Contempt of Court – Erroneous Information – Appellants held in contempt for not providing required information regarding landowners who did not file objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act – Supreme Court found no deliberate intent to mislead, noting possible error of judgment – Apology tendered by appellants should have been accepted, emphasizing a broad and magnanimous view of the matter [Paras 11-13].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Principles of Exercise – Court reiterated that contempt power should be exercised with caution, restraint, and only when necessary – Emphasized that maintaining dignity and respect of the court is achieved through the quality of judgments and judicial conduct, not frequent use of contempt power [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order dated 31.01.2011 set aside – Apology of appellants accepted.

Election Law – Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) – Appellant sought the introduction of VVPAT in EVMs to ensure accurate recording of votes – Supreme Court found that the introduction of VVPAT is necessary for free and fair elections, enhancing voter confidence in the electoral process – Directed phased implementation of VVPAT in forthcoming elections [Paras 28-31].

Constitutional Law – Right to Vote – Right to know that vote has been correctly recorded – Court emphasized that VVPAT system provides a means for voters to verify their vote, enhancing the transparency and trustworthiness of elections [Paras 29-30].

Administrative Directions – Financial Assistance – Directed Government of India to provide financial support for procuring VVPAT units – Allowed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to implement VVPAT in a phased manner, ensuring readiness for large-scale use [Para 31].

Decision: Appeal and writ petition disposed of – Supreme Court permitted ECI to implement VVPAT system in a phased manner for future elections – Government directed to provide necessary financial assistance.

Criminal Law – Murder – Appellant convicted for murder of his wife, Naina Sahni – Prosecution established that the appellant shot the deceased and attempted to dispose of the body by burning it in a tandoor – Appellant's presence at the scene and connection to the Bagia Restaurant confirmed by witnesses – Circumstantial evidence and forensic reports corroborated the prosecution's case [Paras 26-30].

Evidence – Forensic Analysis – Bullets recovered from the skull of the deceased matched appellant's licensed revolver – DNA tests confirmed the identity of the deceased – Blood samples and ballistic evidence substantiated the cause of death and the appellant’s involvement [Paras 13-16, 26-27].

Motive – Marital Discord – Prosecution proved motive by demonstrating that the appellant suspected his wife's fidelity and was reluctant to make their marriage public – Evidence of frequent quarrels and the appellant’s controlling behavior towards the deceased supported the motive [Paras 27-28].

Absconding – Conduct of Appellant – Appellant’s conduct post-crime, including absconding from Delhi and attempting to evade arrest, was considered as an incriminating circumstance – His arrest and the subsequent recovery of the weapon from his possession in Bangalore further implicated him [Paras 25, 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence, emphasizing the completeness of the circumstantial evidence chain and the grave nature of the crime.

Excise Law – Grant of License – Appellant's application for liquor license filed in 1992, processed in 2004 – High Court ruled against renewal due to proximity to religious places and educational institutions within 1000 feet, as per amended Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision, emphasizing applicability of current rules at the time of license consideration [Paras 3-6, 12-13].

Retroactive Application of Rules – Pending Applications – Appellant argued that his 1992 application should be considered under 1993 Rules with a 300 feet restriction – Court noted circular dated 28.9.2005 applied to applications between 2003 and 2004, irrelevant to appellant's case – Rejected contention that 1992 application validly processed in 2006 under old rules [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Precedents – Application of Current Law – Court referred to established principle that rules in effect at the time of consideration apply, not at the time of application – Applied precedent from State of Kerala v. Kandath Distilleries [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court confirmed High Court’s order prohibiting license renewal post-December 2013 – License found invalid under current rules due to proximity restrictions.

Property Law – Mortgage by Deposit of Title-Deeds – Appellants challenged the High Court's direction for mutation based on unregistered mortgage by deposit of title-deeds – Supreme Court held that such a mortgage does not require registration under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act and does not need payment of registration fee or stamp duty – Affirmed the High Court’s decision allowing mutation [Paras 12-17].

Registration and Stamp Duty – Applicability – The Court clarified that a memorandum of deposit merely recording the deposit does not require registration – However, a document detailing additional terms and conditions would require registration under Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act – No evidence was presented to show such an instrument existed in the present case [Paras 14-15].

Precedent – Cited Rachpal Mahraj v. Bhagwandas Daruka and United Bank of India Ltd. v. Lekharam Sonaram for the principle that the essence of mortgage by deposit of title-deeds is the delivery of documents to the creditor, and any accompanying memorandum not creating new rights does not necessitate registration [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 9030 of 2013 dismissed – High Court judgment upheld, affirming that the mortgage by deposit of title-deeds does not require registration or payment of fees – Civil Appeal No. 9049 of 2013 allowed – Case remanded to High Court for fresh consideration regarding the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, taking into account the locations specified in the notification [Paras 18-24].

Contract Law – Agreement to Sell – Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell which included a recital that possession had been handed over – Defendants disputed the execution and possession transfer – Trial court found the agreement inadmissible for lack of proper stamping as a conveyance – High Court reversed, emphasizing defendants’ denial of possession [Paras 1-3].

Stamp Duty – Recital in Document – Supreme Court held that for admissibility, the recital in the document is decisive, not the adversary’s plea – Agreement with a possession transfer recital qualifies as "conveyance" under Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act and requires full stamp duty [Paras 9-10].

Admissibility of Evidence – Insufficiently Stamped Documents – Court upheld that an instrument not duly stamped cannot be admitted unless duty and penalty are paid as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act – Reversed High Court’s decision, reinstating trial court’s order on inadmissibility due to insufficient stamping [Paras 11-12].

Precedent – Cited Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra to affirm that instruments with possession transfer require appropriate stamp duty – High Court’s decision in Laxminarayan Porwal v. Omprakash Vairagi was overruled, confirming recitals in the document govern admissibility [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Trial court’s order declaring the agreement to sell inadmissible for lack of proper stamp duty reinstated [Paras 15-16].

Contract Law – Agreement to Sell – Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell which included a recital that possession had been handed over – Defendants disputed the execution and possession transfer – Trial court found the agreement inadmissible for lack of proper stamping as a conveyance – High Court reversed, emphasizing defendants’ denial of possession [Paras 1-3].

Stamp Duty – Recital in Document – Supreme Court held that for admissibility, the recital in the document is decisive, not the adversary’s plea – Agreement with a possession transfer recital qualifies as "conveyance" under Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act and requires full stamp duty [Paras 9-10].

Admissibility of Evidence – Insufficiently Stamped Documents – Court upheld that an instrument not duly stamped cannot be admitted unless duty and penalty are paid as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act – Reversed High Court’s decision, reinstating trial court’s order on inadmissibility due to insufficient stamping [Paras 11-12].

Precedent – Cited Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra to affirm that instruments with possession transfer require appropriate stamp duty – High Court’s decision in Laxminarayan Porwal v. Omprakash Vairagi was overruled, confirming recitals in the document govern admissibility [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Trial court’s order declaring the agreement to sell inadmissible for lack of proper stamp duty reinstated [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death vs. Abetment of Suicide – Respondent convicted under Section 304B IPC for the death of his wife within seven years of marriage – High Court modified the conviction to Section 306 IPC and reduced the sentence to five years – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, noting insufficient evidence of dowry harassment soon before the death [Paras 1, 3-4, 10-12].

Evidence – Presumption under Sections 113A and 113B – Court examined whether presumption of dowry death or abetment of suicide applied – Evidence showed harassment but did not clearly link to dowry demands – Presumption under Section 113B not applicable; Section 113A presumption of abetment upheld [Paras 8-9, 12-13].

Sentencing – Reduced Sentence Justified – Respondent’s sentence reduced from life imprisonment under Section 304B to five years under Section 306 due to lack of evidence for dowry death – Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with High Court’s judgment [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment convicting the respondent under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine upheld [Para 14].

Land Reforms – Tenant's Right to Occupancy – Appellant challenged the claim of Bhagirathi Bai (Respondent No. 2) to be registered as an occupant of the land under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act – Tribunal and High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding the land was used for agricultural purposes [Paras 1-4].

Assessment of Agricultural Use – Supreme Court noted that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court adequately addressed whether the land was agricultural on the "appointed day" as required – Spot inspection by the Tribunal in 1987 was irrelevant to the status of the land in 1974 – Directed re-examination of the issue [Paras 7-9].

Definition and Requirements – Court reiterated that to qualify under Section 45, a tenant must be an agriculturist personally cultivating the land on the appointed day – Definitions under Sections 2(11), 2(18), and 2(34) of the Act were emphasized in determining eligibility [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Tribunal's orders set aside – Matter remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the observations on the requirements and status of the land on the appointed day [Paras 9-10].