Facts:

The Municipal Corporation of Ujjain issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the appointment of an agency for Municipal Solid Waste Door to Door Collection and Transportation. The tender process involved a technical bid and a financial bid, and Global Waste Management Cell Private Limited (GWMC) emerged as the highest scorer and was awarded the contract. An unsuccessful bidder (respondent no.1) challenged the contract award in court, alleging irregularities in the evaluation process.

Issues:

Whether the High Court could question the technical qualifications judgment of the expert consultant without evidence of unreasonableness, irrationality, or bias.

Whether a bidder can rely on the technical qualifications of a third party if it submits a bid independently.

Whether the High Court can independently evaluate technical and financial bids without clear indications of bias, arbitrariness, or irrationality.

Whether the public interest was adequately considered in the tender evaluation process.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have interfered with the decision of the expert consultant, as there was no evidence of bias or malafide. The decision was taken based on public interest and the qualifications of the successful bidder.

The Court ruled that a bidder cannot rely on the technical qualifications of a third party if it submits a bid independently. The High Court erred in considering such reliance.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not independently evaluate technical and financial bids unless there are clear indications of bias, arbitrariness, or irrationality. Courts should exercise judicial restraint unless serious procedural irregularities exist.

The Court emphasized that the authority has the discretion to choose the best bidder considering public interest and the quality of work. The High Court should not compel the authority to select an undeserving bidder and must not ignore public interest while reviewing tender decisions.

Facts:

The term of the Chairperson of the National Green Tribunal had ended, necessitating the appointment of an acting Chairperson by the Central Government.

The Attorney General provided a comparative chart detailing the relevant details of two senior judicial members of the NGT, Justice Jawad Rahim and Justice Raghuvendra S. Rathore.

Issues:

The determine who should act as the Chairperson of the NGT until a new appointment was made, in accordance with Section 11 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Held:

The Court held that Justice Jawad Rahim would act as the Chairperson of the NGT until a regular appointment was made, based on his seniority in terms of his appointment as a High Court Judge and his subsequent appointment to the NGT.

This decision was made to ensure the smooth functioning of the NGT and to allow Justice Rahim to participate in the selection process for filling vacancies of members in the NGT.

The appointment of Justice Rahim as the acting Chairperson was deemed purely interim and did not constitute a final determination of seniority between him and Justice Rathore.

The decision was made in accordance with the seniority indicated in an office order dated March 15, 2016, which outlined the seniority among judicial and expert members of the NGT.

Facts:

Satpal Singh appealed against the rejection of his anticipatory bail application under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The High Court declined his bail, emphasizing the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Issues:

Whether the rejection of anticipatory bail by the High Court was justified under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the lower court's failure to properly consider the provisions of the NDPS Act was acceptable.

Held:

The Court held that the rejection of anticipatory bail by the High Court was justified under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It further noted the failure of the lower court to properly consider the provisions of the NDPS Act and criticized the lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in not promptly challenging the anticipatory bail of the co-accused.

The Court set aside the orders of both the High Court and the Sessions Court and directed all accused parties to surrender before the trial court. They were allowed to apply for regular bail, which would be considered on its merits by the Sessions Court.

Facts:

The writ petition (Civil) No. 231 of 2010 was filed seeking directions to the State Governments and the Central Government to combat honour crimes effectively. The petition also sought the submission of State and National Plans of Action to curb such crimes, as well as the establishment of special cells for prosecution in such cases.

Issues:

Whether any form of torture or ill-treatment in the name of honour, restricting an individual's choice regarding love and marriage, is illegal and unconstitutional.

Additionally, the court considered the role of informal institutions like Khap Panchayats in enforcing such restrictions and the violation of fundamental rights therein.

Held:

The court held that class honour cannot suppress an individual's right to liberty, which is enshrined in the compassionate Constitution of India. The old feudal perceptions must yield to the new, and any infringement upon individual rights is unconstitutional.

The court noted the devastating effect of honour crimes on individual rights and emphasized the autonomy of every person in matters concerning themselves. The Law Commission's report highlighted the extinguishment of individual rights due to societal pressure and communal punishments.

Honour killings violate human rights and undermine the rule of law. The court stressed that individuals' rights cannot be subjugated to family or clan honour, and any justification for such crimes is illegal.

Consent of the family or community is not necessary once two consenting adults agree to marry. The determination of criminality must be based on formal legal processes, and informal institutions like Khap Panchayats have no authority to interfere in matters of individual choice.

Khap Panchayats or similar assemblies cannot take the law into their own hands or act as law enforcement agencies. Any illegal activity must be stopped, and only formal institutions can determine rights and violations thereof.

Honour killings are condemned as serious human rights violations, and international instruments address this issue. The court highlighted the need for legislative action to address honour crimes effectively.

Protection of human rights is paramount, and any assault on human dignity undermines the majesty of law. The court recommended legislative action to address the scourge of honour killings.

Facts:

The appellant, Bharatkumar Rameshchandra Barot, was convicted for offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act by the Sessions Court. He was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The State of Gujarat appealed against the leniency of the sentence under Section 377 of the CrPC, seeking enhancement of the sentence to life imprisonment. The High Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the sentence, prompting the appellant to file this appeal in the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's enhancement of the appellant's sentence was legal and justified.

Whether the appellant was denied adequate opportunity to defend himself during the appeal process.

Held:

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision to enhance the appellant's sentence to life imprisonment. The Court held that any punishment less than life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 IPC is illegal.

The Court found that the appellant was served with notice of the appeal and had the opportunity to defend himself, but he failed to appear or file a regular appeal challenging his conviction.

Therefore, the High Court's appointment of an amicus curiae was justified. Compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 377(3) of the CrPC was found adequate by the Supreme Court.

Facts:

Gorusu Nagaraju was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and Section 235(2) of the CrPC for the murder and disappearance of evidence related to the murder of Desineedi Venkateswararao @ Venkatesh. The prosecution proved seven circumstances connecting the appellant to the crime, including being last seen with the deceased, purchasing liquor together, recovery of the body with injuries, presence of appellant's fingerprints at the scene, recovery of seized articles at appellant's instance, appellant holding grudge against the deceased, and failure of appellant to explain the circumstances.

Issues:

Whether there were grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction by the lower courts.

Held:

The Supreme Court noted that the findings of conviction by the Sessions Judge and the High Court were concurrent and based on the appreciation of evidence, which usually binds the Supreme Court unless there are indications of perversity, arbitrariness, absurdity, or illegality.

The Court reviewed the evidence and found that the prosecution proved the seven circumstances linking the appellant to the crime. Despite some witnesses turning hostile, the evidence of witnesses who maintained a consistent version of the circumstances was rightly relied upon. The Court emphasized that minor contradictions or inconsistencies in evidence do not affect the material evidence.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction was upheld.

Facts:

Netram Sahu (the appellant) worked as a daily wager for 22 years and 1 month, then his services were regularized as a Pump Operator by the State of Chhattisgarh. The appellant retired on 30.07.2011 but was not paid gratuity. He filed for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority allowed the application, but the High Court later set aside this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the appellant, having served 22 years as a daily wager and 3 years as a regular employee, was entitled to gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Held:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that he is entitled to gratuity. The Court emphasized that the appellant actually served for 25 years, with 22 years under the State. The regularization of his services by the State made him eligible for gratuity regardless of his earlier status as a daily wager.

The Court criticized the State's opposition to the appellant's legitimate claim and ordered the State to pay the gratuity along with a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant within three months.

Facts:

Satyendra Kumar Mehra (also spelled as Satendera Kumar Mehra) appealed against his conviction under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to fraud. The trial court convicted Mehra and imposed a sentence with a fine. He filed an appeal before the High Court and sought the suspension of his sentence.

Issues:

Whether Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 automatically stays the payment of fine as part of the sentence pending appeal.

Held:

The court clarified that Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not stay the sentence of fine during the pendency of the appeal. The purpose of Section 357(2) is to defer or withhold the utilization of compensation awarded until the appeal process is completed. It does not relate to the suspension of sentence or stay of fine.

The court further explained that Section 357(2) is applicable only when the court orders payment of compensation utilizing the fine as part of the sentence or directs compensation under specific circumstances mentioned in Section 357(1) or (3). Since there was no such direction from the trial court in the present case, Section 357(2) was not applicable.

Therefore, the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to deposit the fine amount pending appeal. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the High Court.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute between two brothers over the division of self-acquired properties of their late father.

The plaintiff claimed that a document dated 09.09.1994 was a memorandum of partition reflecting a partition that took place on 25.10.1992.

The defendant contended that the document dated 09.09.1994 was a family settlement and required compulsory registration.

Issues:

Whether the document dated 09.09.1994 could be admitted as evidence in the case.

Whether the document required compulsory registration.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions of both parties and perusing the records, made the following determinations:

The document dated 09.09.1994 was held to be a family settlement rather than a mere memorandum of partition.

As a family settlement, the document was found to be compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

The document was also deemed inadequately stamped, rendering it inadmissible in evidence.

The Court cited the principles laid down in Kale vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation regarding the necessity of registration for family settlements.

Additionally, the Court referred to Yellapu Uma Maheswari vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao regarding the admissibility of unregistered documents for collateral purposes.

The Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the decision that the document dated 09.09.1994 required compulsory registration but permitting its admissibility for collateral purposes upon payment of stamp duty and penalties.