Facts:

The appellant was injured in a tractor accident due to rash and negligent driving.

He filed a claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Evidence was presented regarding the circumstances of the accident and the extent of the appellant's injuries.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's travel in the tractor breached policy terms.

Determination of just and proper compensation for the appellant's injuries.

Held:

The High Court found that the appellant traveled in the tractor in breach of policy conditions.

The insurance company was directed to pay compensation to the appellant but with the liberty to recover it from the tractor owner.

The compensation amount determined by the tribunal and upheld by the High Court was deemed just and proper.

The tribunal's assessment of permanent disability at 60% was upheld as reasonable.

The appellant's claim for enhancement of compensation was rejected.

The appeals were partly allowed, directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with the liberty to recover it from the tractor owner.

Facts:The appellant was intercepted by a raiding party while walking on the road. A search revealed the possession of 1.5 kgs of charas and Rs. 2,400/- cash. The appellant challenged his conviction, alleging non-compliance with sections 42 and 50 of the Act.

Issues:

Whether the provisions of section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were applicable to the circumstances of the case.

Whether there was compliance with the requirements of section 50(1) regarding the search of the appellant.

Held:

The court held that section 42, including recording of information received by the empowered officer, is not mandatory when the offence under the Act was not committed in a building, conveyance, or an enclosed place. In this case, the interception occurred in a public place, rendering section 42 inapplicable.

Section 43 applies to situations where the seizure and arrest take place in a public place, including places accessible to the public. The court found that the location of the interception fell within the definition of a "public place" under section 43.

Compliance with section 50(1) regarding search of a person by the empowered officer is mandatory. Since the search conducted by PW-2 involved the appellant's person, section 50 applied. Both PW-2 and PW-4 informed the appellant of his right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate.

The option given to the appellant to search PW-2 before conducting his own search did not vitiate the process. The search was conducted in the presence of PW-4, a gazetted officer, in compliance with section 50(1).

Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction of the appellant. It held that there was strict compliance with the legal requirements regarding search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Facts:

The appellant, Smt. Kavita, challenged a no-confidence motion notice issued against her under Section 15 of The U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 ("the Act").

The notice was issued by the Collector/District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, U.P., based on a requisition by 32 members out of 59 members of the Kshettra Panchayat, expressing no confidence against her, who was the Block Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Lakhawati at the relevant time.

The appellant raised two grounds: first, that the Collector failed to hold an inquiry into the validity of signatures of 10 members who alleged their signatures were obtained by fraud, and second, that there was no clear 15-day notice as required under Section 15(3) of the Act.

Issues:

Whether the notice fulfilled the essential requirements of a valid notice under Section 15 of the Act.

Whether the Collector was required to hold an inquiry into the validity of signatures of 10 members who alleged fraud.

Held:

The Court upheld the decision of the High Court, dismissing the appeal. It emphasized that the Collector's jurisdiction under Section 15(3) of the Act is limited to determining whether the notice fulfills the essential requirements of a valid notice and cannot extend to detailed inquiries into the validity of signatures. The Court cited previous judgments to support this interpretation.

In the case of Kiran Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., the Court expounded on the purport of Section 15(2) of the Act, emphasizing the limited role of the Collector in determining the validity of the notice.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

A writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court by Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of her husband who was allegedly unlawfully detained by the police.

The husband was in police custody pursuant to a remand order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with FIR No. I-31/2018.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the release of Siddiquee's husband and making strong remarks against the police officials involved.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether a writ of habeas corpus could be maintained when a person is in police custody under a valid remand order?

Whether the scathing remarks made by the High Court against the police officials were justified?

Held:

A writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued when a person is in judicial custody under a valid remand order. This principle is established by precedents, including the cases of Saurabh Kumar through his father v. Jailor, Koneila Jail and Anr., (2014) 13 SCC 436, and Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 314.

The scathing remarks made by the High Court against the police officials were unwarranted. The High Court should not have made such remarks without giving the officials an opportunity to explain their actions. Therefore, the remarks were expunged.

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. Since Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee's husband had already been released, the Investigating Officer could proceed against him strictly in accordance with the law.

Facts:

Haribhau, the appellant, along with Babarao, confronted a teacher, Bala Saheb Ingole, at a school, accusing him of tardiness.

When Bala Saheb did not comply with their demands, Haribhau physically assaulted him, leading to the filing of an FIR.

Haribhau and Babarao were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Babarao was acquitted on appeal, but Haribhau's appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the sentence awarded to Haribhau should be altered considering factors such as his age, lack of prior criminal record, and time already served.

Held:

In our considered opinion, firstly, taking into account that the appellant has already undergone one month's jail sentence out of three months awarded to him, secondly, the fact that the incident in question is quite old and seems to have occurred at the spur of the moment, thirdly, the appellant has no criminal antecedent in his past life and lastly, he is not required in any other criminal case except the one in question which the appellant fairly did not deny having committed and rightly did not challenge his conviction, it is considered to be just and proper to alter the jail sentence awarded to the appellant from three months to the extent of the period of one month which was already undergone by him and instead enhance the total fine amount awarded under different Sections from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 15,000/-.

The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal in part, reducing Haribhau's jail sentence to the time already served and increasing the total fine amount. It directed Haribhau to deposit the fine within one month, failing which the remaining jail sentence would be reinstated.

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that police officials caused injuries to a victim in order to extract a confession regarding a crime, leading to the victim's death in police custody. The trial court acquitted the accused of murder but convicted them under various sections of the IPC. The High Court upheld the convictions under section 330 IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the actions of the accused constituted culpable homicide and if the charges and sentences were appropriate.

Issues:

Whether the injuries inflicted by the police officers were the cause of the victim's death.

Whether the actions of the accused amount to culpable homicide under the Indian Penal Code.

Held:

The courts below concurred that the injuries did not directly cause the victim's death. The cause of death was determined to be asphyxiation from vomiting, which occurred hours after the injuries were inflicted.

Causation is a crucial element in determining culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC. While factual causation may exist, legal causation requires a sufficient connection between the accused's actions and the death.

The principle of 'take their victim as they find them' was considered, indicating that if a person hastens the death of another already suffering from a disorder, they are deemed to have caused the death.

As the injuries inflicted were not directly responsible for the victim's death, sections 302 and 304 IPC were not applicable.

The police officers' actions were criticized as lawless, and their sentences were increased to the maximum imposable period under section 330 IPC, considering the gravity of their conduct.

Decision: The Court upheld the lower courts' decisions regarding the charges and convictions of the accused. However, it modified the sentences of the accused police officers to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under section 330 IPC.

In light of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the Criminal Appeal Nos. 182-187 of 2009 in the afore-stated terms. Further Criminal Appeal Nos. 385-386 of 2008, Criminal Appeal Nos. 387-388 of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2008 stand dismissed.

Facts:

The deceased, Dilip Bhowmik, was driving his own vehicle when he met with an accident and sustained fatal injuries. His family members filed a claim petition seeking compensation, which was contested by the insurance company.

Issues:

Whether the claim petition is maintainable when the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and responsible for the accident due to his own negligent driving.

Held:

The Court held that the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable since the deceased, being the owner-cum-driver, was responsible for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving.

Therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation beyond the limit specified in the insurance policy for personal accident coverage.

The appeal was allowed, and the insurance company was directed to deposit the specified amount with interest to the respondents.

Facts:

The employees were dismissed by a unanimous decision of the Board of Governors of the educational institution. The dismissal was challenged, leading to a series of legal proceedings.

Issues:

The nature of the relationship between the management and employees in private unaided educational institutions, the legality of the dismissal, and the appropriate remedy.

Held:The court emphasized the significant responsibility held by employees in educational institutions, stressing the need to maintain an environment conducive to learning. The methodology of making demands in such institutions was deemed distinct from industrial establishments.

The decision of the Board of Governors to dismiss the employees was deemed unanimous and in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989. However, there was a procedural error in not obtaining written consent from the Director of Education.

In private unaided educational institutions, the relationship between management and employees is contractual. The court emphasized that the conduct of the employees resulted in a loss of confidence from the management.

Reinstatement was deemed inappropriate due to the loss of confidence and procedural errors. Compensation was determined as the appropriate remedy.

The court affirmed that there could be no question of reinstatement in such cases, and compensation was the sole remedy due to the breach of legal requirements.

The compensation awarded by the High Court was reviewed, and it was deemed appropriate to calculate it based on the actual pay and allowances liable to be drawn for the relevant period.

The court enhanced the compensation awarded, quantifying it at Rs. 25 lakhs for one appellant and Rs. 18 lakhs for another, with adjustments for provident fund amounts and other retiral dues.

Future salary and allowances were not granted to one appellant due to non-reinstatement, as it would be considered excessive and not an appropriate form of compensation.

Facts:

The petitioners, including an actor, producer, and director of the movie "Oru Adaar Love," sought to quash an FIR filed against them regarding the picturization of a song from the movie.

The FIR was filed by an intervenor alleging that the song offended the sentiments of a particular community, invoking Section 295A of the IPC.

Issues:

Whether the actions of the petitioners in picturizing the song amounted to an insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of a community, as per Section 295A of the IPC.

Held:

The court analyzed Section 295A of the IPC and referred to the case law to interpret its applicability. The court concluded that the provision did not apply to the petitioners' actions, as there was no deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings.

The court emphasized the importance of artistic expression and originality, stating that mere picturization of the song, even with controversial elements, did not violate Section 295A.

Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the FIR, and directed that no further action be taken against the petitioners regarding the picturization of the song.