Facts:

The case involves a dispute over the conviction of the accused under Sections 299 and 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The incident arose from a disagreement over the right of way between the accused and another individual, resulting in a physical altercation that led to the death of the latter.

Issues:

Whether the accused can be held responsible for causing the death of the deceased.

The involvement and culpability of the second accused (A-2) in the incident.

Held:

The judgment meticulously analyzes the evidence presented in the case, including witness testimonies and medical reports.

The Court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to establish the involvement of the second accused (A-2) in the incident. The High Court's decision to convict A-2 lacks substantive basis and is set aside.

Regarding the first accused (A-1), the Court finds that the medical evidence is inconclusive about the cause of death. The prosecution fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A-1's actions directly caused the death of the deceased.

A-1 is found guilty of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 IPC instead of culpable homicide. Considering the circumstances, a fine of Rs. 1000 is imposed on A-1.

Facts:

Recruitment process initiated for the Punjab Superior Judicial Service under Rule 7(3)(c) of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007.

Advertisement issued for vacancies on 02.02.2008, inviting applications for selection of twenty-one candidates.

Various developments occurred post-advertisement, including elevation of a Judge, rectification of wrongful reservation, recruitment of judges from Fast Track Courts, non-availability of candidates with disabilities, and discrepancy in cadre strength.

Issues:

Variation in the number of advertised posts and subsequent developments.

Wrongful reservation for Ex-Servicemen.

Recruitment of judges from Fast Track Courts.

Non-availability of candidates with disabilities.

Alleged larger recruitment possibilities due to more cadre strength.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants failed to establish any merit in their claims. The Court's findings and conclusions on each issue are as follows:

Elevation of a Judge and subsequent vacancies: The Court found no merit in including vacancies arising after the advertisement, stating there was no obligation to expand the scope of recruitment.

Wrongful reservation for Ex-Servicemen: The Court acknowledged the error in reservation and its subsequent rectification, concluding that vacancies were appropriately filled.

Recruitment of judges from Fast Track Courts: The Court accepted the procedure followed for absorption of judges from Fast Track Courts, finding vacancies were appropriately filled.

Non-availability of candidates with disabilities: The Court found no flaw in carrying forward vacancies for future recruitment.

Alleged larger recruitment possibilities: The Court held that candidates who did not challenge the advertisement timely could not claim vacancies based on subsequent developments.

The Court dismissed the appeals, leaving each party to bear its own costs.

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that a scuffle ensued between the appellant-accused and the deceased ('A') over a payment issue. Later on the same day, the accused assaulted 'A' on his head in the presence of his father (PW-9), resulting in 'A's death.

Issues:

The reliability of witnesses and the correctness of the trial court's decision to acquit the accused.

Held:

The court found the evidence provided by PW-9, the father of the deceased, to be reliable despite his status as an interested witness. Additionally, testimonies from PWs 2 and 10 corroborated PW-9's account. They witnessed the altercation between the accused and the deceased and the subsequent recovery of the weapon used in the attack.

The medical evidence presented by the doctor (PW-13) further supported the prosecution's case, confirming that the cause of death was a head injury inflicted by a blunt object, consistent with the prosecution's narrative.

The court emphasized that if the evidence of an eyewitness, even if they are related to the victim, inspires confidence, it should be relied upon without seeking corroboration with minor details. In this case, PW-9's testimony was found to be intrinsically reliable and trustworthy.

The trial court's hyper-technical approach was criticized, and the High Court's intervention was deemed necessary based on sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. The High Court's decision to convict the accused was justified as the prosecution had successfully proven his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the accused was upheld by the court .

Facts:

Dispute over land ownership between the appellants and the deceased.

Appellants attacked the deceased and others while they were on the disputed land.

The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the attack.

Investigation, trial, and conviction followed, with the appellants being found guilty under multiple sections of the IPC.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the conviction and sentencing by the lower courts were justified.

Held:

The Court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellants, finding no reason to differ with the view taken by the lower courts. The prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants, and the courts below did not err in their judgment. Hence, the appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence, if any, awarded against them.

The judgment summarizes the court's decision: "In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, we find no merit in these appeals and accordingly, they stand dismissed."

Facts:

The suit involved a dispute over the ownership and partition of properties, both A and B schedule, initially mortgaged by multiple individuals. Various assignments and transactions ensued, leading to conflicting claims over the properties. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition, followed by final decree proceedings. Objections were raised by the second defendant regarding the correctness of the preliminary decree and the inclusion of Survey No.988.

Issues:

Validity of the preliminary and final decrees.

Ownership rights over Survey No.988.

Adequacy of evidence and inquiry conducted by the trial court.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the trial court failed to adequately examine the ownership and inclusion/exclusion of Survey No.988, despite objections raised by the second defendant. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry into the matter, allowing both parties to present evidence regarding the ownership and boundaries of the properties.

The Court also dismissed objections raised by one of the plaintiffs regarding the validity of assignments, deeming them unfounded. The case was remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration, with directions to expedite the proceedings due to the prolonged litigation.

Facts:

The case involves conflicting views on whether anticipatory bail should have a limited duration or continue until the trial.

Issues:

The main issue is to determine the duration and scope of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

Held:

The Court, after considering the conflicting views presented in various judgments, expresses its prima facie opinion that anticipatory bail may not necessarily be granted until the conclusion of the trial. It acknowledges the need for clarification on the duration of anticipatory bail and directs the matter to be referred to a larger Bench for a definitive decision.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court refers to specific paragraphs in the judgment that highlight the conflicting views and the need for authoritative settlement of the legal position. Additionally, the Court refers to relevant cases cited in the judgment, emphasizing the importance of resolving the conflicting interpretations of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

Facts:

The appellant, CSR, was a former director of SCSL and was accused of insider trading due to his association with the company. Allegations were also made against CSR's family members and entities connected to him.

Issues:

Whether CSR and other implicated parties qualify as insiders under SEBI regulations.

The relevance of evidence such as the SFIO report and Special Court judgment in determining insider trading allegations.

The liability of CSR's family members and entities associated with him in the alleged insider trading activities.

Held:

The court examined Regulation 2(e)(i) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992, which defines an insider as a person reasonably expected to have access to unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI). While CSR was initially considered a connected person due to his directorship in SCSL, the court found that he did not meet the criteria for being reasonably expected to have access to UPSI.

Evidence from the SFIO report and Special Court judgment was considered relevant in establishing CSR's involvement in fraudulent activities related to SCSL. This evidence supported the conclusion that CSR was reasonably expected to have access to UPSI, thus confirming his status as an insider.

The court ruled that shares sold by CSR before the occurrence of UPSI could not be subject to disgorgement. Similarly, shares that were returned rather than sold did not warrant disgorgement.

CSR's relatives, including his father and mother, were found not to qualify as connected persons under SEBI regulations, as their actions did not meet the criteria for being reasonably expected to have access to UPSI.

CSR's sons, who were running independent businesses and were not directors or promoters of SCSL, were not implicated in insider trading.

CSR's company, which held shares of SCSL, was deemed a connected person under Regulation 2(h)(ix) of the SEBI regulations. The court upheld the finding that the company violated SEBI regulations.

NONE

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over the sale of immovable property conducted in execution of a decree. Defendant no. 2, the wife of defendant no. 1, contested the sale, alleging that defendant no. 1 could not have sold the property to the plaintiff due to a charge she had obtained on the property in a maintenance suit. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC, seeking to set aside the sale, which was subsequently dismissed. The plaintiff then filed a fresh suit for declaration of title and restoration of possession.

Issues:

Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff's application under Order XXI Rule 90 operates as a bar to the filing of a fresh suit challenging the sale.

Whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies to the sale of the property in question.

Whether the plaintiff qualifies as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the pending suit.

Held:

The dismissal of the plaintiff's application under Order XXI Rule 90 operates as a bar to the filing of a fresh suit challenging the sale. The confirmation of the sale and the finality of previous orders preclude the plaintiff from seeking relief through a new lawsuit.

The doctrine of lis pendens applies to the case, as the suit filed by defendant no. 2 was pending at the time of the property's sale. Therefore, the sale is subject to the outcome of the pending suit.

The plaintiff does not qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the pending suit. Their awareness of the litigation and failure to challenge the auction sale on legal grounds undermine their claim.