Facts:

The appellant, Tularam, was accused and convicted of murdering Bhadri Lodhi during an altercation on 9th June 2002.

The altercation occurred between Ramnath and Raju initially, and later involved additional individuals including Tularam.

Tularam pierced Bhadri Lodhi with a spear-like weapon during the altercation, resulting in his death.

Several eyewitnesses confirmed the events during the trial.

Issues:

The central issue before the court was whether Tularam had the intention to cause Bhadri Lodhi's death.

The court examined relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), particularly Sections 299 and 300, and Exception 4 to Section 300.

Held:

The court differentiated between culpable homicide and murder, emphasizing that murder involves specific intent to cause death or inflict such bodily injury likely to cause death.

Citing Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, the court clarified the requirements for exempting culpable homicide from being considered murder.

After analyzing the evidence, the court concluded that Tularam's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Tularam's conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was set aside, and he was convicted under the second part of Section 304 instead.

Considering Tularam had already served approximately 14 years in prison, the court altered his sentence to the period already undergone, ordering his immediate release.

Facts:

The appellant, Union of India, challenged an arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The respondent raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that Indian courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application.

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appellant's application, and the Division Bench upheld the decision.

The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, which identified the central question regarding the determination of the "seat" and "venue" of arbitration proceedings when only the venue is specified in the arbitration agreement.

Issues:

Whether Indian courts have jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

How to determine the "seat" and "venue" of arbitration proceedings when only the venue is specified in the arbitration agreement.

Held:

The Supreme Court refrained from making findings on the issues raised in the appeal and decided to refer the case to a larger bench for further consideration. It exercised its power under Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, to refer the case to a larger bench due to the complexity and importance of the legal question regarding arbitration agreements.

Therefore, the Court did not provide a definitive ruling on the jurisdictional question or the determination of the "seat" and "venue" of arbitration proceedings. Instead, it left these matters to be addressed by the appropriate larger bench.

Facts:

The case initially involved concerns regarding the treatment of an eight-month-old female child who had become a victim of a crime under the POCSO Act. Additionally, the petitioner raised the issue of the need for speedy trials and child-friendly court procedures under the Act.

Issues:

Treatment of the child victim of sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

Speedy trial and monitoring of cases under the POCSO Act, ensuring child-friendly court procedures.

Held:

The Court examined the medical condition of the child victim and ensured appropriate treatment. It also addressed the compensation awarded to the victim's family and provided legal aid. Regarding speedy trials and monitoring, the Court emphasized the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act, highlighting the need for child protection and speedy disposal of cases.

The Court issued several directives to ensure effective implementation of the POCSO Act. This included sensitizing presiding officers of Special Courts, establishing Special Courts if not already done, fast-tracking trials, constituting monitoring committees, and forming Special Task Forces in state police departments. High Courts were instructed to provide a child-friendly atmosphere in Special Courts. The directives were aimed at protecting child victims and expediting trials in cases of sexual offences against children.

Facts:

The case involves the appellant, Dilawar, who was accused in a case related to mob violence during a 'jat agitation'.

The investigation was initially conducted by the state police but later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The appellant applied for bail, which was denied by the High Court.

The Supreme Court, while not granting bail, directed that the trial be concluded within six months.

The CBI filed an application for modification of the previous order, stating that the investigation was transferred to them and required time.

Issues:

The delay in completing the investigation by the CBI and its impact on the appellant's fundamental rights.

The court also considers the need for timelines for completing investigations and proposes an in-house oversight mechanism to address delays.

Held:

The court observed that speedy investigation is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It set a deadline for the CBI to complete the investigation within the next two months, allowing the trial to commence by July 10, 2018, and conclude by the end of the year. The appellant was given the option to file a bail application before the trial court.

The court recognized the need for timelines for completing investigations and proposed an in-house oversight mechanism to ensure accountability and prevent undue delays. The Union of India was impleaded as a party, and the Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to interact with all Central and State investigating agencies to formulate an action plan for completing pending investigations within a proposed timeframe. The matter was scheduled for further consideration on 3rd July 2018.

Facts:

Satyawati, the wife of Tribhuwan Singh, died due to gunshot injuries at her in-laws' house.

Allegations of dowry harassment were made against Chandra Bhawan Singh and others.

Chandra Bhawan Singh, along with others, was convicted by the trial court.

The High Court upheld Chandra Bhawan Singh's conviction while acquitting others.

Chandra Bhawan Singh appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction.

Issues:

Whether the conviction of Chandra Bhawan Singh is legally sustainable.

Whether the circumstances indicate suicide or murder.

Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the chain of events leading to the murder.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld Chandra Bhawan Singh's conviction. The Court found that the lower courts had properly evaluated the evidence and concluded that Chandra Bhawan Singh was involved in the murder. The Court emphasized that when both lower courts have recorded concurrent findings based on evidence, the Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere unless there are glaring errors or perversities in the findings.

The Court further stated that the evidence of dowry demands and harassment was credible. The suicide theory was deemed improbable based on the nature of injuries and circumstances. Additionally, Chandra Bhawan Singh's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation further incriminated him.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals failed and were accordingly dismissed.

Facts:

The Telangana Housing Board acquired around a thousand acres of land for a housing scheme, which included land from Survey No. 1009. The respondents, represented by Azamunnisa Begum and others, contended that 11 acres and odd had not been acquired. Conversely, the revenue authorities argued that the entire area of Survey No. 1009 was 687.03 acres, with 20.18 acres left unacquired.

Issues:

Whether there was a clerical error in the measurement of Survey No. 1009?

Whether the claim made by the respondents under Section 87 of the Act was valid after a significant delay?

What is the role of the Telangana Housing Board in protecting the interests of the beneficiaries of the housing scheme?

Held:

The court held that there was no clerical error in the measurement of Survey No. 1009. The entire land in Survey No. 1009 was acquired for the housing scheme. Compensation was paid for the acquisition of the entire Survey No. 1009. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in concluding that 20.18 acres of land in Survey No. 1009 had not been acquired.

The court criticized the delay in the respondent's claim under Section 87 of the Act, emphasizing that they should have been more vigilant in pursuing their claim. The delay of 25 years was deemed unreasonable, especially considering the creation of third-party rights through the housing scheme.

The Telangana Housing Board had the locus standi to participate in the proceedings to protect the interests of the beneficiaries of the housing scheme. The court emphasized that the Housing Board was directly and primarily affected by the claim made by the respondents under Section 87 of the Act.

Facts:

On 23.11.2002, based on secret information, a raiding party intercepted the appellant who admitted possession of charas.

The appellant consented to a search by the raiding police party, but the search and seizure were not conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer as required by Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution charged the appellant under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, leading to his conviction by the trial court and the confirmation of the same by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the search and seizure conducted in this case complied with the mandatory procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the failure to comply with Section 50 renders the prosecution's case fatally flawed, entitling the appellant to acquittal.

Held:

In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled law that the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. Despite the appellant's consent to the search, it is the obligation of the officer to inform the suspect of their right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 50. None of the police officials testified that the search was conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Therefore, the non-compliance with Section 50 rendered the prosecution's case fatally flawed.

As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant of the charges under the NDPS Act.

Facts:

Chennai Port Trust had a canteen run by a Cooperative Society named "Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Co-operative Canteen Limited" since 1964.

Workers in the canteen formed an association and filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking recognition as regular employees of Chennai Port Trust and associated benefits.

The Chennai Port Trust contested, stating they had no control over the canteen's operations, and the employment status was a factual matter for an Industrial Tribunal.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, and the Division Bench affirmed the decision on appeal.

Issues:

Whether the canteen workers should be considered regular employees of Chennai Port Trust and entitled to benefits.

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter or if it should have been referred to an Industrial Tribunal.

Held:

The Division Bench upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming the employment status and benefits of the canteen workers. The Court found that the Chennai Port Trust exercised significant control over the canteen operations, similar to precedents established in previous cases, notably Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Shramik Sena.

The Court rejected the argument that the dispute should have been referred to an Industrial Tribunal, as the writ petition had already been decided on its merits and no disputed facts requiring trial existed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

The case involves a fatal accident where a Maruti car collided with a truck.

The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation for the death of Balvinder Kaur, who was in the car during the accident.

The Tribunal and the High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, holding the Maruti car driver responsible for the accident.

Issues:

Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver or the Maruti car driver.

Another issue was the applicability of contributory negligence in the absence of parties.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the finding that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Maruti car driver.

The court found no liability on the part of the truck driver.

Despite finding no negligence on the part of the truck driver, the court invoked Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, holding the owner of the truck liable for compensation.

The court awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the appellants under Section 140 of the Act.

The appeal was partly allowed, granting limited relief to the appellants under Section 140 of the Act, holding the truck owner and insurer jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for the death of Balvinder Kaur.