes judicial discretion must align with legislative intent to impose strict punishments for rapes of minors while considering individual circumstances [Paras 7-9].

Case References – Review of Precedents – Cites Narayanamma (Kum) v. State of Karnataka (1994) and Rajendra Datta Zarekar v. State of Goa (2007) – Comparison of sentences in similar cases to guide the appropriate quantum of punishment in the current case [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Conviction affirmed – Sentence modified to 10 years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default, further RI for one month – Recognizes mitigating factors, ensuring the punishment serves justice without being excessively harsh [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Appellant, a sitting MLA, accused of involvement in a nine-year-old murder case – Bail initially denied due to seriousness of charges and potential interference with investigation – Supreme Court grants bail noting absence of direct allegations, previous grant of anticipatory bail, and remote likelihood of absconsion or interference with evidence since the charge-sheet has already been filed [Paras 1-19].

Bail Considerations – Factors for Granting Bail – Court outlines parameters for bail: tampering with evidence, interference with investigation, and risk of absconsion – Highlights absence of these factors in appellant’s case – Emphasizes right to bail when investigation is complete and the charge-sheet filed [Paras 10-17].

Judicial Discretion – Conditions for Bail – Supreme Court imposes specific conditions to ensure appellant’s presence during trial – Restrictions include limited travel within district, regular reporting to local police, and court appearances unless exempted [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to the appellant with conditions to secure presence during trial and prevent interference with proceedings [Paras 18-19].

Representing Advocates:

For Appellant: Ajay Sharma

For Respondent: Kalyan Bandopadhyay and Abhijit Sengupta