Facts:

The petitioner, Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav, filed Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.401-402 of 2012 challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence.

Issues:

The scope of review jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the correctness of the death sentence, and the petitioner's conduct in prison.

Held:

The scope of review jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is limited to correcting miscarriages of justice caused by an error apparent on the face of the record, guided by Article 137 of the Constitution and Order XL Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules. The court cannot re-appreciate evidence in its entirety during the review (Para 1 to Para 6.5).

The petitioner's conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence was upheld, and there were no grounds for interference with the findings on the "last seen" circumstance, extra-judicial confession, and motive. The chain of circumstances established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Para 10 to Para 17).

Though evidence being circumstantial may be a relevant consideration in sentencing, there is no bar on awarding the death sentence. The decision depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors (Para 18.1 to Para 18.2).

The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment due to a mitigating circumstance in the nature of circumstantial evidence. Incorrect observations regarding the deceased's facial injuries affected the decision. Life imprisonment alone would be inadequate, and the petitioner was ordered to remain in prison for life with restrictions on remission (Para 20 to Para 22.1).

Facts:

The case involves a review petition challenging the guidelines issued in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra. The guidelines pertained to arrests under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically requiring approval for the arrest of public servants and a preliminary inquiry by a Dy.S.P for non-public servants.

Issues:

The validity of the guidelines issued in the Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case.

The impact of the guidelines on the rights and protections afforded to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the 1989 Act.

Held:

The court holds that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is not violative of Article 21. The court emphasizes the historical discrimination faced by these communities and the need for protective discrimination. The existing provisions regarding arrests are analyzed, and the court concludes that the guidelines in question restrict the right to arrest.

The court discusses the right to live with dignity and the concomitant provision of compensation for human rights violations under Article 21. It emphasizes that the Act of 1989 is in essence aligned with various facets of Article 21, providing protections and compensation. The court rejects the notion of a presumption that members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the law and argues against discrimination in procedures.

The court refutes the idea that the caste of a person is the cause for lodging false reports under the Act. It highlights the vulnerable position of these communities and the need for special protections. The court dismisses the argument that the high number of cases registered in 2016 indicates misuse of the Act and stresses that such misuse can be addressed through existing legal mechanisms.

The court addresses concerns related to the approval of arrests by the appointing authority for public servants. It argues that Section 197 of the Cr.PC already provides protection, and requiring appointing authority approval at the arrest stage would be discriminatory and encroach upon legislative territory.

The court rejects the idea that approval of the SSP is necessary for the arrest of non-public servants, emphasizing that it may cause delays and is not statutorily envisaged.

The court concludes that requiring the Magistrate to scrutinize reasons for further detention is unnecessary when approval from the appointing authority or SSP has not been granted. It emphasizes that this process may delay proceedings under the Act of 1989.

The court recalls guidelines (iii) and (iv) issued in the Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case, stating that they encroach upon legislative territory and are against the concept of protective discrimination under Article 15(4). As a result, direction No.(v) also becomes irrelevant.

Facts:

The case involves appellants Sagar Sharma and another against respondents Phoenix ARC Private Limited and another. The impugned judgment erroneously stated that the I&B Code's coming into force on 1st December 2016 triggered the right to apply under Section 7, and the application was not barred by limitation.

Issues:

The misapplication of the limitation period concerning applications under Section 7 of the IBC, particularly in reference to the I&B Code's enforcement date.

Held:

It is clarified that the I&B Code's enforcement on 01.12.2016 is irrelevant to triggering any limitation period for the Code. The court sets aside the impugned judgment and directs a fresh determination, emphasizing that Article 137 of the Limitation Act alone applies to applications under Section 7. The NCLT order dated 29.01.2019 remains stayed until further orders from the NCLAT. Senior Counsel Rakesh Dwivedi expresses intent to raise a plea based on Section 22 of the Limitation Act before the NCLAT.

Facts:

Appellants and private respondents applied for the post of Technical Assistant.

U.P. Reservation Act prescribed specific reservation percentages for different categories.

The State Government identified a wrongful calculation in category-wise vacancies and revised the requisition in August 2014.

UPPSC declared results based on the revised requisition, and an O.M. dated October 12, 2014, revised the vacancies for different categories.

Private respondents challenged the O.M. and the result in the High Court.

Issues:

Validity of the revised requisition and O.M.

Absorption of diploma holders.

Challenge to the selection process by private respondents who participated in the interview.

Filling of unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies.

Doctrine of res judicata.

Held:

Revised Requisition and O.M. Validity: The revised requisition and O.M. were valid as they rectified wrongful calculations and complied with the U.P. Reservation Act, 1994. The correction aimed to achieve the reservation quota without prejudicing the General category candidates. (Para 32)

Absorption of Diploma Holders: Diploma holders were wrongly counted against the OBC quota, and rectifying this mistake in the revised requisition was justified. The variation in vacancies against the "General quota" resulted from the absorption of diploma holders against the "General quota." (Paras 37, 38)

Challenge by Private Respondents: Candidates participating in the interview without objection cannot later challenge the modified vacancies; estopped by the principle of estoppel. (Para 50)

Filling of Unfilled Horizontal Reservation Vacancies: Filling unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies by candidates of vertical reservation is in accordance with the government's policy. (Para 56)

Doctrine of Res Judicata: The decision of the Supreme Court is binding on all writ petitioners before the High Court, even if they were not parties in the appeal before the Supreme Court. (Para 63)

Appointment Issues and Article 142: Selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to be appointed. Power under Article 142 cannot be exercised to direct the State to issue appointment orders to 906 candidates. (Para 76)

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, specifically regarding the definition of "commercial site."

The appellant, K.H. Nazar, sought exemption for his quarry under Section 81(1)(q), arguing that a quarry qualifies as a "commercial site."

Conflicting views from earlier judgments of the Kerala High Court on whether quarrying is a commercial operation added complexity to the case.

Issues:

Whether a rocky land used for quarrying purposes can be treated as a "commercial site" under Section 81(1)(q) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

The interpretation of the term "commercial site" in the context of the Act and its application to quarries.

Held:

The Court rejects the appellant's contention that quarrying constitutes a manufacturing activity, citing a previous judgment that breaking rocks into pieces does not amount to manufacturing (Paragraph 18).

The majority opinion emphasizes the restrictive meaning of the term "commercial site" in Section 81, stating that a commercial site involves land with a structure used for industrial or commercial purposes (Paragraph 15).

The Court dismisses the dissenting view that sought support from Section 81(1)(k), emphasizing that it deals with a different type of land belonging to an industrial or commercial undertaking (Paragraph 17).

The wider construction of the words "commercial site" would defeat the laudable object of the Act, which aims to restrict concentration of large swathes of land in favor of a few individuals (Paragraph 19).

The Appeals are dismissed, affirming the majority opinion of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court (Paragraph 20).

Facts:

The first respondent, an LIC employee, opted for Plot No.2 in a Cooperative Housing Society for employees. Despite her alleged seniority, the plot was unlawfully allotted to the appellant. An interim order was issued, but the society executed a sale deed in favor of the appellant.

Issues:

The disputant's status as a member/deemed member of the society and entitlement to Plot No.2.

Held:

The disputant, being an LIC employee who deposited Rs.4,750, was conclusively a depositor of the society. Her attendance at the meeting on December 18, 1988, was in her own right, as her husband did not claim depositor status or entitlement to an additional plot.

The appellant neither contributed to the society nor attended the crucial meeting. The disputant's claim to Plot No.2, exercised on December 18, 1988, had no competing claims. Her contribution, along with other depositors, facilitated the society's land purchase, unlike the appellant.

The appellant did not pay any amount towards the society's shares or admission fee before December 18, 1988. The resolution passed in 1984 did not restrict depositor choices for Plots 1 and 2. The disputant's superior claim is highlighted by her timely application and fee payment.

The High Court's conclusions, deeming the appellant's allotment illegal, and quashing the society's resolution and sale deed, were justified. The disputant's entitlement, membership, and plot selection as of December 18, 1988, must guide future allotments.

FACTS:

Source information on June 20, 2006, alerted authorities about a Tavera vehicle carrying contraband material (poppy straw) from Madhya Pradesh to Jodhpur.

A team intercepted the vehicle, driven by the respondent Sahi Ram, and found 223 kgs of poppy straw behind the driver's seat.

Samples were taken, sealed, and the material was subject to forensic examination.

The trial court convicted Sahi Ram for possession and transportation of illegal poppy straw.

ISSUES:

The non-production of the entire contraband material before the court.

The High Court acquitted the respondent based on this non-exhibition of material.

HELD:

The seizure of the material was not in doubt, and the court emphasized that the entire contraband material need not be produced if the seizure is otherwise proved.

The court recognized that the material could be too bulky to present entirely before the court, especially when the bags weighed 223 kgs.

The key requirement was proving the integrity of samples taken for forensic examination, ensuring seals were intact.

The High Court's decision to discard the evidence due to non-exhibition of the entire material was deemed unsustainable.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the order of conviction by the trial court was restored.

A minimum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment was imposed under Section 8 read with 15 of the NDPS Act.

Facts:

IndusInd Media and Communications Ltd. (Appellant) imported goods and declared them as multiplex or satellite receivers, test and measurement equipment.

Show Cause Notice was issued on the suspicion of mis-declaration of value and classification.

Investigation revealed that the imported goods constituted a 'Head End' for cable TV operations.

The Department contended that apart from the supply of equipment, necessary software was embedded in the equipment before the supply was effected.

Out of 19 items in the Bill of Entry, only 8 items were physically presented; the rest were already embedded in the main unit.

Issues:

Classification of the imported goods - Whether under heading 8543 as ordered by the adjudicating authority or under heading 8525 as claimed by the appellant.

Valuation - Whether the value of software already embedded in the equipment and service charges should be included in the assessable value.

Held:

The Tribunal found that the goods, though ordered separately, were intended to contribute together to perform a common clearly defined function ('Head End' for cable TV operations), classifying them under heading 8525. The embedded software and services were rightly included in the valuation. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal.

Facts:

Appellant's father, brother of the original tenant, was inducted as a tenant on the respondent's land due to the ill health of the original tenant.

The original tenant executed a will bequeathing his properties, including land rights, to the appellant's father.

Legal disputes arose, including objections by the original tenant's wife and subsequent litigation.

A suit filed by the appellant's father for possessory title and injunction was decreed in his favor and attained finality.

Issues:

Validity of the will executed by the original tenant in favor of the appellant's father.

Rejection of an application under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for the grant of occupancy rights.

Held:

The High Court erred in holding that the will is hit by statutory prohibition. The applicable statutory provisions are under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, since the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, was not in force when the will was executed. The provisions in the Acts are similar, and the High Court's decision cannot be sustained.

In the scheme of the Acts, heritable rights exist for a tenant with certain restrictions. The findings of a civil suit, which conclusively determined the heirship and validity of the will, were not given due consideration by the High Court. The wife of the tenant was found not to be the heir, and the will is valid.

The Land Tribunal's rejection of the claim was cursory and failed to appreciate contextual statements made by the appellant. The appellate authority's dismissal and refusal to restore the appeal were hyper-technical. The High Court erred in rejecting the claim based on irrelevant considerations and without proper examination of the civil suit findings.

The impugned judgments and orders are set aside. The application for the grant of occupancy rights is allowed, and the Land Tribunal is directed to pass necessary formal orders in favor of the appellants.