Urban Planning - Transferable Development Rights (TDR) - Entitlement - Civil Appeal against the decision of the High Court favoring Respondent's claim for TDR - Respondent-writ Petitioner, Kausarbag Cooperative Housing Society, claimed TDR under Development Control Regulations (DCR) framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) - High Court held the Respondent entitled to TDR as per DCR N-2.4.17(ii), as land was shown as an existing garden in the development plan, and compensation was not received - Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating the entitlement to TDR is valid under DCR N-2.4.17(ii) irrespective of how the land is shown in the development plan, and TDR provisions should be applied liberally to fulfill the legislative intent to lessen the financial burden of the State and facilitate development. [Paras 1-17]

Interpretation of DCR - DCR N-2.4.17 operates independently and is not contingent on DCR N-2.4.1(A) conditions - Court emphasized that the TDR could be granted to lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, as the regulation's objective includes such scenarios - Any administrative order, such as Government Order dated 03.02.2007, cannot override statutory DCR without following due legislative process - Court ruled such an administrative directive ineffective against statutory provisions. [Para 13-16]

Government Orders - Validity - Government Order dated 03.02.2007 issued under Section 154 of MRTP Act sought to prohibit TDR post-acquisition and possession transfer - Supreme Court held the order cannot override statutory provisions (DCR) without following Section 37 procedures - Such an order remains ineffective unless proper legislative amendment is carried out. [Para 15-16]

Decision - Appeal dismissed - Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's order granting TDR to the Respondent Society - Emphasized State must adhere to its own norms and procedural standards for legislative amendments - Government cannot challenge its own established norms through judicial escape. [Para 17]

**Administrative Law – Allotment of Public Land – Validity – Quashing of High Court Order Upholding Allotment – The Supreme Court examined the legality of land allotments made by CIDCO without public tender to private entities, including M/s. Popcorn Entertainment and M/s. Platinum Entertainment, for the development of multiplexes and entertainment centers, and to M/s. Platinum Square Trust for a country club – Held that such allotments, made without transparency and in an arbitrary manner, violate public policy and principles of fairness – Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 applied to invalidate contracts opposed to public policy – The Court underscored the need for transparent and non-discriminatory procedures in the disposal of public property – Cancellation of allotments by CIDCO upheld. [Paras 1-56]

**Public Interest – Disposal of Public Property – Principles of Fairness and Transparency – The Supreme Court emphasized that the disposal of public property must be conducted with fairness and transparency, adhering to a well-defined policy to avoid favoritism and nepotism – The decision stressed that the government or its agencies must act in a non-arbitrary manner, ensuring public interest and compliance with constitutional principles. [Paras 36-54]

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld CIDCO's cancellation of the allotments made to the respondents, finding the allotments arbitrary, lacking transparency, and contrary to public policy as defined under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. [Paras 55-56]

Referred Cases:

Popcorn Entertainment and Another v. City Industrial Development Corpn. and Another (2007) 1 CTLJ 137

Sunil Pannalal Banthia and Others v. City and Industrial Development Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd. and Another AIR 2007 SC 1529

Padma v. Hiralal Motilal Desarda and Others AIR 2002 SC 3252

Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and Another AIR 2004 SC 1815

State of Haryana and Others v. Jage Ram and Others AIR 1983 SC 1207

Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1980 SC 1992

Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597

Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal AIR 1987 SC 1109

Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India AIR 2013 SC 3725

Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2011 SC 1834

Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628

Humanity v. State of West Bengal AIR 2011 SC 2308

Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks AIR 1999 SC 22

Chairman and M.D., B.P.L. Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja AIR 2003 SC 4536

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act - Conviction of husband under Sections 304B and 498A IPC - Appeal against High Court's affirmation of trial court's decision - Held - Prosecution established demand for dowry soon before death - No evidence supporting accidental death claim - Presumption under Section 113B correctly invoked - Conviction upheld. [Paras 1-17]

Dowry Demand - Analysis - Presumption under Section 113B - Held - The evidence of dowry demand by appellant confirmed until date of death - Testimonies of brother and father of deceased reliable - Circumstantial evidence and absence of burst stove at scene negated accidental death claim - Consistent with Section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act. [Paras 9-13]

Expert Testimony - Relevance and Evaluation - Held - Statements of medical officers and experts critically evaluated - Defense's claim of accidental death not supported by substantive medical evidence - Expert opinion needs to be based on specialized knowledge and reliable data. [Paras 14-15]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC upheld - Appellant's plea of accidental death rejected - Sentence affirmed - Appellant directed to surrender to custody. [Paras 16-17]

Referred Cases:

Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey and Another, (1992) 3 SCC 204

Pawan Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309

Hira Lal and Others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80

Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly and Common Object – Criminal Appeal against the conviction and sentence for crimes including murder and arson committed by a mob – Appellant argued against the evidence of identification and the existence of a common object among the accused – Supreme Court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses credible and consistent – Held that mere presence in an unlawful assembly with a common object suffices for conviction under Section 149 IPC – Conviction and sentence upheld. [Paras 1-22]

Evidence – Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony – Analysis – Eyewitnesses consistently identified the accused as active participants in the mob – Prosecution evidence found reliable despite the defense's arguments of enmity and possible false implication – No substantial error in the assessment of the Trial Court and High Court – The identification of the appellant and the specific roles attributed to them were upheld. [Para 15-20]

Common Object and Constructive Liability – Legal Principles – Discussion of Section 149 IPC – Supreme Court emphasized that individual acts of accused are not necessary to establish liability – Presence and participation in furtherance of the common object is sufficient – Several precedents cited to support this interpretation. [Paras 16-20]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the appellants – Conviction and sentences affirmed as per the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court – The appeals were dismissed. [Para 22]

Referred Cases:

Santosh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 654

Lalji and Others Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1989 SC 754

State of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Charan and Others, AIR 2013 SC 2342

Badal Murmu and Others Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2014 SC 1150

Bhudeo Mandal and Others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 1219

Subal Ghorai and Others Vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 AD 635

State of A.P. Vs. Thakkidiram Reddy and Others, AIR 1998 SC 2702

Kuldip Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2011 SC 1737

Shaji and Others Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2011 SC 1825

Yunis @ Kariya etc. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 539

Criminal Procedure - Section 313 Examination - Proper Examination Required - High Court remanding case for retrial due to alleged defective Section 313 CrPC examination - Supreme Court finds High Court's decision erroneous as accused were fully apprised of circumstances - No substantial prejudice caused to accused - Remand by High Court set aside, matter directed to be decided on merits by High Court. [Paras 16-19, 27-32]

Defective Examination under Section 313 CrPC - Analysis - Held - Defective examination under Section 313 does not automatically vitiate the trial - Accused must prove substantial prejudice caused by such defect - Appellate court can address omitted questions if no substantial prejudice shown - Supreme Court finds no substantial prejudice caused in present case - No miscarriage of justice identified. [Paras 26-29]

Remand for Retrial - Principles - Held - Remand for retrial should be rare and exceptional - Appellate courts should avoid remands unless essential to prevent miscarriage of justice - Supreme Court finds High Court's remand for retrial unnecessary - Orders High Court to decide appeal on merits. [Paras 13, 16, 17, 31-32]

Decision - Setting aside High Court’s Remand - Court sets aside High Court's order remanding case for retrial - Directs High Court to decide the appeal on merits - Accused to remain on bail till High Court's further orders. [Para 32]

Referred Cases:

Ajay Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 2188 : (2007) 8 JT 638 : (2007) 8 SCALE 461 : (2007) 7 SCR 983 : (2007) 2 UJ 756 : (2007) AIRSCW 3845 : (2007) 5 Supreme 1

Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 3802 : (2012) CriLJ 1160 : (2012) 1 Crimes 76 : (2012) 1 JCC 641 : (2012) 1 JT 100 : (2012) 1 RCR(Criminal) 524 : (2012) 1 SCALE 189 : (2012) 2 SCC 648 : (2012) AIRSCW 930 : (2012) 1 Supreme 34

Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200 : (2011) CriLJ 663 : (2010) 4 Crimes 165 : (2010) 10 JT 260 : (2010) 10 SCALE 258 : (2010) 10 SCC 439 : (2011) 1 SCC(Cri) 98 : (2010) AIRSCW 6616 : (2010) 7 Supreme 26

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhooraji and Others, (2001) 6 AD 624 : AIR 2001 SC 3372 : (2001) CriLJ 4228 : (2001) 4 Crimes 190 : (2001) 7 JT 55 : (2001) 5 SCALE 423 : (2001) 7 SCC 679 : (2001) AIRSCW 3313 : (2001) 6 Supreme 311

Basavaraj R. Patil and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3214 : (2000) CriLJ 4604 : (2000) 1 JT 422 Supp : (2000) 6 SCALE 697 : (2000) 8 SCC 740 : (2000) 3 SCR 658 Supp : (2000) AIRSCW 3692 : (2000) 6 Supreme 586

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 : (1984) CriLJ 1738 : (1984) 2 SCALE 445 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 : (1985) 1 SCR 88

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 : (1973) CriLJ 1783 : (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (1973) SCC(Cri) 1033 : (1974) 1 SCR 489

S. Harnam Singh Vs. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1976 SC 2140 : (1976) CriLJ 913 : (1976) 2 SCC 819 : (1976) SCC(Cri) 324

Ganesha Vs. Sharanappa and Another, AIR 2014 SC 1198 : (2014) 1 CCR 121 : (2014) CriLJ 1146 : (2013) 15 JT 163 : (2013) 14 SCALE 59 : (2014) 1 SCC 87 : (2014) 2 SCJ 725

Asraf Ali Vs. State of Assam, (2008) CLT 1053 : (2008) CriLJ 4338 : (2008) 13 JT 598 : (2008) 10 SCALE 278

Final Result : Disposed Off

Criminal Law - Conviction for Abetment of Suicide and Cruelty – Criminal Appeal challenging High Court's reversal of trial court's acquittal - Sessions court had disposed of the case within nine days, acquitting all accused except husband convicted under Section 498A IPC – High Court re-evaluated evidence, convicted husband and in-laws under Sections 306, 498A read with Section 114 IPC, enhancing husband's sentence - Appellants contended improper trial and insufficient evidence – Supreme Court upheld High Court's judgment, emphasizing the prosecution's role and proper judicial conduct in trial. [Paras 1-16]

Speedy Disposal of Sessions Case - Evaluation - Supreme Court criticized the swift disposal of the case by Sessions Judge within nine days - Found such expedited trial deprived fair opportunity for a thorough investigation and evidence presentation, thereby jeopardizing justice. [Para 1]

Dying Declaration - Admissibility and Sufficiency – Analysis – Deceased's dying declaration recorded by ASI (PW4), though without Executive Magistrate, deemed credible and consistent with evidence - Held, sufficient to establish cruelty and abetment to suicide by husband and in-laws. [Para 7-9]

Role of Prosecuting Agency - Critique - Supreme Court highlighted prosecutorial and judicial negligence in the initial trial - Emphasized on courts' duty to ensure comprehensive evidence presentation and fair prosecution to prevent miscarriage of justice. [Paras 13-14]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals - Upheld High Court’s decision convicting appellants for abetment of suicide and cruelty - Directed appellants to surrender for serving remaining sentence. [Paras 15-16]

Referred Cases:

Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) CriLJ 1043

Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram P.S., AIR 2012 SC 1292

Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 346

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3837

Education Law – Medical Colleges – Clarification of Order – Supreme Court clarifies its order dated 18th September 2014 – Applicable to colleges/institutions seeking increase in intake capacity or denied permission for student admissions after inspections in the current academic year – Fees to be at government medical college rates – Applies to similarly situated institutions irrespective of litigation status – Not applicable to disqualified institutions. [Paras 1-6]

Fee Structure – Uniform Application – Fees for students admitted under the order dated 18th September 2014 to be at the same rate as in government medical colleges, maintained for the duration of their course in private institutions. [Para 2]

Institutional Scope – Applicability – Order applies to all similar institutions, regardless of pending petitions or lack of court approach – Excludes disqualified institutions. [Paras 3-4]

Quota Lists – Management and State Quotas – For academic year 2014-15, only the State quota list to be used – Management quota admissions to follow State quota fee structure. [Para 5]

Minority and Deemed Universities – Inclusion – Private institutions benefiting from the order, including minority institutions and deemed universities, to follow State agency admissions and government college fee structures. [Para 6]

Decision – Withdrawal of Petition – Permission granted for withdrawal of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 836/2014 – Petition dismissed as withdrawn. [Para 7]

Reservation - Creamy Layer Determination - Applicability of Personal Income – Civil Appeal against High Court’s order interpreting "creamy layer" status – High Court considered appellant’s personal income for determining "creamy layer" status – Supreme Court examines Office Memorandum dated 8.9.1993 and subsequent clarifications – Supreme Court holds that only parents’ income is relevant for "creamy layer" determination, not individual’s personal income – High Court’s decision set aside – Appeal allowed, restoring appellant’s appointment. [Paras 1-13]

Reservation Law - Interpretation of Office Memorandum - Scope of High Court’s Authority – Analysis – Held – Supreme Court finds High Court misread the criteria for identifying "creamy layer" under Office Memorandum dated 8.9.1993 – Clarifies that inclusion of individual’s income is contrary to established guidelines and judicial pronouncements – Relies on precedent and governmental clarifications confirming that parents' income alone determines "creamy layer" status. [Para 7-11]

Decision – Reinstatement of Appointment – Court restores appellant Surinder Singh's appointment as Accounts Officer – Special Leave Petition disposed of in terms of the appeal’s decision. [Para 12-13]

Referred Cases:Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 217 SuppAshoka Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 403Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1

Priority of Claims - Stock Exchange Rules vs. Income Tax Dues - Lien and Statutory Preference: The Supreme Court examined the priority of claims between the Income Tax Department and the Stock Exchange regarding the assets of a defaulting member. It was held that the Stock Exchange, by virtue of Rule 43, possesses a first and paramount lien over the securities provided by a member, making it a secured creditor. Consequently, the Stock Exchange's claim had priority over the Government's claim for income tax dues. [Paras 19-25]

Membership Rights and Liabilities - Personal Privilege and Non-attachable Nature: The Court affirmed that a membership card of the Stock Exchange is a personal privilege and does not constitute property of the member. Thus, the proceeds from the sale of the membership card could not be attached by the Income Tax Department for the member's tax liabilities. [Para 16]

Interpretation of 'Lien' under Stock Exchange Rules - Secured Creditor Status: The Stock Exchange's lien under Rule 43 was considered statutory, placing it above unsecured claims, including those of the Income Tax Department. The definition and application of 'lien' were critically analyzed to determine its impact on the hierarchy of claims. [Paras 20-22]

Referred Cases:

Hansraj and Others Vs. Official Liquidators Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd.

Forwarding P. Ltd. and another Vs. Trustees, Port of Vizagapatnam and another (1987) 61 CompCas 513

Isha Valimohamed and Another Vs. Haji Gulam Mohamad and Haji Dada Trust AIR 1974 SC 2061

Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and others AIR 1992 SC 496

Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat Vs. Pranlal Jayanand Thakar and Others AIR 1974 SC 1728

The Bank of Bihar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others AIR 1971 SC 1210

Collector of Aurangabad and Another Vs. Central Bank of India and Another AIR 1967 SC 1831

The Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad AIR 2001 SC 1071

Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Another AIR 1998 SC 1878

Dena Bank Vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and Co. and Others AIR 2000 SC 3654

Bombay Stock Exchange Vs. Jaya I. Shah and Another AIR 2004 SC 55

K. Saradambal Vs. Jagannathan and Brothers (Automobile Engineers and Motor Works (P.) Ltd.) (1972) 42 CompCas 359