Property Law – Acquisition of Cessed Properties – Appeal challenging the High Court's dismissal of interim relief for the appellants regarding the acquisition of "cessed properties" under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 – Supreme Court examined the statutory provisions and legislative intent behind the introduction of Chapter VIII-A – Held that the properties were acquired to protect tenants living in dilapidated buildings due to landlords' inability to maintain them owing to frozen rents since 1940 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-24].

Public Policy – Rehabilitation of Tenants – Court emphasized the importance of Chapter VIII-A in ensuring the safety and rehabilitation of tenants – Noted that the scheme was tenant-specific, aiming to provide structural repairs or reconstruction of old buildings – Supreme Court rejected the appellant's claim for release from acquisition, reinforcing that the properties vested in MHADA were held in trust for tenant rehabilitation [Paras 5-18].

Judicial Discretion – Interpretation of Vesting and Trust – The Court analyzed the interpretation of "vesting" under Section 103B, affirming that once properties vest in MHADA, they must be used for the intended purpose of tenant rehabilitation – Supreme Court upheld that the cooperative society's formation and the necessary deposits were essential for proceeding with acquisition and rehabilitation under Chapter VIII-A [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, reinforcing the legislative scheme for tenant protection and rehabilitation under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appeals challenging the conviction for dowry death – Supreme Court reviewed evidence including witness testimonies, post-mortem reports, and forensic analysis – Held that the prosecution established the necessary ingredients for the application of Section 304B IPC – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-19].

Evidence Law – Presumption under Section 113B – Court analyzed the applicability of the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act – Emphasized that once the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption – Found that the accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the circumstances leading to the death [Paras 10-17].

Judicial Discretion – Review of Circumstantial Evidence – Supreme Court stressed the importance of evaluating the chain of circumstances in dowry death cases – Highlighted the unexplained presence of "Organo Phosphorus Pesticide" in the deceased's vomit and the hurried cremation as key factors supporting the conviction [Paras 14-18].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 498A, 304B, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC upheld – Accused directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appeal against the conviction for dowry death under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – Supreme Court reviewed evidence including witness testimonies, post-mortem reports, and the sequence of events leading to the death – Held that the prosecution established the necessary ingredients for the application of Section 304B IPC – Appeal partly allowed by reducing the sentence [Paras 1-25].

Evidence Law – Presumption under Section 113B – Court analyzed the applicability of the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act – Emphasized that once the prosecution establishes the essential ingredients, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption – Found that the accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the circumstances leading to the death [Paras 22-23].

Judicial Discretion – Evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence – Supreme Court stressed the importance of evaluating the chain of circumstances in dowry death cases – Highlighted the presence of injuries and the hurried cremation as key factors supporting the conviction – Reduced the sentence considering the appellant’s personal circumstances [Paras 14-25].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC upheld – Sentence under Section 304B IPC reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment – Sentence under Section 498A IPC remains two years with a fine of Rs. 2000 – Sentences to run concurrently – Appellant directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence [Para 25].

Constitutional Law – Amendment Challenge – Petitioner university challenged amendments introduced by Amendment Act No. 5 of 2000 to the Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995 – High Court upheld amendments to Sections 4(1), 9(2), 31-A(1), (2), 31-B, 31-C, 37-B(a), (b), (d), (e) as intra-vires, while Section 37-A and proviso to Section 4 on conducting courses without State Government's approval held ultra-vires – Supreme Court examined legislative intent and statutory interpretation principles, concluding proper application of disjunctive reading of 'and' in Section 4(1) [Paras 1-95].

Education – Role of Vedic Knowledge – Court underscored the importance of Vedic education, interpreting its holistic approach encompassing various aspects of life and human physiology – Reiterated the ancient knowledge in Vedas pertinent to modern education and scientific learning [Paras 17-19, 27-43].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Supreme Court upheld most of the High Court’s findings, confirming the validity of State's regulatory measures, emphasizing the autonomy of educational institutions within reasonable State control [Para 68].

Service Law – Seniority and Promotion – Appeal involving the validity of granting retrospective seniority to Supervisors promoted to Junior Engineers – High Court decision upheld, confirming that retrospective seniority violated Article 14 – Retrospective seniority adversely impacted existing Junior Engineers, creating unreasonableness and unfairness – Weightage of service for Supervisors to be considered only for eligibility, not for seniority purposes [Paras 1-69].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 and 16 – Retrospective operation of rules and their impact on seniority – Supreme Court held that retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when the employee was not part of the cadre – Emphasis on the principle that seniority is determined by the date of entry into the service [Paras 57-64].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that retrospective seniority granted to Supervisors is unconstitutional – Confirmed the High Court's decision and reinforced the principle that seniority must be reckoned from the date of satisfying procedural requirements and not retrospectively [Paras 66-69].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Dowry Death – Appeal against High Court's reversal of acquittal – Trial court acquitted accused based on contradictory statements and lack of evidence – High Court convicted accused relying on presumption under Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act – Supreme Court set aside High Court's decision, restoring trial court's acquittal – Emphasized presumption of innocence and requirement of compelling reasons to interfere with acquittal [Paras 1-15].

Evidence – Presumption under Sections 113A and 113B – High Court's reliance on presumption without substantive evidence – Supreme Court held presumption cannot override the necessity for proving basic ingredients of harassment or dowry demand – Restoration of acquittal due to lack of compelling evidence and presence of reasonable doubt [Paras 8-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the trial court's judgment of acquittal – Emphasized principles of presumption of innocence and requirement for compelling circumstances to overturn acquittal [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Appeal against conviction under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and 324 read with 34 IPC – Accused involved in a dispute over a pathway leading to the murder of Ramachandra Lagad – Conviction based on the testimony of the injured eyewitness (P.W. 4) and corroborated by medical evidence – Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing consistency and credibility of eyewitness testimony supported by medical evidence [Paras 1-34].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Sole testimony of an injured eyewitness (P.W. 4) sufficient for conviction – Discrepancies in minor details do not discredit the core narrative – Testimony supported by another eyewitness (P.W. 5) and medical evidence, including postmortem and injury reports [Paras 16-22].

Evidence – Forensic Evidence – Presence of human blood on the accused’s clothes not satisfactorily explained – Supported by chemical analysis reports – Rejection of the defense's contention regarding lack of supporting expert evidence [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and life sentence imposed by the lower courts – Emphasized the role of corroborative evidence and the lack of any substantial ground for interference [Paras 34].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction Clause – Appeal concerning the interpretation of a jurisdiction clause in a consignment agency agreement – Clause 18 stating “The Agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata” – Supreme Court held that such a clause, even without words like 'alone,' 'only,' 'exclusive,' indicates an intention to confer exclusive jurisdiction to the courts at Kolkata – Rajasthan High Court's jurisdiction ousted [Paras 1-34].

Contract Law – Ouster Clauses – The use of a jurisdiction clause in a contract implies the exclusion of all other jurisdictions – The maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (expression of one is the exclusion of another) applies, indicating the clear intention of the parties to restrict jurisdiction to the specified courts – Supported by previous decisions of the Supreme Court [Paras 31-32, 61-62].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Calcutta High Court has exclusive jurisdiction – The appellant directed to pursue remedies under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 in the Calcutta High Court [Paras 33-34, 63].

Armed Forces – Disability Pension – Appeal against the rejection of disability pension and denial of the constitution of a Review Medical Board – Appellant diagnosed with Schizophrenic Reaction after enrolment in the Army – Tribunal’s reliance on the Medical Board’s opinion without detailed examination found unsustainable – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for a thorough review and proper assessment of medical conditions for entitlement to disability pension [Paras 1-20].

Medical Evidence – Judicial Review – Courts can review the decisions based on expert opinions and are not bound to accept them unquestioningly – Tribunal failed to evaluate the evidence properly and overlooked the improvement in appellant’s condition with treatment – Supreme Court highlighted that judicial review is necessary to ensure the fairness and correctness of medical assessments in such cases [Paras 11-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's orders – Directed the respondents to refer the case to a Review Medical Board for reassessment of the appellant's medical condition and determination of his entitlement to disability pension [Paras 19-20].