Criminal Appeal – Conviction and Sentencing – Accused challenging conviction under IPC sections 302, 120B, 34 and 307 – Dispute over possession of land resulting in a violent incident – Two deceased individuals – Three injured eye-witnesses – Discrepancies in testimonies regarding the locations of the attacks – High Court acquitting some accused but convicting the appellants – Accused appealing against the conviction – Appellants’ argument regarding reliance on testimonies of injured eye-witnesses – Applicability of “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” principle discussed and rejected – Appellants’ appeal dismissed, and bail bonds, if any, cancelled. [Para 1-8]

Civil Appeal – Partition of coparcenary property – Plaintiff claiming a share in a property through a partition – Property originally owned by the plaintiff’s grandfather – Plaintiff contending to be a coparcener under Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act – Partial partition deed Exhibit-A3 – Plaintiff accepting a portion of the property as hers – Whether the plaint schedule property retained the character of coparcenary as of 25.03.1989 and is available for partition – High Court dismissing the suit – Special leave granted to appeal.

Coparcenary Status – Plaintiff’s claim based on Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act – Whether plaintiff’s status as a coparcener is enough to claim partition – Burden on plaintiff to prove the continued coparcenary character of the property – Plaintiff failing to demonstrate that the property remained coparcenary.

Validity of Partition – Plaintiff accepting a portion of the property through partial partition deed Exhibit-A3 – Description of property in Exhibit-A3 showing it as belonging to other parties – Plaintiff unable to displace the presumption that Defendants 1 and 2 obtained exclusive ownership of the property – Plaintiff failing to provide evidence to support the claim of continued coparcenary.

Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – Plaintiff failed to prove that the plaint schedule property retained coparcenary status.

Civil Appeal – Compensation for Land Acquisition – Appellants challenging the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court – Lands acquired for the Vadodara Branch Canal of Narmada Project – Reduction of compensation by High Court – Equal treatment principle – Appeal filed by the affected landowners – Special leave granted. [Para 1]

Compensation – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Appellants' lands acquired for the project – Dispute over compensation – Reference sought under section 18 of the Act – Reference Court enhanced compensation – Reference Court relying on an earlier award – High Court reducing compensation based on another case – Appellate Court’s reliance on irrelevant factors – Error in determining compensation. [Para 4-5]

Equal Treatment – Other affected landowners of the same village awarded higher compensation – Acceptance of compensation without appeal by State – Principle of equal treatment – Upholding social and economic justice – Appellants entitled to equal treatment as others – Setting aside High Court's order. [Para 6-8]

Restoration of Award – Setting aside the High Court’s judgment and order – Restoration of Reference Court’s judgment and award – Calculation of compensation based on the Reference Court’s determination – Interest on the unpaid amount – Timeframe for releasing the compensation. [Para 9]

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Reference Court's judgment and award restored – Appellants entitled to compensation as determined by Reference Court – Release of compensation with interest within a specified timeframe. [Para 10]

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Acquisition of lands for a project – Appeals by landowners challenging the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court – Compensation awarded by the Reference Court enhanced by High Court, and then reduced – Issue of reliance on previous acquisitions for determining compensation – Appellants’ lands acquired for Vadodara Branch Canal of Narmada Project – Reference Court relying on an award from a different acquisition – High Court reducing compensation based on another case – Distinction between acquisitions based on section 4 notifications – Appellants seeking equal treatment as other affected landowners – Confirmation of State accepting another award without appeal – Principle of social and economic justice – Impugned judgment set aside – Reference Court’s award restored – Appellants entitled to compensation with interest – Appeals allowed. [Para 1-10]

Criminal Appeal – Detention under Preventive Laws – Activities of Detenu under Prohibition Act – Distinction between "Law and Order" and "Public Order" – Objective Test of Intrinsic Quality and Potentiality – Scope of Section 2(b) of Act 1986 – Adverse Effect on Public Order – Legal Fiction – Appellant Challenging Detention Order – High Court Dismissed Writ Petition – Appeal before Supreme Court – Issue of Public Order Determination – Prejudicial Activities affecting Maintenance of Public Order – Law laid down on Subject – Evaluation of Appellant's Contentions – Sustenance of Impugned Judgment – Appellant's Appeal Dismissed.

Public Order vs. Law and Order – Distinction in Context of Detention – Pervasive Impact of Act upon Society – Gravity and Potentiality of Act – Effect on Community Life – Overlapping Nature of Concepts – Even Tempo of Community Life – Disturbance Test – Potentiality of Disturbance to Public Order – Prejudicial Impact on Public Order – Objective and Contextual Analysis – Acts Affecting Few Individuals vs. Wide Spectrum of Public – Connection with Maintenance of Public Order – Determinative Factors for Classification. [Para 58-63]

Preventive Detention – Grounds of Detention under Prohibition Act – Mere Registration of Cases Not Necessarily Prejudicial – Differentiating Factors – Activities Impacting Public Health – Dangerous Liquor – Provisions of Act 1986 – Determining Adverse Effect on Public Order – Legislative Intent of Explanation to Section 2(a) – Fall-Out of Activity as Criteria – Effective Representation and Disclosure of Material – Distinction between Law and Order and Public Order Pertaining to Liquor Offenses – Relevance of Chemical Examiner's Report – Analysis of Detention Grounds. [Para 64-68]

Case Precedents – Application of Legal Principles – Relevance of Previous Judgments – Applicability of Rulings in Similar Cases – Judicial Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – Consistency in Decision-Making – Reference to Past Cases for Establishing Legal Principles – Relevance of Prohibition Act Cases – Distinguishing Between Bootlegging and Public Order Impact – Legal Fiction Explained – Contextual Analysis for Adverse Effect on Public Order – Importance of Material Facts. [Para 69-70]

Subjective Satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Role of Courts – Judicial Review of Detention – Limitation on Objective Analysis – Sufficiency of Material for Detention – Evaluation of Detaining Authority's Satisfaction – Detention Based on Cogent Material – Subjective vs. Objective Factors – Preventive Laws and Detention Orders – Determining Adequacy of Material – Courts' Role in Reviewing Detention Orders – Error of Law Analysis. [Para 71-72]

Disposition – Appeal Dismissed – Validity of Impugned Judgment – No Error of Law Found – Detention Order Sustained – Determination of Prejudicial Activities on Public Order Upheld – Appellant's Challenge Rejected. [Para 73]

Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3543 of 2019 – Appellant: Y.P. Lele – Respondents: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Others – Appellant aggrieved by the Bombay High Court’s judgment dated 27.06.2018 in Civil Writ Petition No. 1488 of 2015 – Order passed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC setting aside an ex parte decree challenged – Special leave granted. [Para 1]

Facts: Appellant was defendant no. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 125 of 1988 – Suit filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Board for recovery of Rs. 1,42,85,177.47/- against defendant nos. 1 to 6 – Defendants appeared, counsel for defendant withdrew Vakalatnama – Suit proceeded under Order XVII Rule 2 CPC – Suit decreed ex parte with costs – Defendants applied for setting aside ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Trial Court allowed the application, High Court set aside the order – Appellant’s appeal challenges the High Court’s order. [Para 2-8]

Issues: Applicability of Order XVII Rule 2 CPC and explanation thereto – Validity of setting aside ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Proper interpretation of relevant rules. [Para 17-18]

Observations: The Trial Court decreed the suit ex parte after plaintiff’s evidence was concluded, and defendant failed to appear – Explanation to Order XVII Rule 2 CPC applies only to a party which has led evidence or substantial evidence and has failed to appear – In this case, the defendant had not led any evidence, making the explanation inapplicable – High Court erred in applying the explanation to hold that Order IX Rule 13 CPC application was not maintainable. [Para 19-21]

Decision: High Court’s order set aside – Trial Court directed to proceed with the suit on its merits, affording due opportunities to both parties – Amount deposited by appellant to be adjusted: 20% retained by Trial Court and deposited in Fixed Deposit, 30% returned to appellant – No order as to costs. [Para 22-24]

Civil Appeal – Validity of Election Petition – Relief sought for re-counting of votes without seeking the specific reliefs as prescribed by the Rules – Appellant aggrieved by the Division Bench’s decision setting aside Single Bench’s order – Examination of legality and maintainability of the Election Petition under Section 122 and the Rules of 1995. [Para 1]

Election Procedure – Election of Gram Panchayat – Dispute over election result – Election Petition filed for re-counting of votes – Question of whether Election Petition seeking only re-counting of votes is maintainable under the prescribed procedure – Analysis of provisions under Section 122 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995. [Para 3, 4, 5, 6]

Rule Interpretation – Strict construction of election law – Necessity of adhering to the prescribed procedure as per the Rules of 1995 – Principle that when a statutory remedy is provided, it must be strictly followed – Emphasis on the requirement to seek specific reliefs as contemplated in Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995 in the Election Petition. [Para 10, 15]

Reliefs in Election Petition – Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995 – Requirement of seeking specific declarations in the Election Petition – Importance of adhering to the prescribed forms of relief in accordance with the statute – Inadequacy of seeking relief solely for re-counting of votes without complying with the specified procedure. [Para 7, 8, 11, 12, 14]

Precedent – Sohan Lal vs. Babu Gandhi and Others – Interpretation of election law – Validity of re-counting of votes as a remedy – Examination of previous case law and its applicability to the present case – Clarification of the scope of re-counting in the context of election petitions. [Para 10]

Decision – Election Petition seeking only re-counting of votes, without seeking the specific reliefs as prescribed by Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995, held to be not maintainable – Division Bench’s decision affirmed – Appeal dismissed. [Para 16, 17]

Tax Dispute – Classification of service tax – Appeals arising from service tax demands – Four Show Cause Notices issued – Adjudication challenged before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) – CESTAT passes remand order – Commissioner re-adjudicates based on remand order – Classification, liability, and valuation issues considered – Appeals filed by both Revenue and assessee.

Classification of Services – Software and Hardware – Correct classification determined for the services rendered by the assessee – “Intellectual Property Service” classification till 16^th May 2008, and “Information Technology Software” classification thereafter – Correct interpretation of Section 65(53a) of the Finance Act – Adjudication based on erroneous classification in the show cause notice deemed illegal – Assessee cannot be penalized based on incorrect categorization. [Para 9]

Exemption under SEZ Act – Eligibility – Exemption available under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Special Economic Zones Act (SEZ Act) – Services supplied to SEZ units subject to exemption terms – CESTAT correctly rules that exemption must be claimed as provided by SEZ Rules – Appellant has opportunity to prove eligibility for exemption under the specified provision – Ruling on octroi charges and evidence production upheld. [Para 10, 12]

Both Civil Appeal No. 4007 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 7155 of 2019 dismissed with no order as to costs – Correct classification of services determined – Opportunity granted to prove exemption eligibility under SEZ Act provision – Octroi charges ruling upheld – CESTAT findings maintained in most aspects. [Para 17]

Criminal Appeal – Enlargement on Bail – Grant of bail to the petitioner – Petitioner seeks bail in connection with FIR No.285/2021 registered at Police Station Kho-Nagoriya, Jaipur City – Allegations of Section 498-A and 304-B IPC – Deceased's unnatural death within seven months of marriage – FIR by parents alleging mental torture and dowry demand – Petitioner claims deceased's suicide, relying on FSL report – High Court initially granted bail, later set aside by Supreme Court – Trial commenced, witnesses examined – 19 out of 30 witnesses examined – Petitioner in custody for around 15 months – Grant of bail considered due to substantial examination of vital witnesses. [Para 1-6]

Bail Jurisprudence – Consideration for granting bail – Importance of completing trial expeditiously – Possibility of harassment to certain witnesses – Bail granted to petitioner on furnishing bail bonds – Direction for petitioner to stay outside Jaipur City except for court appearances – Trial Court directed to expedite trial – Special leave petition disposed of accordingly. [Para 7-11]

Conclusion – Special leave petition for bail disposed of – Bail granted to petitioner subject to conditions – Emphasis on expeditious trial and protection of witnesses – Pending applications also disposed of. [Para 12]