Facts:

The case revolves around an incident on election day where the victim, who was the election agent of the losing candidate, was allegedly murdered by the accused, supporters of the losing candidate. The prosecution's case was built on circumstantial evidence, alleging that the accused intended to falsely implicate the winning candidate's son in a criminal case. The accused were seen with the victim in an auto-rickshaw early in the morning, and later, the victim was found shot at an abandoned house.

Issues:

Whether the motive presented by the prosecution is convincing enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

The reliability of witness testimony, particularly that of the deceased's wife (PW-13), and a chance witness (PW-14).

The admissibility and reliability of an extra-judicial confession made by the accused.

The significance and reliability of forensic evidence presented by the prosecution.

Held:

The court observed that while motive is crucial in circumstantial evidence cases, the presented motive in this case - to falsely implicate the winning candidate's son - does not logically align with the accused's actions of killing their own supporter. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish motive convincingly.

Regarding witness testimony, the court found the wife of the deceased (PW-13) to be an unreliable witness due to material improvements in her statements and her enmity with the accused. The chance witness (PW-14) failed to adequately explain his presence at the scene and his testimony lacked credibility.

The court discussed the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession made by the accused but highlighted that such confessions must be corroborated by other evidence. In this case, the surrounding circumstances cast doubt on the confession's reliability.

Forensic evidence, particularly the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, was deemed insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to the prosecution's failure to examine the author of the report and the absence of crucial details.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute between United India Insurance Co Ltd and Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd regarding an insurance claim.

An accident occurred during the construction of a bridge, leading to significant loss to the contractor.

A claim was submitted by Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd, which United India Insurance Co Ltd repudiated, denying liability under the policy.

Issues:

The interpretation of the arbitration clause in the insurance policy.

Specifically, whether the dispute fell within the scope of matters arbitrable under the policy or if it constituted a complete denial of liability, rendering it non-arbitrable.

Held:

The court held that the dispute was non-arbitrable as it fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause. The communication by United India Insurance Co Ltd on April 21, 2011, amounted to a complete denial of liability, rather than a mere dispute over quantum. Therefore, Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd was advised to pursue its remedy through a civil suit.

The court referred to previous judgments, including Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Narbheram Power and Steel Private Limited and Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Maharaj Singh and Anr., to support its interpretation of the arbitration clause and the principle of strict construction.

The judgment emphasized that an arbitration clause must unequivocally express the intent of arbitration and would only be activated if the insurer admitted or accepted liability under the policy. Since the insurer had denied liability entirely, the dispute was non-arbitrable.

Facts:

The dispute arose between the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and around 955 employees regarding their regularization.

The employees claimed to be regularized as FCI employees, while FCI contended they were employees of a contract laborers' society.

The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government of India for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Industrial Tribunal and subsequent courts ruled in favor of the employees, holding that they were entitled to regularization as FCI employees.

Issues:

Whether the employees were entitled to be regularized as FCI employees.

Whether FCI failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the claims of the employees.

Held:

The Court, after examining the evidence and findings of the lower courts, upheld the decisions.

The Industrial Tribunal correctly concluded that the employees were entitled to regularization based on various factors, including the nature of their work, direct payment of wages by FCI, and the lack of evidence presented by FCI.

FCI's failure to provide evidence to prove their case resulted in adverse inference against them.

The findings of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were based on sufficient evidence adduced by the workers' Union and were not legally unsustainable.

Similar cases involving FCI branches had been adjudicated similarly, with the courts ruling in favor of the workers' Union.

The appeals filed by FCI lacked merit and were accordingly dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.

Facts:

The case involves the appellant, Savatram Rampratap Mills, and the respondent, Radheyshyam. The appellant's mill in Akola, Maharashtra, was taken over by the National Textile Corporation (NTC), a Government of India Undertaking, subjecting it to the Public Premises Act. Notices were issued to the respondent's predecessor, alleging unauthorized occupation of the premises.

Issues:

The jurisdiction of proceedings under the Public Premises Act concerning the location of the premises and the appropriate venue for initiating eviction proceedings.

Held:

The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal. The Court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Act and concluded that proceedings must be initiated at the location specified in the notification under Section 3 of the Act. The appellant was directed to issue fresh notices and initiate eviction proceedings at Akola. The Court emphasized expeditious completion of proceedings in accordance with the law.

Facts:

The appeals arose from judgments of the High Court of Kerala concerning writ petitions filed by workers' unions against the Food Corporation of India (FCI).

The petitions sought the implementation of an award (Ex.P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Chennai, which directed the regularization of workers' services after the abolition of the contract labor system.

The appeals pertained to employees working in FCI depots in Kerala, while previous appeals dealt with employees in the Chennai branch office.

Issues:

Whether the benefits of the Industrial Tribunal award should be extended to workers in FCI depots in Kerala.

Whether there are significant differences between the present appeals and previous appeals that would warrant a different decision.

Held:

The Court upheld the decision of the High Court of Kerala, dismissing the appeals. It found no justifiable reason to overturn the High Court's decision, as there were no significant differences between the cases. Technical issues raised by FCI did not alter the fundamental aspects of the case. Moreover, previous judicial orders against FCI in similar matters were considered, leading to the conclusion that the benefits of the award should be extended to workers in Kerala depots. Thus, the appeals were dismissed.

Facts:

The dispute arose between Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd., a registered broker with the National Stock Exchange, and Girdhar Sondhi, its client, regarding transactions in securities and shares. The respondent initiated an arbitration proceeding against the appellant, claiming an amount of Rs. 7,36,620/-, which was rejected by the Sole Arbitrator through an Arbitration Award dated 08.12.2009. The agreement between the parties contained clauses related to abiding by the Depositories Act, 1996, SEBI Regulations, and bye-laws of CDSL, as well as provisions for arbitration and jurisdiction, with an exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction to the courts in Mumbai.

Issues:

The interpretation of the exclusive jurisdiction clause and the procedural requirements for setting aside arbitral awards under Section 34(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Held:

The Court clarified that Section 34 proceedings aim to provide a summary procedure for setting aside arbitral awards, with minimal court interference.

The court emphasized that applications under Section 34 do not require oral evidence and should be disposed of expeditiously, typically within one year. The record before the Arbitrator is generally sufficient to furnish proof under Section 34(2)(a), and additional evidence may only be brought through affidavits if necessary. Therefore, the court reinstated the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, which rejected the Section 34 application filed in Delhi due to the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court and emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution of arbitral disputes.

Facts:

The appellants, claiming to be working as clerical staff, filed writ petitions against the Food Corporation of India (FCI) seeking regularization of their services.

FCI contested the petitions, asserting that the appellants were not its employees but were appointed by a Cooperative Society.

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, which were then appealed to the Division Bench. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's decision.

The appellants then filed appeals in the Supreme Court against the Division Bench's judgment.

Issues:

Whether there existed an employer-employee relationship between the appellants and FCI.

Whether the appellants' claims for regularization of services against FCI were valid.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, held as follows:

The Court found no merit in the appeals and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

The appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish an employment relationship with FCI. Instead, the evidence showed they were appointed by a Cooperative Society.

The Court emphasized that the appellants' claims against FCI lacked merit due to the absence of an employment relationship.

The Court dismissed the relevance of a previous industrial reference case cited by the appellants, stating it did not support their claims.

Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the appeals.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over ancestral land measuring approximately 164 Kanals 1 Marla.

Pritam Singh, the father, sold the land to Tara Singh and Ajit Singh.

Kehar Singh, the son, contested the sale, claiming it was invalid due to lack of consent and legal necessity.

Legal proceedings ensued, including litigation in trial and appellate courts, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the sale of ancestral land by Pritam Singh was justified by legal necessity, and if so, whether it was valid and binding on the plaintiff.

Additionally, the court needs to determine the rights of co-coparceners in challenging such sales under Hindu law.

Held:

The High Court found that the sale was justified by legal necessity, which included the payment of debts and the need for agricultural land improvement.

The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, stating that the defendants had successfully proven legal necessity for the sale.

As a result, the plaintiff, being a co-coparcener, did not have the right to challenge the sale.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the sale of ancestral land to the defendants.

Facts:The appeals concern assessees who established manufacturing units in specified areas, including Himachal Pradesh, and claimed exemption at 100% under Section 80-IC for the first five assessment years. They sought continued exemption at the same rate for the subsequent five years based on substantial expansion.

Issues:

Whether assessees, after availing 100% exemption for the initial five years under Section 80-IC, are entitled to claim the same rate of exemption for the next five years due to substantial expansion.

Held:

The Court rejected the assessees' claim and ruled in favor of the Revenue. It held that once the initial assessment year commences and the assessee starts enjoying deduction under Section 80-IC, there cannot be another initial assessment year within the 10-year period, even with substantial expansion. The Court emphasized the clear provisions of sub-sections (3) and (6) of Section 80-IC, limiting the deduction to 100% for the initial five years and 25% (or 30% for companies) for the subsequent five years, with a total cap of 10 years.

The Court distinguished this case from previous judgments where assessees claimed deductions under different provisions. It clarified that in this case, the assessees had initially claimed deductions solely under Section 80-IC. Therefore, the Court held that after availing deduction for the initial five years at 100%, the assessees are entitled to deduction for the remaining five assessment years at the rate of 25% (or 30% for companies), as per the provisions of Section 80-IC.

The appeals were allowed, and the Court directed the Assessing Officer to carry out fresh assessments and pass appropriate orders accordingly. No costs were awarded in the case.