Facts:

In Civil Appeal No. 7717 of 1994, a seniority list was issued under the Maharashtra Sales Tax Inspectors Recruitment Rules, 1971, for Sales Tax Inspectors (STIs) from direct recruits and promotees in the ratio of 60:40 as far as practicable.

Two direct recruits challenged this seniority list before the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), resulting in the list being quashed.

An SLP filed by promotees against this decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court, making the SAT judgment final.

A fresh seniority list was issued on 28.12.1992 and finalized on 29.10.1993. The promotees challenged this list before SAT, which dismissed the application on grounds of res judicata and constructive res judicata.

In Civil Appeal No. 6316 of 1997, the dispute concerned the seniority of STIs promoted from the Revenue Department and Sales Tax Department, with the post of STI being a selection post.

The High Court quashed the provisional seniority list, which included absorbed employees from the Revenue Department.

Issues:

Applicability of the principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata in the first case.

Seniority determination between direct recruits and promotees in the second case.

Suit filed in representative capacity and its impact on res judicata.

Held:

The expression "as far as practicable" in Rule 2 of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Inspectors Recruitment Rules, 1971, had already been construed by SAT in a previous application, making the contention of the promotees on res judicata invalid.

SAT's finding was not per incuriam and operated as res judicata.

The plea regarding the Rules not permitting carry forward of vacancies was barred by constructive res judicata.

A certificate dated 21.2.1992, not produced in the earlier case, could not be used in the present proceedings due to constructive res judicata.

SAT rightly dismissed the application on grounds of res judicata and constructive res judicata. Directions issued by SAT on merits were non est.

Absorbed employees from the Revenue Department were entitled to the benefit of service in their parent department but not to claim seniority over those already promoted.

The High Court rightly quashed the provisional seniority list.

Facts:

The appellant, Smt. G. Kaushalya Devi, was a tenant.

The respondent, Ghanshyamdas, filed an eviction petition against the appellant under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, citing reasons including willful default in rent payment and bona fide requirement for personal occupation for conducting business.

During the proceedings, the ground of securing alternative accommodation was not pursued.

The Rent Controller ruled in favor of eviction on both grounds.

The appellate authority affirmed the Rent Controller's findings.

The appellant filed a revision in the High Court under Section 22 of the Act.

The High Court, in its judgment, found no willful default in rent payment but agreed with the eviction on the ground of the landlord's bona fide requirement for personal occupation.

Issues:

Whether the eviction of the appellant based on the landlord's bona fide requirement for personal occupation was legally justified.

Whether the landlord's existing occupancy of another non-residential premises in the same city precluded him from seeking eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

Held:

The appellant argued that the respondent-landlord's occupation of another non-residential premises in the same city for conducting business made him ineligible to seek eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

The judgment referred to a similar provision in the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951, and the precedent of M. Padmanabha Setty Vs. K.P. Papiah Setty to interpret the phrase "entitled to possession" in the context of a landlord's right to seek eviction.

It was determined that the landlord's right to seek eviction was not restricted by the fact that he already occupied another non-residential premises.

The High Court's finding that the respondent required the suit premises for personal occupation for conducting business was upheld.

The appellant's contention that another shop had been purchased by the respondent's mother with a loan from the respondent was rejected by the High Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and granted the appellant time until October 31, 2000, to vacate the suit premises, provided she filed a usual undertaking within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Facts:

The case revolves around the murder of an individual, SD, allegedly carried out by members of two criminal gangs. The initial investigation was marred by dishonesty, and two accused individuals, A-4 and A-11, were arrested based on incomplete evidence. These accused were released on bail, and the trial could not proceed further. Subsequently, another police officer re-investigated the case and discovered that the acts were of a terrorist nature, falling under TADA. The trial court raised suspicions about the honesty of the first investigation.

Issues:

The admissibility of confessions under TADA.

The validity of the identification of the accused.

The conduct of the investigation, particularly the re-investigation.

Held:

The confessions recorded under TADA Act were held to be a substantive piece of evidence and admissible against the accused. The confessions of A-1 to A-6 were deemed voluntary and reliable and could be used as a basis for their conviction.

While the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) did diminish the evidentiary value of the identification of the accused in court, it was corroborated by other evidence (Para 2).

There were doubts about the honesty of the first investigation, but the subsequent investigation was not done with any oblique motive.

Decision: Partly allowing the appeals, the Court found A-1 guilty under s. 302 IPC and A-2 to A-6 guilty under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B and 149 IPC. A-1 to A-6 were also held guilty under s. 3(3) TADA Act. A-14 to A-17's involvement was not conclusively proved, and the case against them was not established.

Facts:

The case involved charges under the Kerala Abkari Act. The offenses in question were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions without examining any witnesses, despite a list of witnesses being available. Importantly, the accused did not raise any objections to the absence of witness examination during various stages of the trial, including the framing of charges, recording of prosecution evidence, and statements of the accused under Section 313. The objections regarding the non-examination of witnesses in the committal court were only raised during the final arguments.

Issues:

The nature of the inquiry under Section 202(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and whether it is discretionary or mandatory.

Whether the omission to examine witnesses in the committal court affects the validity of the proceedings.

The consequences of not raising objections about such omissions at earlier stages of the trial.

Held:

The judgment consists of two separate opinions on the nature of the proviso to Section 202(2):

Justice Shah's Opinion:

Justice Shah considered the proviso to Section 202(2) discretionary.

He believed that failure to follow the proviso did not vitiate the trial unless prejudice was caused to the accused.

Justice Thomas's Opinion:

Justice Thomas considered the proviso to Section 202(2) mandatory.

However, he stated that the omission itself would not vitiate the proceedings.

Any objections regarding this omission should be decided under Section 465 of the Code.

The judgment emphasized the limited nature of the inquiry under Section 202, which aims to determine whether there is a prima facie case against the accused. It also highlighted the obligation of the Magistrate to furnish certain documents to the accused under Section 208.

Importantly, the judgment noted that objections about such irregularities should be raised at an earlier stage. Failure to raise objections at the appropriate time might preclude the accused from raising them later.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the Sessions Court to complete the hearing and dispose of the case on its merits. The Court considered the limited impact of the non-examination of witnesses in the committal court and found that conducting a fresh inquiry under Section 202 was unnecessary in this case.

Facts:

The State Government issued a notification on April 30, 1992, notifying various commodities for the purpose of levying entry tax.

Entry 30 included "Glass sheets and all articles made of glass."

Entry 54 included "Plastic sheets, granules, and articles made from all kinds of and all forms of plastic, including articles made of polypropylene, polystyrene, and the like materials."

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes clarified that glass bangles and plastic bangles fell under Entry 30 and Entry 54, respectively, and were subject to entry tax at 2%.

Assessment orders were issued, and entry tax was demanded on bangles.

The appellants challenged these assessment orders in writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka.

Issues:

The validity of the imposition of entry tax on glass and plastic bangles under Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the 1992 notification.

The interpretation of the relevant sections of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, was also in question.

Held:

The identity of bangles as distinct from glass articles did not exempt them from entry tax. Bangles made of glass or plastic were considered articles made of glass or plastic, respectively, and were thus subject to entry tax under Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the notification.

The use of the word "and" in Entry 30 indicated the legislature's intention to levy tax both on glass sheets (raw materials) and finished products made of glass or articles made of glass.

The rule of construction "noscitur a sociis" did not apply to these entries as they were clear and unambiguous.

Decision:

The Supreme Court upheld the division bench's judgment, confirming that glass bangles and plastic bangles were subject to entry tax at 2% under Entry 30 and Entry 54 of the notification. The appeals to stand dismissed.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute over a property in Lokamaleswaram village with a building containing four sets of rooms originally constructed as shop rooms.

The Appellant and three other tenants filed applications for the purchase of kudikidappu rights under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

The Land Tribunal initially dismissed the applications, but the Appellant appealed to the Appellate Authority, which ruled in their favor.

The Respondent challenged this decision in the High Court, leading to a remand order that required further consideration of various factors, including the nature of the structure and its relationship to the building.

After the remand, the Appellate Authority again ruled in favor of the Appellant, granting them kudikidappu rights.

The Respondent then challenged this order in the High Court, which ultimately reversed the decision of the Appellate Authority, finding that the structure in question was not an independent unit but an appurtenant to the main building.

Issues:

The primary issues in the case included the interpretation of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, specifically Sections 2(25), 80A, and 80B.

Another issue was whether an order of remand from the Appellate Authority to the Land Tribunal could be challenged in revision before the High Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court clarified that an order of remand that disposes of an appeal is a "final order" for the purpose of revision, thus differing from the interpretation of the High Court.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision on the merits of the case, agreeing that the structure in question was not an independent unit, and therefore, the Appellant could not claim kudikidappu rights over it.

The Supreme Court also noted that its decision regarding the interpretation of "final order" would have prospective effect and would not affect cases that had already been concluded based on the Kerala High Court's previous interpretations.

Facts:

The plaintiff (appellant), who intended to open a showroom for motor-cycles and mopeds, filed an eviction suit under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

The trial court found that the plaintiff-landlord had a bona fide need for the premises for his business and that no suitable alternative shop was available in the city.

The lower appellate court upheld the trial court's findings.

In a second appeal, the High Court framed two substantial questions of law related to the defendant's admission of possessing other properties and the burden of proof for alternative accommodation.

The High Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts based on these questions.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to set aside the judgments of the lower courts was valid.

Whether the defendant-tenant's admission regarding possessing other properties was correctly interpreted by the High Court.

Whether the burden of proof for alternative accommodation was wrongly placed on the appellant (plaintiff-landlord).

Held:

The High Court erred in re-evaluating the evidence on record and overturning the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. (Para 7)

The issue of bona fide requirement is a question of fact to be determined based on the evidence presented, and it does not generally give rise to substantial questions of law. (Para 8)

The plaintiff had stated that his other properties were not vacant and that the suit premises were suitable for his business. The landlord is the best judge of their requirement for business purposes. (Para 10)

The High Court incorrectly framed substantial questions of law and failed to demonstrate that the lower courts did not consider relevant evidence or had an erroneous approach. (Para 11)

Facts:

Bhupendra Singh was apprehended on 17th February 1977, with detonators allegedly found in his possession. He was charged under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The core issue in this case was whether the consent for prosecution granted by the Additional District Magistrate was valid, given the delegation of powers.

Issues:

Whether the delegation of the power to grant consent for prosecution under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, was legally competent.

Whether the State Government's notification appointing the Additional District Magistrate to exercise the powers of the District Magistrate extended to the power of granting consent under Section 7.

Held:

The power of granting consent under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, unequivocally rests with the Central Government. The Central Government had previously delegated this power to the District Magistrate, but it is not within the State Government's competence to further delegate this power to the Additional District Magistrate.

Referring to the precedent in Hari Chand Aggarwal vs. Batala Engineering Co. Ltd., the Court emphasized that even if an Additional District Magistrate has been invested with all the powers of a District Magistrate under other laws, they are not automatically competent to exercise powers delegated by the Central Government, as in this case under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the consent for the prosecution of the respondent had not been properly obtained. Consequently, the proceedings against him were quashed.

Facts:

Madan Pal Singh worked as a daily wage laborer for NOIDA.

His services were terminated, leading him to raise an industrial dispute regarding the justification of his termination.

The reference to the Labour Court mistakenly mentioned the workman as "Madan Lal" instead of "Madan Pal Singh."

The Labour Court, upon hearing the case, concluded that there was no industrial dispute because there was no employee by the name of "Madan Lal" employed by NOIDA.

The State Government corrected the reference to the correct name, "Madan Pal Singh," after the Labour Court's decision.

The workman approached the Labour Court again, requesting a review of the case in light of the corrected reference.

The High Court dismissed the workman's writ petition, citing significant delays in the case.

Issues:

Whether the delay in correcting the reference and the mistaken identity of the workman warranted the dismissal of the workman's claims.

Whether equitable considerations should be taken into account to ensure that justice is not denied due to technicalities.

Held:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the Labour Court's award. It observed that there was no doubt about the workman's identity throughout the proceedings.

The delay in correcting the reference was not solely the workman's fault, and equitable considerations should be taken into account.

The matter was remanded to the Labour Court for adjudication of the industrial dispute between Madan Pal Singh and NOIDA.

The Labour Court was instructed to consider the evidence already recorded before the reference was amended and, if necessary, allow the parties to present further evidence.

Costs of Rs. 10,000 were imposed on the State Government for its delay in amending the reference, causing the appellant to suffer and incur expenses. The appeal is allowed.