Facts:

The first respondents granted prior permission for provisional affiliation to the appellant for a period of 3 years for imparting Education in the Arts Faculty.

The University did not grant permanent affiliation within the specified schedule, and no appeal was preferred by the appellant College.

The High Court held that it cannot issue a writ contrary to the judgment of the Court.

Issues:

Whether the University's failure to grant permanent affiliation within the specified schedule affects the appellant College's admission process.

Can the High Court issue a writ contrary to the judgment of the Court?

Held:

The Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal, upholding the University's decision not to grant permanent affiliation due to non-compliance with the specified schedule. The Court directed the University to consider the application for affiliation within four weeks. If granted, students admitted during the provisional affiliation period would be considered admitted for the academic session covered by the future affiliation.

Facts:

The DDA auctioned 'residential' land on an 'as is where is' basis for construction of houses.

The respondent-builder's bid was accepted, and the project land was allotted to them.

A development agreement was signed, placing the responsibility for various approvals and clearances, including environmental ones, on the builder.

Issues:

Obstacles arose due to objections by the Department of Forests, claiming the land fell within the Ridge.

Despite environmental clearance subject to DPCC's "consent to establish," DPCC refused due to the absence of a "ridge demarcation report."

Held:

The objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, raised by the DDA during the final hearing, was dismissed as it was raised too late.( Para 27)

The respondent-builder took all necessary steps for construction, but government agencies created an impasse, invoking Section 56 of the Contract Act, making the contract impossible of performance.( Para 32)

The term "impossible" in Section 56 does not imply physical impossibility but impracticability due to unforeseen circumstances. The DDA did not contemplate a prohibition on construction in the Ridge, leading to frustration of the contract.( Para 33 and 34)

The notification of the land as "Residential" did not change its legal position. The DDA was unaware of the need for permission from the Ridge Management Board and the Court due to morphological similarity.( Para 35)

The failure of the DDA to provide a clear passage due to unforeseen circumstances frustrated the contract's implementation.( Para 37)

Intervening circumstances made the contract impossible of performance under Section 56. The contract between DDA and the builder was frustrated.( Para 39)

DDA directed to refund the deposit made by the builder with 6% interest calculated from the date of deposit.( Para 40)

The question of whether DDA was the final authority in determining land use, particularly concerning the Ridge, was left open for consideration in an appropriate case.( Paras 41 and 42)

Facts:

The case involved the acquisition of land by GNIDA for planned industrial development.

The urgency clause was invoked, leading to objections by the landowners.

The respondents, original petitioners, challenged the acquisition through a writ petition, contesting the invocation of the urgency clause and wrongful possession claims.

Issues:

Whether the invocation of the urgency clause was justified.

Whether the landowners were entitled to relief, including the quashing of acquisition notifications.

Held:

The Division Bench, relying on the Full Bench judgment in Gajraj, held that while the invocation of the urgency clause was unjustified, the relief of quashing the acquisition was not granted due to substantial development on the acquired land.

The respondents were entitled to higher compensation (increased by 64.7%) and allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of the acquired land, in line with the principles established in Savitri Devi.

The Court distinguished cases where acquisition was quashed based on the extent of development on the acquired land.

The appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment. The writ petitions of the respondents should be disposed of in terms of the judgment in Savitri Devi.

Facts:

The respondent, Gram Panchayat of village Kalehri, filed a suit against the State of Haryana claiming ownership of a piece of land.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent.

The State of Haryana appealed, but both the first appellate court and the High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision.

The High Court, while dismissing the second appeal, held that there were no substantial questions of law to be determined.

Issues:

Ownership rights over the disputed land.

Proper interpretation of documents (exhibits) to prove ownership rights.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after hearing the appeal, disagreed with the High Court's decision and held that issues related to ownership rights and the interpretation of documents constitute substantial questions of law. The High Court's order was set aside, and the case was remanded for the second appeal to be decided afresh on its merits.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should admit the appeal, frame substantial questions of law, and decide the appeal finally on merits, considering the nature of the controversy and the issues involved. Additionally, the Court highlighted that Order 27, Rule 5B of the Civil Procedure Code requires the Court, in suits against the Government, to assist parties in arriving at a settlement.

In this case, no such endeavor was made, and the Court should have attempted settlement before deciding the case on merits. The High Court was requested to decide the second appeal finally on merits within six months, taking into account the issues raised and the observations made.

Facts:

The case involves a free fight between two sets of relatives, leading to the death of Zile Singh and injuries to others.

Appellant (Jagdish) was convicted by the Trial Court, and the High Court upheld the decision.

Issues:

The appellant challenged the conviction on various grounds, including the lack of evidence, improper appreciation of evidence, absence of blood stains at the spot, and alleged absence of the appellant from the scene.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized that it cannot appreciate the entire evidence de novo routinely when the conviction is based on concurrent findings of two courts.

The appellant's counsel's arguments were rejected, and the Court found no merit in the grounds raised for appeal.

Three eyewitnesses consistently testified about the incident, and the courts below were justified in accepting their evidence.

The appellant was found to be armed with a lathi and responsible for the death of Zile Singh.

The absence of blood stains at the spot was deemed insufficient to negate the occurrence of the incident.

The appeal was dismissed, and the bail granted earlier was canceled, directing the appellant to surrender before the Trial Court.

Facts:

Provide an overview of the case, including the murder of a young bride within six months of marriage, the gruesome disposal of the body, and the witnesses claiming to have seen one of the accused throwing the body in the park.

Issues:

The circumstantial evidence presented, the common intention of the accused, and the burden of proof in a murder case committed in secrecy within a house.

Held:

Outlines the principles for establishing circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused. Paragraphs 30 and 31 detail the specific circumstances proven against the appellants, including the homicidal nature of the death, the murder in the appellants' house, and the disposal of the body. The court concludes that the chain of circumstances against the appellants is complete.( Paragraph 18)

Discusses the burden of proof in cases of murder committed in secrecy inside a house, citing Section 106 of the Evidence Act. It emphasizes the lighter burden on the prosecution and the corresponding duty on the accused to provide a credible explanation. The accused's failure to explain the death within their knowledge adds to the chain of circumstances.( Paragraph 22)

Highlight the importance of the accused's false explanation, considering it an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The defense's version that the deceased went to her relative's place is contradicted by the established facts of the murder within the appellants' house.( Paragraphs 25, 26, and 29)

Decision: The appeals of the husband and father-in-law are dismissed, affirming their conviction based on the complete chain of circumstances and the false explanations provided by them.

Facts:

The suit involves a dispute between the landlord (appellant) and the tenant (respondent) over a property in Bharuch, Gujarat.

The appellant inherited the property through a will and sought eviction of the tenant based on non-payment of rent and personal need for residence.

The trial court passed a money decree and eviction order in favor of the landlord.

The appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court, dismissing the tenant's appeal.

The tenant filed a civil revision in the High Court, challenging the findings of the appellate court.

The High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for fresh consideration.

Issues:

Applicability of the Bombay Rents Act to the suit property.

Legality of findings on merits.

Justifiability of the High Court's decision to remand the case.

Held:

The High Court erred in remanding the case, as the appellate court had already examined all relevant issues, including the applicability of the Act, and rendered findings in favor of the landlord.

The High Court should have focused on the legality of the findings on merits instead of remanding the case.

The respondents were granted three months to vacate the property, provided they deposited the entire decreetal amount within one month. Failure to comply within the specified time would entitle the appellants to execute the eviction decree.

Facts:

Information received about Charas transportation in a jeep.

Search and seizure conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer.

Appellant, Mahiman Singh, arrested and convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.

Appellant challenged the conviction, citing lack of evidence and non-compliance with NDPS Act requirements.

Issues:

Sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction.

Compliance with NDPS Act requirements - Sections 42, 43, and 50.

Consideration of the accused's statement and an affidavit.

Held:

The two Courts below rightly held that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced was sufficient to warrant the appellant's conviction. Compliance with relevant sections of the NDPS Act was upheld, and the accused's statement and affidavit were not considered as evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Facts:

Appellant was awarded a contract in 1998 and completed the work in 2000.

Final payment was received on April 10, 2001.

Appellant claimed the payment covered only the undisputed part and raised disputed claims in a notice sent in 2005.

Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appellant's application under Section 11.

Issues:

Whether the claim raised by the appellant was a live claim or time-barred.

Jurisdiction of the Chief Justice in deciding preliminary aspects under Section 11.

Held:

The Chief Justice has the right to decide preliminary aspects, including the existence of a live claim, when deciding an application under Section 11.

The Chief Justice can reject an application only if the claim is evidently and patently time-barred without the need for detailed consideration of evidence.

The claim raised in 2005 was not evidently time-barred, and the Chief Justice should have left it for the decision of the arbitrator.

The appellant's assertion that the final payment covered only the undisputed part was supported by additional materials.

The order dismissing the application was set aside, and the case was remitted to the High Court for the appointment of an arbitrator.