Facts:

The case involved an incident where the appellants, along with others, were accused of assaulting the victim, resulting in his death. The prosecution's case relied primarily on the testimony of two key witnesses, PW1 and PW5. However, the Supreme Court found significant contradictions and discrepancies in their testimonies, particularly regarding the genesis of the FIR and the roles attributed to the accused.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the trial court and the High Court erred in convicting the appellants based on assumptions and presumptions rather than credible evidence.

Held:

In view of the contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of the key witnesses, as well as the lack of corroborative evidence and support from other prosecution witnesses, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court and the High Court were criticized for convicting the appellants based on assumptions and presumptions rather than credible evidence. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and acquitted the appellants of all charges, overturning their convictions and sentences.

Facts:The appellant society initially established a college as a secular institution. Later, it sought minority status for the college. The National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) declared the college as a minority educational institution and issued a minority status certificate. Subsequently, the Society and the Governing Body of the College filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the declaration and the issuance of the certificate.

Issues:

Whether the NCMEI had jurisdiction to make the declaration of minority status to the educational institution.

Whether the orders issued by the NCMEI were valid.

Held:

The Supreme Court interpreted Section 11(f) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 broadly, empowering the NCMEI to decide any question related to the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. This includes the power to declare an institution as a minority educational institution. (Para 16)

While the Amendment Act, 2006 introduced Section 10(1) for granting a no objection certificate to minority educational institutions at their inception, Section 11(f) retains the power for the declaration of minority status to educational institutions at any stage post-establishment. (Para 17)

The fundamental right under Article 30 cannot be waived. The court observed that the acceptance of NCMEI's order by the University of North Bengal binds the parties, and there's no need for a fresh hearing. (Para 22)

The court declared the orders by NCMEI as valid, affirming its jurisdiction to issue a certificate regarding the status of a minority educational institution. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court is set aside. In view of the above, the present batch of appeals is disposed of. (Para 23 - 24)

Facts:

The appeal was filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr against Ashoka Infraways Ltd & Anr. The impugned order relied on a judgment which had been overruled by a larger bench of the High Court.

Issues:

The validity of the impugned order in light of the subsequent overruling of the judgment it relied upon.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the impugned order was set aside because the judgment it relied upon had been overruled by a larger bench of the High Court, as stated in the case of Viva Highways Ltd. vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation, (2017) 2 MPLJ 681.

The Court further clarified that any pending arbitration proceedings would now be governed by the judgment of the High Court in the aforementioned case.

Facts:

The case involved an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh and another party against Keti Construction. The dispute pertained to an impugned order that needed reconsideration in light of relevant legal precedents.

Issues:

Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded to the High Court for further consideration in accordance with the law as established by the newer judgment of the Supreme Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and perusing the record, held that the impugned order should indeed be set aside. The matter was to be remanded to the High Court for reconsideration as per the law established by a newer judgment of the Supreme Court, which had overturned a previous decision. Civil Revision No. 509 of 2005 was restored to its original number. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute between the State of Chhattisgarh and KMC Construction Limited. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of India.

Issues:

Whether the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.

Whether the direction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was sustainable.

Held:

In view of the judgment in Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Anr. v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors, (2012) 3 SCC 495, the Court held that the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. The direction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was set aside. The parties were directed to approach the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal for resolution, following the provisions of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.

The appeals were disposed of, and the parties were instructed to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on July 9, 2018. Additionally, the respondents were given the option to file the same claim before the Arbitrator.

Facts:

The case involves the tragic death of the only daughter of the appellants in a vehicular accident.

The deceased daughter was employed and had a promising career.

The appellants, her parents, filed a claim for compensation based on her prospective earnings and other losses.

The Tribunal and the High Court both assessed the compensation, but the appellants were aggrieved by certain aspects of the judgment, leading to the present appeal.

Issues:

The case revolve around the assessment of future income, deduction for personal expenses, and the calculation of conventional heads of compensation.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to increase future income by 100%, based on evidence presented.

The deduction for personal expenses was increased from one-third to 50%, which was deemed appropriate given the circumstances.

The Supreme Court adjusted the conventional heads of compensation in accordance with standardized amounts.

After adjustments, the compensation amount was recalculated to be Rs. 14,25,000.

Additionally, interest at 12% per annum was awarded from the date of application till realization.

The appellants were awarded costs throughout the litigation, assessed at Rs. 25,000.

We, thus, allow the appeal in the aforesaid terms with costs assessed as aforesaid.

Facts:The case of Union of India & Ors. v. Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai (Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2016) revolves around Court Martial proceedings concerning alleged obscene calls made by Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai to the wives of three navy officers. The charges led to the respondent's dismissal from service and forfeiture of 24 months of seniority.

Issues:

The quantum of sentence imposed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) after finding the respondent guilty of the charges.

Held:The prosecution successfully established that the mobile phone used for the offending calls belonged to the respondent (para 14).

Additionally, evidence presented by the prosecution proved that sexually explicit calls were received by the officers' wives, with call records linking the calls to the respondent's phone (paras 15, 23).

Given the Court's limited appellate scope under Sections 30 and 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, it upheld the AFT's decision, which substituted the sentence of dismissal with loss of seniority for 24 months. The Court also endorsed the AFT's ruling to deprive the respondent of salary until reinstatement, considering the duration he remained out of service (paras 25, 26, 29, 30).

Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by both the officer and the Union of India, affirming the AFT's decision on the sentencing.

Facts:

SCM Solifert Limited failed to notify a proposed combination as required under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.

The case involved two acquisitions of shares of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited (MCFL), one of 24.46% equity share capital and another of 0.8% equity shares.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty under Section 43A of the Act for the failure to notify the acquisitions.

Issues:

Whether the acquisitions made by SCM Solifert Limited required prior notification under Section 6(2) of the Act?

Whether the penalty imposed by the CCI was justified?

Held:

The first acquisition of shares exceeded the threshold for notification under Section 6(2) of the Act, as it was not solely an investment but part of a long-term plan to take over MCFL.

Notification under Section 6(2) of the Act must precede the acquisition, and placing shares in an escrow account did not absolve the appellant from the requirement of prior notification.

The penalty imposed by the CCI under Section 43A was justified, as the contravention of statutory obligations was established.

Mens rea (intent) was deemed irrelevant for the imposition of the penalty, as the proceedings were civil in nature.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment and order of the CCI and the Competition Appellate Tribunal.

Facts:

The case involved three respondent companies deciding on a de-merger/amalgamation, with various agreements such as Share Subscription Agreement (SSA), Share Purchase Agreement (SPA), Open Offer, and Market Purchases being part of the transaction. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) sent a notice under Section 6(2) to the appellant-Commission, notifying only the 'Demerger' and 'Amalgamation' and not the other transactions like market purchases. However, these other transactions were disclosed while claiming exemption under Section 5.

Issues:

Whether the failure to notify certain transactions under Section 6(2) warrants the imposition of penalty under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002.

Whether the interconnected nature of transactions affects the obligation to notify under Section 6(2) and the subsequent imposition of penalty under Section 43A.

Held:

The Supreme Court observed that all the transactions were part of the same transaction, intrinsically connected and interdependent on each other, forming one viable part of a business transaction.

Regulation 9(4) of the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in Regard to the Transaction of Business Relating to Combinations) Regulations, 2011 acknowledges the possibility of business transactions being interconnected or interdependent steps of such transactions.

The court emphasized that the substance of transactions is more relevant in assessing their effect on competition, irrespective of whether they are pursued through one or more steps/transactions. Structuring transactions to avoid compliance with the Act's provisions is not permissible.

Mens rea (intent) is not necessary for the imposition of penalty under Section 43A, as it deals with civil obligations. The breach of the provision itself is punishable, and the penalty is attracted on its violation.

The court held that the order passed by the CCI imposing the penalty was just and proper, and the Tribunal's decision to set it aside was incorrect. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal and reinstated the penalty imposed by the CCI.

Decision: In light of the above findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the penalty imposed by the CCI.