Criminal Law – Vicarious Liability – Summoning of Directors and Officials: High Court quashed the summons issued against the directors and officials of India Infoline Ltd., holding that the complaint lacked specific allegations detailing the individual roles of the directors in the alleged offenses. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that criminal liability cannot be attributed to corporate officials without specific allegations indicating their direct involvement [Paras 1-22].

Complaint and Summoning Order – Specific Allegations Required: The Supreme Court highlighted that the complaint must contain specific allegations against each accused, detailing their individual roles and actions. Vague and general allegations are insufficient to summon corporate directors and officials [Paras 11-13, 18-19].

Abuse of Process – Summoning without Prima Facie Case: The Supreme Court stressed that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and should not be done mechanically. The Magistrate must apply judicial mind and record satisfaction about the prima facie case based on specific allegations and evidence. The Court found the summoning order in this case lacked such satisfaction and amounted to abuse of process [Paras 14-19].

Civil Dispute – Not a Criminal Offense: The Court reiterated that not every breach of trust or cheating constitutes a criminal offense. Situations where allegations predominantly point to a civil dispute should not be converted into criminal cases [Paras 13, 15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the summons against the directors and officials of India Infoline Ltd., emphasizing the necessity of specific allegations and proper judicial application before summoning in criminal cases [Paras 21-22].

Co-operative Societies – Bifurcation – Tenant-Members’ Rights: The Supreme Court addressed the prolonged litigation involving the bifurcation of the Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society and the protection of tenant-members' rights. The appellants, tenant-members of the society, sought bifurcation to form a separate entity exclusively for tenant-members, claiming inadequate representation and protection of their interests [Paras 11-14, 21-22].

Interim Relief – Balance of Convenience: The Court considered the balance of convenience in granting or denying interim relief. It was noted that the appellant tenant-members, forming a small minority, were obstructing the redevelopment plan beneficial to a larger number of society members. The balance of convenience favored allowing the redevelopment to proceed [Paras 26-30].

Status of Tenant-Members – Cooperative Society Membership: The Court reaffirmed that tenant-members would not lose their cooperative society membership post-redevelopment. The new buildings would house both allottee-members and tenant-members, ensuring their continued membership in the redeveloped society [Paras 28-29].

Previous Litigation – Finality of Orders: The Court highlighted the finality of previous litigation upholding the society's redevelopment resolution dated 25.9.1966. The repeated challenges by the tenant-members had been dismissed at various levels, establishing the legality of the redevelopment plan [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's order vacating interim protection for the tenant-members. The redevelopment plan approved by the society was allowed to proceed, with the tenant-members retaining their membership rights in the redeveloped property [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants, emphasizing the adherence to the "five golden principles" for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence. The principles include that the circumstances must be fully established, consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, of a conclusive nature, excluding every possible hypothesis except guilt, and forming a complete chain of evidence [Paras 4-6].

Last Seen Theory – Reliability of Witnesses: The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who claimed to have last seen the deceased in the company of the appellants, credible and reliable. This was corroborated by other circumstantial evidence, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were involved in the kidnapping and murder [Paras 11-12].

Motive – Hostile Relations: The prosecution successfully established that the appellants had a motive for committing the crime, rooted in hostile relations with the family of the deceased. The threats made by one of the accused further supported the motive [Paras 7, 13].

Recovery of Incriminating Articles: The recovery of blood-stained clothes from one of the accused, which matched the blood of the deceased, was a significant factor in affirming the guilt of the appellants. The forensic evidence corroborated the prosecution's case [Para 15].

Discrepancies in Evidence – Not Fatal: Minor discrepancies in the description of the dead body by prosecution witnesses were deemed insufficient to discredit the entire case, especially considering the condition of the body when found [Para 14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the life sentences awarded to the appellants by the trial court and upheld by the High Court, finding the circumstantial evidence compelling and sufficient to support the conviction [Paras 16].

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decrees – Objection under Section 47 CPC: The Supreme Court evaluated the justifiability of the delay in filing a revision petition by the State after the dismissal of its objection under Section 47 CPC. The Court found that the objection to the execution of the decree, raised several decades after the original decree, was a tactic to delay the process unduly and lacked sufficient cause [Paras 7-12].

Limitation and Delay – Condonation – Sufficient Cause: The Court reiterated the principles guiding the condonation of delay, emphasizing that while a liberal approach is often adopted, especially for the State, there must be no gross negligence or deliberate inaction. The Court held that the State had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in challenging the decree, which had been affirmed in appeal long ago [Paras 9-11].

Article 227 – High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court’s exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, concluding that the High Court erred in adopting a lenient approach without considering the extensive delay and lack of sufficient cause [Paras 8, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order condoning the delay in filing the revision petition by the State. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, emphasizing the need for prompt action in litigation and the avoidance of unnecessary delays [Paras 12].

Mortgage – Redemption – Revenue Recovery: The Supreme Court held that the sale of the mortgaged property under revenue recovery proceedings for agricultural income tax arrears extinguished the mortgagor's rights. The Court emphasized that agricultural income tax is a personal liability of the landowner and not a charge on the land itself [Paras 16-21].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 76(c) of the Transfer of Property Act: The Court interpreted Section 76(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, clarifying that the mortgagee's obligation to pay "Government dues" pertains to charges of a public nature and not personal liabilities such as agricultural income tax [Para 26].

Contractual Obligations – Mortgage Deeds: The Court analyzed the mortgage deeds, concluding that the mortgagee was not contractually obligated to pay the agricultural income tax on behalf of the mortgagor. The mortgagee's responsibility was limited to Government dues directly related to the land [Paras 17-18].

Fraud and Collusion – Revenue Sale: The Court found no evidence of fraud or collusion in the public auction sale of the property. The sale was conducted to recover agricultural income tax dues, and the mortgagor's failure to challenge the sale promptly indicated a lack of bona fide dispute [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, restoring the Trial Court's judgment that dismissed the suit for redemption. The sale under revenue recovery proceedings extinguished the mortgagor's rights [Para 27].

Minority Rights – Establishment and Administration of Institutions – State as Unit: The Supreme Court held that to claim linguistic minority status in a state, the institution must be established and administered by individuals who are minorities in that state. The Court emphasized that the place of residence of the trustees is relevant in determining minority status [Paras 13, 24].

Government Resolution – Recognition of Minority Status: The Government Resolution dated 4.7.2008 outlines the conditions for granting minority status to educational institutions. The Court upheld the withdrawal of the appellant's minority status as it did not meet the criteria specified, including the requirement that trustees should be residents of the state [Paras 17-19, 23].

Interpretation of Article 30: The Court reiterated that Article 30(1) provides protection to minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. However, the institution must be genuinely established by and for the minority community within the state where the minority status is claimed [Paras 25-26, 31].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and the competent authority's order, holding that the appellant does not qualify for linguistic minority status in Maharashtra as its trustees reside outside the state [Para 31].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Forfeiture of Right: The Supreme Court held that the respondent forfeited its right to appoint an arbitrator by not making the appointment within the time specified in the demand notice issued by the appellant. The subsequent appointment made by the respondent after the appellant had moved the court under Section 11(6) was of no legal consequence [Paras 12, 20].

Section 11(6) – Role of Chief Justice: The Court clarified that when the opposite party fails to appoint an arbitrator within the specified time and the matter is brought before the Chief Justice under Section 11(6), the Chief Justice should appoint an independent and impartial arbitrator. The appointment made by the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 11(6) does not affect the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice [Paras 13, 21].

Impartiality of Arbitrator: The Court emphasized the importance of appointing an independent and impartial arbitrator, particularly when the respondent has forfeited its right to make the appointment. This ensures the fairness and integrity of the arbitration process [Para 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the appellant's application under Section 11(6). The case was remanded back to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for fresh consideration and appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with law [Para 25].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – Procedure: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction based on the dying declaration of the deceased, emphasizing that it was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate in the presence of a doctor who certified the victim's fitness to make the statement. The Court noted that the declaration was consistent and credible, and the procedure followed was proper [Paras 7-8, 10].

Accused's Injuries – Defence of Rescue Attempt: The Court rejected the appellant's defence that he sustained burn injuries while trying to rescue his wife. It was noted that the appellant did not seek medical treatment for his injuries until his arrest, casting doubt on his claim [Para 17].

Dowry Harassment – Motive: The Court found sufficient evidence of dowry harassment and cruelty towards the deceased, which provided a motive for the crime. The consistent harassment by the appellants over dowry demands was established through witness testimonies and the dying declaration [Paras 4, 16].

Concurrent Sentences – Upholding Lower Court Decisions: The Supreme Court affirmed the life imprisonment sentence for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the one-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A IPC, as ordered by the trial court and upheld by the High Court. The sentences were to run concurrently [Paras 1, 21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the lower courts, finding no merit in the appeal [Paras 19-21].

Kudikidappukaran Rights – Determination and Registration: The Supreme Court held that the status of a person as a Kudikidappukaran must be determined under Section 80 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and must be registered in the prescribed register maintained by the local authority. The Court emphasized that the claim of Kudikidappu rights cannot be asserted under other sections of the Act without first establishing and registering such status [Paras 11-12, 20].

Eviction Proceedings – Rent Control and Kudikidappukaran Status: The Court examined the interplay between eviction proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, and the determination of Kudikidappukaran status. The Court noted that any question regarding the status of a Kudikidappukaran must be referred to the Land Tribunal, and its decision must be accepted by the Rent Control Court [Paras 14-15, 19].

Jurisdiction – Civil Courts and Land Tribunal: The Court reiterated that civil courts, including rent control courts, have no jurisdiction to settle questions required to be decided by the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Tribunal's decision on such questions is binding and can only be challenged through the prescribed appellate and revision procedures under the Act [Paras 14, 20].

Appellate Authority's Role – Section 80B Applications: The Supreme Court criticized the Appellate Authority for exceeding its jurisdiction by allowing the appeal under Section 80B of the Act without the proper determination of the appellants' status as Kudikidappukaran. The Court set aside the Appellate Authority's order as it was without jurisdiction and not in accordance with the law [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, which confirmed the eviction order and set aside the Appellate Authority's order under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the eviction and rejecting the claim of Kudikidappu rights [Paras 23].