Civil Procedure — Stay of Suit — Basic purpose and underlying object of Section 10 CPC — To prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, same subject matter, and same relief — For Section 10 to apply, the court where the previous suit is pending must be competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit — Provisions of Section 10 not attracted when only a few matters in issue are common but the entire subject matter in controversy is not the same [Paras 1-14].

Concurrent Jurisdiction — Res Judicata — Test for applicability of Section 10 CPC — Whether the final decision in the previously instituted suit would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit — If yes, Section 10 applies, and the subsequent suit is stayed — If no, Section 10 is not attracted — Appeal allowed [Paras 9-13].

Decision — Appeal Allowed — Orders of the Trial Court and the High Court set aside — Trial court's stay order under Section 10 CPC vacated — Liberty granted to parties to request the trial court to hear all suits together, subject to trial court’s discretion [Para 16].

Criminal Law — Culpable Homicide and Murder — High Court accepted prosecution version of murder due to intentional and brutal nature of the crime — Trial Judge initially convicted appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC but High Court reversed to Section 302 IPC — Evidence of premeditated intent to cause death — Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder — Conversion to Murder — Analysis of injuries and conduct of accused leading to conclusion of intentional and brutal murder — High Court justified in converting conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 302 IPC [Paras 14-19].

Evidence and Witnesses — Acceptance of hostile witness testimony to the extent it supports prosecution — Scientific evidence corroborating prosecution version — Injuries consistent with intentional infliction and dragging of the body [Paras 10-13].

Decision — Appeals dismissed — Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed by the Supreme Court [Para 20].

Company Law — Maintainability of Petition — Sections 397, 398, and 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 — Petition filed with consent of shareholders holding 10% shares is maintainable — Withdrawal of petition by original petitioners does not render the petition non-existent or non-maintainable — Consenting shareholders are entitled to be transposed as petitioners [Paras 6-11].

Locus Standi and Limitation — Supreme Court's order allowed appellant to file an independent appeal without objections on locus standi and limitation — High Court's reliance on earlier orders dismissing appeals as withdrawn was erroneous — Appellant entitled to proceed with appeals [Paras 17-22].

Representative Suits — Order XXIII Rule 1(5) CPC — Suit filed in representative capacity cannot be withdrawn without consulting all represented persons — Withdrawal without such consultation renders the order unjustified and without jurisdiction [Paras 19-20].

Decision — Appeals allowed — High Court's order set aside — Matter remanded to High Court for fresh decision in adherence to Supreme Court's judgment — High Court to decide expeditiously within six months [Para 30].

Criminal Law — Murder Conviction — Accused convicted for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence — Deceased found dead in a locked house — Husband absconded and provided no explanation — Suspicion of illicit relationship established as motive — Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Circumstantial Evidence — Chain of circumstances must be complete and point to guilt of accused — Established that deceased was with the accused, house was locked from outside, and accused absconded — No plausible explanation from accused — Conviction upheld [Paras 14-19].

Motive — Suspicion of wife's fidelity as motive — Testimonies of relatives indicating harassment due to alleged illicit relationship — Motive sufficiently established despite hostile witnesses [Paras 11-13].

Decision — Appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed by the Supreme Court [Para 20].

Labour Law — Unfair Labour Practice — Sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 — Engagement of large number of temporary employees by the company — Employees claimed unfair labour practices under items 5, 6, and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act — Industrial Court found the company indulged in unfair labour practice under item 6 — High Court affirmed the findings — Supreme Court modified the compensation order while affirming the conclusion of unfair labour practice [Paras 1-22].

Evidence — Adoption of Previous Evidence — Evidence from earlier ULP complaint No. 192 of 1997 adopted in current proceedings by consensus of parties — Contention that individual workmen should adduce separate evidence rejected — Such adoption considered valid and not creating any illegality [Paras 12-13].

Mala Fide Intent — Necessary for Unfair Labour Practice — Appellant’s argument on lack of mala fide intent and object to deprive workmen of permanency rejected — Prior Supreme Court finding on similar evidence upheld — Justification of conclusion on unfair labour practice reaffirmed [Paras 16-17].

Compensation — Reasonable Compensation Awarded — Compensation modified from 85 days' salary to 65 days' salary per year worked — No recovery of differential sum already withdrawn by workmen directed [Paras 18-21].

Decision — Appeals disposed of with modifications in compensation order — Industrial Court's order affirmed with modifications [Para 22].

Service Law — Selection Process — Challenge to Selection Procedure — Private Respondents challenged the advertisement and selection process only after failing the test — Held, by participating in the selection process, candidates waived their right to later question the methodology — Appeals allowed, High Court orders set aside [Paras 17-24].

Waiver and Estoppel — Candidates aware of General Rules — Participation in the selection process without objection results in waiver of right to challenge — Doctrine of waiver applies when candidates take a chance and later challenge upon unsuccessful outcome [Paras 18-24].

Direct Recruitment — Application of General Rules — Advertisement and Office Memorandum clearly indicated recruitment under General Rules — Candidates’ knowledge and participation affirmed application of General Rules over Special Rules [Paras 12-17].

Decision — Appeals allowed — High Court and Single Judge orders set aside — Writ petition by private respondents dismissed [Para 26].

Criminal Law — Dowry Death — Conviction under Section 304B IPC — Law prescribes a minimum of seven years imprisonment for dowry death — No provision for reducing sentence for any reason whatsoever — Conviction and sentence affirmed despite appellants' age and health conditions [Paras 40, 42].

Dowry Death and Cruelty — Sections 304B and 498A IPC, Section 113B Evidence Act — Demand for dowry, harassment, and maltreatment established — Deceased was pregnant and died of poisoning — No delay in lodging FIR — Witnesses consistently supported prosecution’s version — Conviction upheld [Paras 20, 27-35, 42].

Delay in FIR — Not a ground for dismissing prosecution case — Sufficient attempts by complainant to lodge FIR — Court must not overly emphasize delay in FIR lodging [Paras 27-29].

Evidence — Demand for Dowry — Specific instances of demand for dowry sufficiently proven — Additional dowry items such as a buffalo and cash payment were demanded and provided [Paras 30-31].

Proximate Harassment — Section 304B IPC — Harassment for dowry was continuous and proximate to the death — Presumption of dowry death under Section 113B Evidence Act was valid [Paras 32-35].

Decision — Appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC affirmed [Para 42].

Contempt of Court — Withdrawal of Funds — Allegation of withdrawal of large sum of money from Swiss bank account by respondent in violation of court orders dated September 4, 2006, and December 14, 2006 — Respondent contended no withdrawal post orders and closure of account in July 2006 — Bank statement corroborated respondent's claim — No violation of court orders established — Contempt petition dismissed [Paras 32-36].

Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof in Contempt Proceedings — Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature — Standard of proof required is similar to criminal proceedings — Allegations must be established beyond reasonable doubt — Any doubt or inconsistency benefits the alleged contemnor [Paras 38-42].

Preponderance of Evidence — Contempt Charge — Preponderant circumstances must lead to unimpeachable finding of guilt for contempt — Inconsistent affidavits and ambiguous bank communications insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 41-42].

Decision — Contempt petition dismissed — Order dated April 1, 2010, holding respondent guilty of contempt, recalled as it was based on erroneous premise [Paras 44-46].

Criminal Law — Rape — Conviction based on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix — If the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is credible, conviction can be based thereon without need for further corroboration — Prosecutrix was less than 16 years old when raped on several occasions — Her statement, found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration — Consent of minor prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is meaningless — High Court's judgment and order of acquittal set aside — Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 29-32].

Evidence — Credibility of Sole Testimony — Detailed statement of prosecutrix before Magistrate u/s 164 CrPC and her testimony before Trial Judge not considered by High Court — High Court should have discussed and analyzed the evidence instead of dismissing it based on a few letters [Paras 30-31].

Right of Appeal — High Court’s Reversal of Conviction — Absence of High Court’s analysis on evidence would take away respondent's right of appeal — Remanding necessary for proper appreciation of case [Paras 31-32].

Decision — Appeal disposed of — Judgment and order of High Court set aside — Matter remanded for reconsideration on merits, including statement and testimony of prosecutrix and applicable law — High Court requested to prioritize disposal of the case [Paras 32-34].