Facts:

The appellant-Society had been operating Keshav Smriti School in Goa since 1994-95, starting as a middle school with the Vth standard and gradually obtaining permission to add higher standards. The appellant sought permission to open the VIIIth standard, which would convert the school into a secondary school. The request was denied based on the presence of three higher secondary schools within a 5 km radius, concerns of adverse competition, and a violation of Rule 31(3)(iii) of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986.

Issues:

Whether the request to start the VIIIth standard should be considered under Rule 31 or Rule 32.

Whether the denial of permission was justified.

Held:

The request to start the VIIIth standard, while technically an addition of a class, effectively converts the school into a secondary school. Therefore, the guidelines under Rule 31 apply since it constitutes the opening of a new school with a "Secondary Stage."

Rule 31 imposes more rigorous criteria for starting a new school, including overcrowding in existing schools, public interest, and access to schools due to natural barriers. The Director of Education did not consider all relevant factors in the decision, such as the school's role in serving lower-middle-class families or the admission policies of neighboring schools.

The court sets aside the Director's order and directs a fresh review of the application. The appellant is instructed to submit a fresh application, and the Director is required to pass a revised order, giving due regard to relevant factors, before the start of the new academic year.

The appeal is disposed of, with both parties bearing their own costs.

Facts:

The Customs Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted two passengers (P and I) at the airport. Substantial amounts of foreign currencies and traveling cheques were recovered from both individuals. Later, an individual identified as S was apprehended, and his statement implicated the petitioner-detenue (A. Sowkath Ali). S's statement detailed how the petitioner had concealed foreign currencies in chappals and condoms, attempting to smuggle them out of India through passengers P and I. The detenue was subsequently arrested based on his confessional statement, while he was already a remand prisoner.

The detention order against the petitioner-detenue under Sections 3(i) and (ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, was passed by the same detaining authority after a gap of 5 months. The grounds of detention referenced two co-accused individuals, and their confessional statements were exhaustively recorded in the grounds of detention. These grounds showed the link between the petitioner and the co-accused, and an adverse inference was drawn against the detenue based on their confessions.

Issues:

Whether the failure to place the retractions of co-accused's confessions before the detaining authority invalidates the detention order?

Is Section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, applicable in this case?

Held:

The court held as follows:

Failure to Place Retractions: It was determined that while it may not always be necessary to place all documents relevant to co-accused individuals in the proceedings of a detenue, if the sponsoring authority voluntarily places any document of another co-accused that reiterates in detail the confession made by them, then it is incumbent for the sponsoring authority to also place their retractions. In this case, the non-placement of the retractions, along with the confessional statements, affected the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Therefore, the detention order was vitiated by this omission.

Applicability of Section 5-A: Section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, applies when a detention order is based on more than one ground. However, in this case, the detention order was based on a single composite ground, rendering Section 5-A inapplicable.

Decision: The impugned detention order was found to suffer from patent illegality and was consequently quashed. The petitioner was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case.

Facts:

The appellant was a candidate in the Rajya Sabha elections for one seat from Goa in 1999.

Three candidates, including the appellant and the respondent, initially filed their nomination papers.

One of the candidates, Luis Alex Cardozo, withdrew from the contest after the acceptance of his nomination paper.

The election took place after Cardozo's withdrawal.

The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent, primarily on the grounds of corrupt practices.

Issues:

Does Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 apply to a candidate who allegedly commits a corrupt practice after withdrawing from his candidacy but before the election as a voter?

Held:

The court held that Section 82(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 applies to a candidate who allegedly commits a corrupt practice after withdrawing from his candidacy but before the election as a voter.

Decision: The High Court's decision to dismiss the election petition for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 82(b) was upheld by the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Facts:

The appellant filed a suit for recovery of a specific amount in the civil court in 1988. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant in 1994. In 1993, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act came into force. In 1994, a tribunal was set up in Jaipur with jurisdiction over claims, even those arising in the State of Punjab. In 1997, the appellant applied for the transfer of the execution proceedings from the civil court to the Debts Recovery Tribunal in Jaipur, and this application was initially allowed. The respondents filed a revision petition in the High Court challenging the transfer of the execution proceedings. The High Court, in its judgment in 1999, reversed the decision of the trial court and held that the execution proceedings could not be transferred, and only the civil court, which had passed the decree, had the authority to execute it. The appellant appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the execution proceedings, initiated in a civil court before the commencement of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, could be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court referred to a previous case (Allahabad Bank Vs. Canara Bank and Another) that had analyzed the provisions of the Act. The Court held that the word 'proceeding' in Section 31 of the Act includes an execution proceeding pending before a civil court before the Act came into force. Therefore, such proceedings should be transferred to the Tribunal under the Act.

The Court also noted that the definition of 'debt' in Section 2(g) of the Act includes any liability due to a bank and payable under a decree or order of a civil court. Therefore, the decretal amount qualifies as a debt under the Act.

The Court emphasized that the Act has provisions (Section 31A) to address the situation of decrees passed by civil courts before the Act's commencement, which have not been executed. This section empowers the Tribunal to issue certificates for recovery.

The Court clarified that even if the original decree amount was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, as soon as the amount due to the bank under the decree exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs, an application for execution must be entertained by the Tribunal and not the civil court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and held that the execution proceedings should be transferred to the Tribunal, as per the provisions of the Act. The Court also noted that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) would not apply due to the specific provisions of the Act.

Facts:

The appellant, Ram Niwas (now deceased), claimed to have entered into an agreement to purchase a shop from the vendor.

The shop was subsequently sold to the respondents (purchasers).

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement.

Issues:

Whether the alleged agreement (Ext. 1) is genuine and valid.

Whether the purchasers had notice of the alleged agreement when they acquired the property.

Whether specific performance of the contract should be granted as a discretionary remedy.

Held:

The validity of the alleged agreement (Ext. 1) needs to be reexamined, as it was not properly addressed by the courts.

The term "notice" rather than "knowledge" should have been used, and the purchasers may be deemed to have notice if Ext. 1 is found to be true and valid.

The question of whether specific performance of the contract should be granted as a discretionary remedy needs to be reconsidered after determining the validity of the agreement.

Decision: The Supreme Court sets aside the previous judgments and remands the case to the Single Judge for a fresh decision on:

The validity of the alleged agreement (Ext. 1).

The applicability of discretionary relief under Section 20(2) of the Specific Relief Act.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between the State of Maharashtra and the respondent, Santosh Shankar Acharya, concerning a preventive detention order issued under the Maharashtra Act. The orders of detention were issued by officers authorized under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Act, and the detenues were not informed about their right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority during the period before the State Government's approval.

Issues:

Whether non-communication of the right to make a representation to the detenue constitutes a violation of their constitutional rights under Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution.

Whether the Detaining Authority retains the power to entertain a representation and amend, vary, or rescind the detention order until it is approved by the State Government.

The applicability of the Constitution Bench decision in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel vs. Union of India (1996) to the case at hand.

Held:

The court's holding and decision are summarized as follows:

Non-communication of the detenue's right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority, as long as the order has not been approved by the State Government, violates their constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution.

The Detaining Authority retains the power to entertain a representation from the detenue and amend, vary, or rescind the detention order until it is approved by the State Government, as provided under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Act and Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act.

The Constitution Bench decision in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel vs. Union of India (1996) applies to the case, supporting the court's interpretation of the law.

Facts:

The appellant was charged with multiple offenses, including the murder of four family members and causing injuries to others. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to death under Section 302 IPC. The case was sent to the High Court for confirmation of the sentence. The appellant appealed against the trial court's decision, and both the Criminal Death Reference and Criminal Appeal were disposed of by the High Court, which confirmed the conviction and sentence.

Issues:

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented in the case was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Whether there were any mitigating circumstances that could justify a lesser sentence.

Whether the case fell under the category of "rarest of rare cases" warranting the death penalty.

Held:

The judgment emphasizes that in appeals under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court generally does not re-open concurrent findings of fact related to the appreciation of evidence.

The trial court and the High Court found a chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the appellant, including his false statements and actions at the crime scene. The Supreme Court upholds the conviction of the appellant, as there was no good ground to deviate from the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the evidence.

The appellant's age at the time of the crime and the absence of evidence suggesting mental abnormalities were considered as factors against mitigating the punishment.

The judgment discusses the principles governing the imposition of the death penalty, including the concept of "rarest of rare cases." It cites precedents that support the death penalty for pre-planned, cold-blooded murders involving extreme cruelty.

The appellant's actions in committing a heinous crime after premeditation and the extreme brutality involved in the murders are emphasized as aggravating circumstances.

The Supreme Court concludes that this case is an exceptional one that warrants the imposition of the maximum penalty, which is the death penalty, considering the shocking and heinous nature of the crime and the danger the appellant poses to society.

Decision: The appellant's appeal is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court are upheld.

Facts:

The respondents asserted that they were hereditary trustees of the Sri Sidha Baladev Jew institution in Puri, Odisha, having served as marfatdars (servants) responsible for deity seva-puja for an extended period. They argued that their trusteeship was based on custom and inheritance from their ancestors.

Issues:

Whether the respondents could be recognized as hereditary trustees under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act.

The applicability of the doctrine of "lost grant" in establishing hereditary trusteeship.

The burden of proof in establishing hereditary trusteeship.

Held:

In the judgment, the following key paragraphs (para) are relevant:

The definition of "hereditary trustee" under the Act was discussed. It requires succession to the office of trustee by hereditary right since the time of the founder, regulated by custom, or specifically provided for by the founder. The claimants must demonstrate this lineage.

The Court emphasized that merely being in charge of the administration of the deity, even as a trustee, does not automatically confer hereditary trusteeship. The focus should be on whether respondents met the Act's criteria for hereditary trustees.

The Court rejected the High Court's application of the "lost grant" doctrine, as it cannot be presumed in favor of persons claiming trusteeship in succession.

The Court held that the respondents failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish their claim as hereditary trustees under the Act.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Assistant Commissioner's decision, which had rejected the respondents' claim.

Facts:

Dispute arose from a contract between Kamal Pushp Enterprises (the appellant) and D.R. Construction Company (the respondent).

Appellant initiated arbitration proceedings, and an arbitrator was appointed.

Appellant objected based on Section 69 of the Partnership Act, claiming that unregistered firms couldn't enforce rights arising from contracts.

The primary issue was whether Section 69 applied to arbitration proceedings, especially when initiated by the appellant, an unregistered firm.

Issues:

Whether Section 69 of the Partnership Act, which pertains to the registration of partnership firms, applies to arbitration proceedings.

Whether Section 69 affects the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

Whether post-arbitration proceedings, like the enforcement of an arbitration award through a court decree, constitute "other proceedings" under Section 69.

Held:

The prohibition in Section 69 of the Partnership Act does not apply to arbitration proceedings. It specifically relates to instituting legal proceedings in court by unregistered firms for enforcing contract-related rights.

Section 69 does not undermine the authority and competency of an arbitrator or the legal efficacy of an arbitration award. It is confined to court proceedings initiated by unregistered firms.

Previous judgments, including Jagdish Chander Gupta vs. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd., M/s. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property, and M/s. Haldiram Bhujiawala vs. M/s. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar, support this interpretation.

The arbitration agreement between the parties was in writing, and the arbitration reference was made with the respondent's consent. Thus, the objection based on Section 69 did not affect the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

Post-arbitration proceedings, such as enforcing an arbitration award through a court decree, do not constitute "other proceedings" under Section 69 of the Partnership Act.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower courts, which correctly ruled on the preliminary issue related to the applicability of Section 69. Parties were allowed to raise other objections and contentions in the pending proceedings before the trial court.