Facts:

The case involves the interpretation of the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly regarding the practice of law by foreign law firms and lawyers in India.

Issues:

Whether foreign law firms/companies or foreign lawyers can practice law in India, both in litigation and non-litigation aspects.

Whether foreign lawyers can conduct arbitration proceedings in India.

Whether the Advocates Act applies to the customized and integrated services provided by Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) companies.

Held:

The practice of law encompasses both litigation and non-litigation activities, including giving opinions, drafting instruments, and participating in legal discussions. This applies to both Indian and foreign law. (Para 39)

Advocates enrolled with the Bar Council alone are entitled to practice law, and this includes non-litigation work. The regulatory mechanism for advocates applies to non-litigation activities as well. Foreign law firms/companies or lawyers cannot practice law in India without subjecting themselves to the Bar Council's regulatory mechanism. (Para 40 and 44)

Whether a visit by a foreign lawyer amounts to practicing law depends on the frequency and nature of the visit. Regular visits may constitute practice, while casual visits for advice may not. The determination of whether a visit amounts to practice is a question of fact. (Para 41 and 44)

Foreign lawyers may conduct arbitration proceedings related to international commercial arbitration if governed by specific rules or the Arbitration Act. However, they must adhere to the code of conduct applicable in India. (Para 45)

The applicability of the Advocates Act to BPO companies providing services potentially amounting to the practice of law depends on the substance of the services offered. If the services indeed constitute the practice of law, foreign law firms or lawyers are not allowed to engage in such activities. (Para 43 and 46)

Decision: The court upholds the prohibition on foreign law firms and lawyers from practicing law in India without subjecting themselves to the regulatory mechanism of the Bar Council. The court also modifies certain directions regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings and the applicability of the Advocates Act to BPO companies, emphasizing a case-by-case determination based on the substance of the services provided.

Facts:

The incident occurred during a village fair where the appellants allegedly assaulted the victims.

The prosecution's case relied on witness statements and material evidence recovered from the scene.

Contradictions in witness statements and lack of corroborative evidence were highlighted.

Doubts were raised over the collection of material evidence, particularly blood samples, given the circumstances of the incident.

The High Court overturned the trial court's acquittal, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the High Court's decision to overturn the trial court's acquittal was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found inconsistencies and contradictions in witness statements, lack of corroborative evidence, and doubts over the collection of material evidence. The High Court's decision to overturn the trial court's acquittal lacked sufficient justification, as there were no compelling reasons to do so.

Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's conviction and reaffirming the trial court's acquittal of the appellants. The appellants were ordered to be released from custody.

Facts:

The appellant, Dev Kanya Tiwari, was convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of her son-in-law.

The case relied on circumstantial evidence as there was no direct evidence regarding the cause of death.

The postmortem report indicated death by asphyxia due to strangulation, but there were other indications such as blisters on the body and bluish nails which could suggest poisoning.

Witnesses provided conflicting testimonies, with some supporting the prosecution's case while others supported the appellant's claim that the deceased committed suicide.

The viscera, necessary for chemical analysis to confirm poisoning, was not preserved by the doctor.

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the conflicting testimonies and lack of conclusive evidence warrant a conviction.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after careful consideration of the evidence and circumstances, held that it was not safe to convict the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The Court observed discrepancies in the evidence presented, including conflicting testimonies and the lack of conclusive medical evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of establishing a complete chain of circumstances that excludes any reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt.

Therefore, the benefit of doubt was given to the appellant, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant was ordered to be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case.

Facts:

The case involved appeals regarding the taxation of certain receipts by cooperative societies, including non-occupancy charges, transfer charges, and common amenity fund charges. The question revolved around whether these receipts were exempt from income tax under the doctrine of mutuality.

Issues:

Whether the receipts in question qualified for exemption from income tax under the doctrine of mutuality, considering their utilization for the common benefit of society members.

Held:

The doctrine of mutuality, rooted in common law principles, asserts that a person cannot make a profit from themselves. Therefore, amounts received from oneself are not regarded as income and are not taxable. However, income derived from business activities by a cooperative society is taxable under Section 2(24)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, which stands excluded from the principle of mutuality.

The court found that the receipts in question, such as transfer charges and non-occupancy charges, were utilized for the common benefit of society members, including maintenance, repairs, and amenities. This utilization aligned with the principles of mutuality, as the contributors and beneficiaries were the same.

Regarding the applicability of a government notification dated 09.08.2001, it was determined that the notification only applied to housing societies and not to premises societies, which consist of non-residential premises. Therefore, the notification did not affect the taxation of receipts by premises societies.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeals by the revenue and allowed the appeal by the cooperative society, affirming the principle of mutuality in relation to the receipts in question.

Facts:

M/S. Fortune Infrastructure (now known as M/S. Hicon Infrastructure) launched a residential housing project named 'Hicons Onyx', later renamed 'Fortune Residency'.

Trevor D'Lima booked a flat in this project but had not received possession due to delays in construction.

The appellants transferred the project to another company due to cost escalation beyond expectations.

Trevor D'Lima filed a complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) seeking various reliefs, including possession of the flat or refund of the amount paid along with compensation for delay and inconvenience.

Issues:

Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants?

What is the appropriate quantum of compensation?

Held:

The Court affirmed the finding of deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The court noted that the appellants failed to provide valid reasons for transferring the project to another company despite their contractual obligation to deliver the property to the respondent.

Regarding the quantum of compensation, the court noted that damages should be compensatory and awarded to place the aggrieved party in the same position as if the contract had been performed. The court fixed the market rate at Rs. 50,000 per square foot for the disputed property and adjusted the compensation accordingly.

The appellants were directed to refund the amount received from the respondent, pay compensation for delay, and cover the cost of litigation. The appellants were given six weeks to comply with the order, failing which they would be liable to pay interest.

Additionally, the court allowed the respondent to withdraw a certain amount deposited by the appellants before the NCDRC and adjusted it against the appellants' liability.

Facts:

The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on August 27, 2004.

Various objections were raised under Section 5A, and a declaration under Section 6 was issued on August 25, 2005.

Sale deeds were executed by landholders in favor of builders/private entities after the initiation of acquisition proceedings.

The acquisition proceedings were dropped by the state on August 24, 2007, with plans for a fresh notification.

Issues:

Whether the decisions to drop the acquisition proceedings were consistent with relevant policies and public interest.

Whether there was a fraud on power in the decisions dated August 24, 2007, and January 29, 2010.

What relief should be granted in light of the fraudulent exercise of power.

Held:

The decisions dated August 24, 2007, and January 29, 2010, were inconsistent with relevant policies, regional plans, and public interest.

There was a clear fraud on power in the decisions to drop the acquisition proceedings, which were not bona fide exercises of power.

The relief granted must aim to rectify the fraudulent exercise of power, protect the interests of affected parties, and ensure public purpose.

The decisions dated August 24, 2007, and January 29, 2010, are set aside as being brought about by a mala fide exercise of power.

An award is deemed to have been passed on August 26, 2007, for lands covered by the acquisition declaration and those transferred by landholders during the relevant period.

Lands not transferred by landholders during the specified period are not affected by these directions.

The lands covered under the deemed award shall vest in the relevant authorities.

The period between August 24, 2007, and the date of this judgment shall not be counted for the purposes of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

All transactions entered into during the period from August 24, 2007, till January 29, 2010, shall be subject to the directions issued herein.

The sale consideration paid by the builders/private entities to the landholders shall be treated towards compensation under the award.

The builders/private entities will be entitled to refund/reimbursement of any payment made to the landholders or the amounts spent on land development, subject to verification.

Third parties from whom money had been collected by the builders/private entities will be entitled to refund or allotment of plots/apartments, subject to verification.

The CBI is directed to investigate transactions involving "middlemen" and recover unlawfully obtained sums for the benefit of the state.

Pending writ petitions related to the acquisition in the Gurgaon-Manesar Urban Complex should be disposed of expeditiously by the High Court.

Facts:

The appellants owned land subject to acquisition by the State of Tamil Nadu in 1985.

They filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings.

The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the acquisition.

The State appealed the Single Judge's decision before a Division Bench, which set aside the Single Judge's order and dismissed the writ petition.

The appellants filed a review application against the Division Bench's decision, which was dismissed.

Issues:

Whether the Division Bench erred in failing to address the issues raised by the parties and provide reasoned decisions.

Whether the Single Judge's order lacked reasoning and failed to address the issues adequately.

Held:

The Court found shortcomings in both the Single Judge's order and the Division Bench's decision.

The Single Judge's order lacked reasoning and failed to address the issues adequately.

The Division Bench, while setting aside the Single Judge's order, also failed to provide reasons for its decision and did not address the issues raised in the writ petition.

The Court emphasized that the appellate court's duty is to address all issues raised by the parties and provide reasoned decisions.

As a result, the Supreme Court set aside both the Division Bench's decision and the review application and remanded the case to the Division Bench for a fresh decision on the merits.

The Court instructed the Division Bench to consider all issues raised by the parties and provide a reasoned decision within six months.

Facts:

The appellant, Sudhakar @ Sudharasan, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for strangling his grandmother to death.

Prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of interested witnesses, PWs 1 and 5, who had strained relations with the accused over property issues.

The trial court and the High Court convicted the appellant based on the prosecution's case, despite inconsistencies and contradictions in witness testimonies.

Issues:

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is justified based on the evidence presented.

Whether the lower courts erred in relying on the testimony of interested witnesses and disregarding the defense of alibi presented by the appellant.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted several inconsistencies and irregularities in the prosecution's case, including contradictions in witness testimonies and suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged crime. The Court emphasized the importance of independent witnesses and cautious evaluation of evidence when dealing with interested witnesses.

Based on the lack of credible evidence and reasonable doubt, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The appellant was ordered to be released unless required in any other case.

Facts:

The respondents, Chaman Rana and Gulshan Kumar Sharma, were superseded for promotion in the Border Security Force (BSF) in 1996 and 2000, respectively. They were subsequently promoted in 1997 and 2003, respectively. They argued for retrospective promotion from the date of their juniors' promotions, citing failure to communicate adverse remarks in their annual confidential reports (ACRs).

Issues:

The applicability of the law concerning communication of adverse remarks in ACRs and the retrospective promotion of the respondents after a significant delay.

Held:

The Court held that the claims of the respondents were highly belated and stale. It emphasized the importance of timely action in matters of promotion, noting that delays could disrupt settled matters and burden the court system. The Court cited previous judgments to support its stance and highlighted the potential administrative chaos and financial implications of granting retrospective promotions after a long delay.

The Court set aside the order of the High Court, finding it unsustainable to grant retrospective promotions to the respondents after such a long delay. The appeals by the Union of India were allowed based on these reasons.