Election Petition – Disqualification due to Office of Profit – The election petition challenged the validity of the respondent's election as the President of India on the ground that he held an office of profit at the time of nomination – The Supreme Court held that the offices held by the respondent were not offices of profit that would disqualify him from contesting the Presidential election – The Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with procedural requirements under the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, and relevant constitutional provisions [Paras 2-5, 7-8, 24].

Procedure for Election Petition – Compliance with Statutory Requirements – The Court highlighted that an election petition must comply with the mandatory procedural requirements specified in the statute – Non-compliance with these requirements is a valid ground for dismissal at the preliminary stage – The Court discussed the limited scope for invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in election petitions and the necessity of adherence to the specific provisions of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 [Paras 9-10, 20-23].

Office of Profit – Interpretation and Application – The Court examined the definition and scope of 'office of profit' under Article 58(2) and Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution – It concluded that the offices held by the respondent did not fall within the ambit of office of profit, thus not attracting disqualification – The Court reaffirmed the principle that statutory provisions must be interpreted in light of their legislative intent and purpose [Paras 28-33, 45-46].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Held – The election petition is dismissed as it does not disclose any valid ground for challenging the election of the respondent as the President of India – The offices held by the respondent are not offices of profit that would disqualify him under the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions – The respondent's election is upheld [Paras 47-50].

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Section 36 – Sanction for Sale of Trust Property – The case involved the sale of nine acres of agricultural land belonging to Shri Vyankatesh Mandir Trust – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision directing the Charity Commissioner to proceed with the advertised auction in favor of the highest bidder, emphasizing the interest of the trust [Paras 1-4].

High Court’s Jurisdiction – Overstepping Allegation – The High Court was said to have overstepped by directing the Charity Commissioner to accept the highest bid – However, the Supreme Court found the High Court's directions were in the trust's best interest and in line with Section 36 of the Act, mandating sales to benefit the trust [Paras 4-7].

Conduct of Petitioners and Trustees – Suppression of Facts – The petitioners failed to disclose the rejection of their first application for extension of time by the Joint Charity Commissioner, which had attained finality – The Supreme Court highlighted that suppression of material facts can lead to dismissal of the appeal [Paras 43-49].

Interest of the Trust – Maximizing Sale Price – The Supreme Court emphasized that the sale of trust property should secure the maximum possible price – Public auctions are preferred over private negotiations to prevent underhand dealings and ensure transparency [Paras 52-56].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Held – Special leave to appeal denied due to suppression of material facts – The High Court's direction to the Charity Commissioner to reconsider all bids, ensuring the maximum benefit to the trust, was upheld – The Charity Commissioner was directed to allow all parties to submit fresh offers, with a minimum sale price set at Rs. 3.87 crore – Costs of Rs. 15,000 imposed on the petitioners to be paid to the Charity Commissioner [Paras 59-61].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Conviction for Murder – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering the deceased due to suspicion of an illicit relationship with the appellant's wife – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs 2 and 3 credible and corroborated by other evidence including the recovery of the murder weapon [Paras 1-4, 9-10, 14].

Reliability of Witnesses – Interest Witnesses – The defense challenged the credibility of PWs 2 and 3, labeling them as interested witnesses – The Court found their testimonies trustworthy, noting that minor discrepancies and omissions do not undermine their reliability – The presence of the appellant at the crime scene was convincingly established [Paras 6, 9-11].

Motive and Evidence – The prosecution established the motive through testimonies of PWs 8 and 9, who confirmed the appellant's suspicion and threats towards the deceased – The Court noted that even in the absence of a clear motive, the direct evidence from eyewitnesses was sufficient to convict [Paras 12-14].

Delay in FIR – The defense argued that the delay in lodging the FIR weakened the prosecution’s case – The Court held that the delay was reasonably explained and did not affect the credibility of the prosecution's evidence – Reference was made to established legal principles that minor delays in rural settings do not necessarily indicate fabrication [Paras 15-17].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Held – The conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC are upheld – The prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed [Paras 18-19].

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 – Section 12B – Compensation Applications – The appellants filed compensation applications under Section 12B of the MRTP Act, which were dismissed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal on the ground that no separate proceedings under Sections 10 or 36B were initiated – Supreme Court held that Section 12B provides an independent remedy for compensation and does not require initiation of separate proceedings under Sections 10 or 36B [Paras 2-3, 10-12].

Statutory Interpretation – Independent Remedies – The Court emphasized that Section 12B was introduced as an independent remedy and is not dependent on proceedings under other sections of the MRTP Act – The provisions of Sections 10 and 36B are not interdependent with Section 12B – The MRTP Commission has the power to inquire into compensation claims independently under Section 12B [Paras 11-12].

Previous Judgments – The Court referred to its decision in Saurabh Prakash v. DLF Universal Ltd., which held that the power to award compensation under Section 12B is restricted to cases involving monopolistic, restrictive, or unfair trade practices – The Court clarified that this decision did not address the issue of interdependence of Sections 10, 36B, and 12B [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Held – The impugned orders of the Competition Appellate Tribunal are set aside – The appellants' compensation applications under Section 12B of the MRTP Act are maintainable without the need for separate proceedings under Sections 10 or 36B – The Tribunal to consider the compensation claims on their merits in accordance with the law [Paras 13].

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Divorce – The respondent-husband deposed about constant and consistent ill-treatment by the appellant-wife, leading to mental cruelty – Allegations of conspiracy for dowry and aspersions on the character of the husband and his family were made without evidence – Despite the allegations of desertion not being proved due to lack of specific pleadings, the decree for dissolution of marriage was affirmed on grounds of mental cruelty [Paras 2-10, 19-24, 29-30].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 65, 66 – Admissibility of Secondary Evidence – Secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible unless non-production of the original is accounted for under the section – Mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof – The foundational evidence must authenticate that the alleged copy is a true copy of the original – The High Court's view that secondary evidence was admissible due to non-production of the original by the appellant's father was not legally sound [Paras 11-18].

Permanent Alimony – Considerations and Determination – No arithmetic formula can be adopted for determining permanent alimony – It depends on the status of the parties, their social needs, financial capacity of the husband, and other obligations – The Court must ensure the wife lives with dignity and comfort, avoiding any man-made misfortune – Permanent alimony of Rs. 50 lakhs was awarded to the wife and minor son, with Rs. 20 lakhs kept in a fixed deposit for the son's benefit [Paras 31-34].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Held – Decree for dissolution of marriage affirmed only on the ground of mental cruelty – High Court's judgment upheld with modifications regarding permanent alimony – Costs to be borne by respective parties [Paras 30, 35].

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition – The appellant sought permission to file a special leave petition under Article 136 to assail the judgment and order of the High Court, which dismissed the government appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a criminal trial for offenses under Sections 363, 366, 328, 323, 506, 368, and 376(2)(g) IPC – The Supreme Court granted leave, emphasizing the necessity for reasoned judgments by the High Court [Paras 1-3].

Obligation of High Courts – Reasoned Judgments – The Supreme Court reiterated that High Courts must provide reasons for their decisions when disposing of criminal appeals – It is necessary for the High Courts to reflect due cogitation, application of mind, and proper consideration of facts – A mere reference to the trial court's judgment without independent analysis does not fulfill this obligation [Paras 8-19].

Precedents and Legal Principles – The Court referred to several judgments emphasizing the requirement for reasoned decisions, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jagdish Singh and Others, State of U.P. v. Haripal Singh and Another, and Narendra Nath Khaware v. Parasnath Khaware and Others – The Court highlighted that "reason" is the heartbeat of every conclusion and essential for the validity of a judgment [Paras 9-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – The judgment of the High Court dismissing the government appeal without providing reasons is set aside – The appeal is remitted to the High Court for re-hearing and disposal with a reasoned judgment – The High Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within four months from the date of receipt of this order [Paras 19-20].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 395, 396, 397 – Dacoity and Murder – The appellants were convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court under Sections 395, 396, and 397 IPC for committing dacoity and murder – Supreme Court found flaws in the trial court's reasoning and approach, particularly in awarding the death sentence – Emphasized the requirement for a meticulous examination of evidence and adherence to established legal principles for imposing death penalty [Paras 2-8, 12-14].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Recording of Accused's Statements – The Court noted procedural lapses in the recording of the accused's statements under Section 313 CrPC – Proper and fair recording of statements is essential for ensuring justice and upholding the rights of the accused [Paras 7-8].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Admissibility of Evidence – The Court discussed the admissibility and reliability of evidence, especially regarding the recovery of weapons and identification of the accused – Highlighted the importance of a proper identification parade and the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through improper means [Paras 23-25, 30-34].

"Rarest of Rare" Doctrine – Application and Principles – The Court reiterated the principles for applying the "rarest of rare" doctrine, emphasizing that death penalty should be imposed only in cases where the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed – Criticized the trial court for relying on extraneous factors and speeches by non-judicial persons in awarding the death sentence [Paras 15-22, 40-59].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – Conviction under Sections 395, 396, 397 IPC upheld, but the death sentence converted to life imprisonment – Directed the immediate release of A2 if not wanted in any other case – Stressed the need for adherence to legal principles and avoidance of extraneous influences in judicial decision-making [Paras 60].

Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters – Definition and Scope – The appeals focus on whether the Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) covers defaults in derivative transactions. The Supreme Court clarifies that the Master Circular is intended to cover all cases of wilful defaults involving payment obligations to banks, not limited to traditional lender-borrower relationships. The Circular's objective is to prevent further financial assistance to parties who have defaulted on payment obligations, including those arising from derivative transactions .

Context and Interpretation – The Court emphasized that statutory provisions and regulatory circulars must be interpreted in their entirety and context, taking into account the purpose and mischief they aim to address. The term "wilful default" in the Master Circular must be understood broadly to include defaults on derivative transactions, ensuring the integrity and stability of the financial system .

Confidentiality and Disclosure – The Court discussed the confidentiality provisions under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and the circumstances under which information regarding defaults can be disclosed. The Court upheld that banks are required to disclose default information to the RBI and other banks, ensuring compliance with regulatory standards and transparency .

Principle of Natural Justice – The Supreme Court highlighted the need for banks to adhere to principles of natural justice when classifying a party as a wilful defaulter. The banks must provide adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard to the parties involved before making such determinations .

Decision – Appeals allowed – Held – The interpretation of the Master Circular by the Calcutta High Court was incorrect, and the Bombay High Court's broader interpretation was upheld. The Master Circular applies to defaults under derivative transactions, and banks must ensure proper procedure and transparency in reporting wilful defaulters. The appeals are allowed, and the matters are remitted to the respective High Courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation .

Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 35 – Professional Misconduct – The complainant, Narain Pandey, filed a complaint against Pannalal Pandey, an advocate, alleging involvement in numerous false cases by forging documents, including settlement documents, without the knowledge of the parties in the Consolidation Court – The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (BCUP) found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct, and he was debarred from practice for seven years – The Bar Council of India (BCI) modified the punishment to reprimand and a fine of Rs. 1000, failing which suspension for six months – Supreme Court restored the findings of BCUP and modified the punishment to suspension from practice for three years [Paras 1-19].

Professional Misconduct – Importance of Integrity – The Supreme Court highlighted the significance of maintaining high ethical standards in the legal profession, stressing that misconduct by advocates must be dealt with strictly to uphold the dignity and integrity of the profession – The Court emphasized that leniency in cases of grave misconduct would compromise the administration of justice and public trust in the legal system [Paras 18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – The Supreme Court restored the findings of the Disciplinary Committee BCUP, confirming the serious professional misconduct by the respondent – The punishment awarded by the BCI was modified, and the respondent was suspended from practice for three years from the date of the judgment – Copies of the order to be sent to the Secretary of the State Bar Council Uttar Pradesh and the Secretary of the Bar Council of India [Paras 19-20].