Facts:

The appellant, M/S Anjaneya Jewellery, filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Commission dismissed the complaint in limine without issuing notice to the respondent.

Issues:

• Whether the Commission was justified in dismissing the appellant's complaint in limine.

• Interpretation of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Held:

The Division Bench opined that the complaint deserved admission for its disposal on merits after giving notice to the respondents. The jurisdiction to dismiss a complaint in limine exists but must be exercised considering the facts of each case. The amendment in Section 13 allows such dismissal, but it should be appropriate.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant's complaint was admitted under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondents were granted one month to file their reply.

Facts:

The appellant claims an ad hoc appointment as a Lecturer in a Post Graduate College affiliated with Gorakhpur University. The appointment, dated 02.08.1991, was allegedly based on the recommendations of a Selection Committee. Dispute arose when the appellant's salary payments were discontinued due to a management dispute.

Issues:

Validity of the appellant's ad hoc appointment.

Dispute over salary payments.

Alleged procedural irregularities in the appointment process.

Held:

The High Court dismissed the writ petition without proper consideration of the facts and pleadings. The appellant argued that certain paragraphs in the counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit referred to by the High Court were not present in the actual documents.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and ordered a fresh consideration based on the pleadings in the record. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the appellant's claim.

Facts:

The original suit involved a challenge to a sale deed dated 23.03.1985, executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendant No. 2.

The original plaintiff passed away, and legal representatives were impleaded.

Subsequent developments included the sale of the suit property to third parties, transposition of parties, and renumbering of the suit.

Issues:

The original plaintiffs sought permission to withdraw the suit after reaching a settlement with defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, originally transposed as defendants, filed objections to the withdrawal and sought transposition as plaintiffs.

Held:

The Court emphasized the wide powers under Rule 1-A of Order XXIII and Rule 10 of Order I CPC for effectual adjudication of all matters in controversy in the suit.

The Court observed that the basic requirement is to examine if the plaintiff seeks to withdraw, and the defendant seeking transposition has an interest in the subject matter with a substantial question to be adjudicated.

Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 were rightly allowed to be transposed as plaintiffs to continue with the suit against defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

The Court justified the decision by noting the common interest of the existing plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 3 to 6 against defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

The right of defendant No. 3 (plaintiff No. 5 earlier) to challenge the sale deed remained unaffected by his transposition as a defendant.

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that the accused committed dacoity with murder and rape. The case relied heavily on the deposition of two eyewitnesses, PW1 and PW8, and the identification of the accused in TI parades and court. The accused were initially sentenced to death, but the High Court altered the sentence for some and acquitted others.

Issues:

The reliability of witness statements, identification procedures, delays in investigations, and the fairness of the trial. The court also addressed the suppression of material facts by the investigating agency and the prosecution.

Held:

Identification and Witness Statements (Para 9.3-9.11): The court expressed serious doubts regarding the identification of the accused by PW1 and PW8 in TI parades and court. Major omissions and contradictions in their statements raised reasonable doubt about their trustworthiness. The court found flaws in the identification process and concluded it unsafe to convict solely based on these identifications.

Fair Investigation (Para 10-10.2): The judgment emphasized the importance of fair and truthful investigations for a just trial. It condemned the deliberate suppression of material facts by the investigating agency, noting that such lapses violated fundamental rights under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution.

Further Investigation (Para 9.12, 11, 11.1, 15): The court highlighted the failure to investigate four persons identified by PW8 immediately after the incident. It directed the prosecution to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC regarding these individuals.

Acquittal and Compensation (Para 12, 15, 16): Due to the lapses in the investigation and unfair trial, the court acquitted all accused. Acknowledging their prolonged imprisonment and the stress of facing death penalty, the court, under Article 142, directed the State of Maharashtra to compensate each accused with Rs. 5,00,000.

Action Against Erring Officers (Para 15): The Chief Secretary, Home Department, State of Maharashtra, was tasked with identifying and taking departmental action against officers responsible for the failure of the prosecution case.

Facts:

Assessee is a Co-operative Society engaged in sugarcane production and sales.

Dispute arose over the excess sugarcane purchase price paid to members/non-members, violating Control Order, 1966.

Assessing Officer disallowed the excess as sharing profit; Assessee contended it's a legitimate business expense.

Issues:

Whether excess sugarcane purchase price is sharing of profit?

Applicability of Section 40A(2) on excessive payments.

Held:

Excess price determined under Clause 5A is profit-sharing; must be considered as income under Section 37.

Section 40A(2) applies to unreasonable payments beyond statutory rates.

Decision: The excess sugarcane purchase price over statutory rates shall be treated as profit distribution and included in the income of the assessee. Applicability of Section 40A(2) for unreasonable payments affirmed.

Facts:

An altercation ensued between the parties. Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 left the scene but returned after 10 minutes armed with a deadly weapon, a knife with a 15.5 cm blade. The victim was subsequently stabbed to death. Accused No. 1 stabbed the victim, while Accused No. 2 held the victim's neck.

Issues:

The appeal by Accused No. 2 challenges the High Court's conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, arguing a lack of evidence for pre-planned murder.

Held:

The accused, after the initial incident, returned with a deadly weapon, demonstrating clear intention. The post-mortem confirmed that the inflicted injury was sufficient to cause death. Accused No. 1's conviction under Section 302 was upheld, and there was no reason to differ with the High Court's view that both accused were liable for conviction under Section 302.

The appellant contended that there could be no conviction under Section 34, citing a lack of evidence for pre-planned murder. However, all three eye-witnesses confirmed that Accused No. 2 held the neck of the victim, supporting the finding of common intention.

Examining the evidence, the common intention of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 was fully established. After an altercation, they returned armed, indicating a meeting of minds. Accused No. 2 held the victim's neck while Accused No. 1 stabbed him, confirming their common intention. The High Court's conviction of Accused No. 2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 was deemed appropriate.

Decision: The appeals by the accused were dismissed by the court.

Facts:

Search and seizure operation on appellants (assessee) in 1994.

Settlement applications filed during assessment proceedings.

Settlement Commission passed an order in 2000, making additions and waiving certain interest.

Rectification applications filed by both appellants and revenue.

Settlement Commission dismissed appellants' applications and partly allowed the revenue's application in 2002.

High Court allowed appellants' petitions in 2014, setting aside the Settlement Commission's order.

Revenue filed petitions against the order questioning its legality.

Issues:

Jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to reduce or waive interest.

Applicability of Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C to Settlement Commission proceedings.

Terminal point for the levy of interest under Section 234B.

Settlement Commission's power to reopen concluded proceedings under Section 154.

Held:

The Settlement Commission does not have the power to reduce or waive interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, except as per circulars issued by the Board.

Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C are applicable to Settlement Commission proceedings, and the terminal point for the levy of interest under Section 234B is up to the date of the order under Section 245D(1).

The Settlement Commission cannot reopen concluded proceedings by invoking Section 154, particularly in view of Section 245I.

High Court committed a jurisdictional error in adopting directions from the already set aside order of the Settlement Commission.

The matter is remanded to the Settlement Commission to decide the issue of waiver of interest afresh, considering the scope and extent of its powers as laid down in previous decisions.

Facts:

The applicants approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT) contending that ecologically sensitive land allotted for a Software Technology Park by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) was causing environmental concerns. Allegations included encroachment on Rajakaluves (Storm Water Drains) and obtaining No Objection Certificates (NOC) by concealing material facts. The Tribunal constituted a committee to inspect the projects and imposed penalties on the project proponents.

Issues:

Maintainability of the application under Sections 14(1) and 14(3) of the National Green Tribunal Act.

Whether the application is barred by limitation.

The scope of appeal under Section 22 of the NGT Act.

Held:

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal (Para 39-46): The NGT Act provides jurisdiction under Sections 14, 15, and 16. Section 14 covers civil cases with substantial environmental questions arising from specified enactments. Section 15(1)(c) provides independent jurisdiction for restorative measures in environmental matters. The Tribunal's broad powers under Section 15(1)(c) are crucial for environmental protection. The legislative intent favors a broader interpretation to serve environmental interests.

Limitation (Para 47-48): The application was filed under Section 15, not Section 14, allowing a 5-year limitation period. The Tribunal rightly had jurisdiction, and the limitation was validly within this period. Section 18 recognizes the right to file applications under both Sections 14 and 15.

Factual Review and Scope of Appeal (Para 49-53): Section 22 allows an appeal on substantial questions of law as per Section 100 of the CPC. However, the appellants sought a factual review, impermissible under Section 22. The Tribunal's findings were based on documents, pleadings, Committee reports, and Expert Members' notes, making the directions and penalties valid and sustainable.

Facts:

The prosecution presented a compelling case supported by evidence, including eyewitness accounts, an independent witness, and an extra-judicial confession. The accused, Khushwinder Singh, was implicated in the kidnapping, drugging, and drowning of six individuals in a canal.

Issues:

The credibility of witnesses, the accused's last sighting with the victims, recoveries from the accused's house, and the establishment of motive.

Held:

The prosecution successfully proved its case through reliable witnesses, including an eyewitness (PW-5), an independent witness (PW-14), and the witness to whom the accused confessed (PW-9).

The accused was last seen with three of the deceased, as testified by PW-5 and corroborated by PW-8.

Minor discrepancies were deemed insignificant, and the overall trustworthiness of the witnesses was upheld.

Recoveries, including cash, ornaments, and keys from the accused's house, substantiated the motive for the murders.

The prosecution established the recovery of drugs and the accused's role in administering them to the victims.

The trial court and High Court's findings were deemed neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence, affirming the accused's conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Decision: The court upheld the death sentence imposed on the accused, considering the extreme brutality and planning involved in the murders. The "rarest of rare case" doctrine was applied, and the balance of aggravating circumstances favored capital punishment.