Facts:

The appellants, landlords, filed an eviction suit against the respondent, tenant, alleging default in payment of rent, bona fide need, sub-letting, and making of unauthorized construction in the suit shop by the respondent.

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, finding grounds of sub-letting and unauthorized construction made out against the tenant.

The High Court reversed this decision and dismissed the eviction suit entirely.

Issues:

Whether the ground of sub-letting was made out against the respondent.

Whether the Trial Court or the High Court was correct in their findings regarding sub-letting.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the ground of sub-letting was made out against the respondent. The Court found the respondent's contradictory statements regarding the presence of Joynal Mullick in the suit shop significant. Despite the respondent's denials and conflicting testimonies, the Court inferred that the respondent failed to prove the nature of Joynal Mullick's presence adequately.

Therefore, the burden fell on the respondent to prove the nature of Joynal Mullick's presence, either as an employee or a business partner, which the respondent failed to discharge.

The Court emphasized the tenant's duty to prove that he retained exclusive possession over the premises despite the presence of another person, which the respondent failed to establish. Referring to Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the principles laid down in Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Court concluded that the appellants successfully proved the case of sub-letting against the respondent.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's decree in part, decreeing eviction based on the ground of sub-letting. The respondent was granted three months to vacate the premises, subject to fulfilling certain conditions regarding payment of rent and mesne profits.

Facts:

Ramaiah Reddy, the head of the family, had two wives, Hemavathi and Nirmala, and children from both marriages.

The dispute arose over certain immovable properties owned by Ramaiah, with Sharmila, daughter of Hemavathi, and Umesh, her son, claiming ownership based on a will dated 12.03.1980.

Nirmala and others denied the existence of the will and relied on a compromise decree obtained in a previous suit.

Issues:

Whether Sharmila could prove the existence of the will dated 12.03.1980 in accordance with the law.

Held:

The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, holding that Sharmila had successfully proven the will dated 12.03.1980.

The Court found that the will was registered and executed by Ramaiah in favor of his minor children, which was a natural bequest out of love and affection.

Since the original will was not in Sharmila's possession, she relied on secondary evidence to prove its existence.

The Court noted discrepancies in a later will dated 20.05.1995, which did not mention the earlier will dated 12.03.1980.

Therefore, the compromise decree obtained in another suit was not binding on Sharmila.

Consequently, the appeal filed by Nirmala was dismissed, and Sharmila was declared the lawful owner of the properties bequeathed to her in the will dated 12.03.1980.

Facts:

Plaintiffs filed a civil suit against defendants seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale of properties.

Defendants were served by substituted service but remained ex parte throughout the proceedings.

Trial Court passed an ex parte decree against defendants. Subsequently, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 applied for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, which was allowed by the Trial Court.

Trial Court failed to issue fresh notice of the suit to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 after restoration, as required by the local amendment made by the State of Kerala in the first proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC.

Despite this irregularity, Trial Court again decreed the suit ex parte against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 without issuing a fresh notice.

Issues:

Whether the Trial Court's failure to issue a fresh notice of the suit to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 after restoration, as required by the local amendment, constituted an irregularity?

Whether the High Court's decision to set aside the Trial Court's judgment and decree and remand the case for fresh trial on merits was justified?

Held:

The Court discuss the irregularity committed by the Trial Court in failing to issue a fresh notice to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 after restoration of the suit. The Court held that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to a fresh notice of the suit once restored, despite their non-appearance in the initial proceedings. This failure constituted an irregularity that called for remand of the case.

The Court upheld the remand order of the High Court, considering the aforementioned irregularity and additional grounds. It directed the Trial Court to issue a fresh notice to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and proceed with the trial on merits. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, having already been served, were not entitled to further notice.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to conduct a fresh trial on merits, ensuring compliance with the law and providing due notice to all parties.

Facts:

The appellants filed an ejectment suit against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for eviction from the suit premises, citing reasons like non-payment of rent, subletting, and personal need of the premises. Respondent No. 1 sought to be impleaded as a co-plaintiff, claiming to be a member of the appellants' family and a co-owner of the suit property. The Trial Court dismissed the impleadment application, but the High Court allowed it, prompting this appeal.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC for impleadment as a co-plaintiff in the ejectment suit.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that respondent No. 1's impleadment was unjustified. The Court observed that in an eviction suit, only the landlord and tenant are necessary parties, and the landlord needs to prove the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and grounds for eviction under the Rent Act.

The Court emphasized that the question of title to the suit premises is irrelevant to the eviction suit. It also clarified that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to include a third party unless their presence is essential for an effective decision.

The Court concluded that respondent No. 1's presence was not necessary for the effective decision of the suit.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impleadment application was dismissed, directing the Trial Court to proceed with the eviction suit expeditiously.

Facts:

The Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association challenged the constitutional validity of The Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005, which regulated activities like Live Band Music, Cabaret Dance, and Discotheque in restaurants.

Issues:

Whether the 2005 Order was constitutional and whether it imposed reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to carry on the business of running restaurants.

Held:

The Court interpreted Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to carry on any profession, occupation, trade, or business, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State in the interest of the general public under Article 19(6).

The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2005 Order, finding it in line with the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, and within the powers of the Commissioner of Police to regulate specified activities in restaurants.

The Order was deemed necessary to control, regulate, and supervise performances such as Cabaret, Discotheque, and Live Band Music in restaurants for public safety and welfare.

Requiring licenses for such performances was considered a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on the business of running restaurants, ensuring compliance with norms and regulations.

The specified conditions in the Order, aimed at public safety, comfort, convenience, morality, and law and order, were found reasonable and necessary to protect the welfare of customers and residents.

The Court rejected claims of discrimination, stating that the Order's distinction between different types of performances was justified based on factors such as frequency and potential indecency or obscenity.

Compliance with safety measures, including noise pollution control and fire safety, was emphasized as essential to prevent untoward incidents and ensure the welfare of the community.

Facts:

Haryana State Warehousing Corporation acquired land for warehouse construction.

Compensation awarded was contested, leading to appeals and reviews.

High Court enhanced compensation but dismissed review petitions.

Supreme Court examined post-notification instances and deduction for development charges.

Issues:

Whether post-notification instances should be considered for compensation.

Determination of deduction for development charges.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that post-notification instances cannot be considered for determining compensation, as per Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Regarding the deduction for development charges, the Court referred to precedents and established that normally one-third deduction towards development charges is allowed.

The High Court's deduction at 67.5% was deemed excessive, and the Court decided to apply one-third deduction. Consequently, the Court arrived at an enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,43,258/- per acre, payable with all statutory benefits.

The appeals were partly allowed, and it was clarified that the appellants would not be entitled to claim interest for the period of delay in preferring the appeals from the review.

Facts:

The appellant filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents. The suit was initially dismissed by the Trial Court but was remanded back for trial by the Appellate Court. After remand, the appellant filed three applications seeking permission to file additional documents, amendment in the plaint, and direction for the production of original documents. The Trial Court and subsequently the High Court dismissed these applications.

Issues:

Whether the Trial Court and High Court were justified in dismissing the applications filed by the appellant during the initial stages of the suit.

Whether the appellant should be allowed to file additional documents and amend the plaint.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court and High Court were not justified in dismissing the applications filed by the appellant. The Court emphasized a liberal approach towards allowing amendments during the initial stages of a suit. It noted that since the trial had not yet begun, and the proposed amendments did not change the nature of the suit, the applications should have been allowed.

The Court further held that the appellant should be permitted to file additional documents, especially when they were alleged to be obtained from the respondents themselves through RTI.

The Court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the proposed amendment or the relevance of the documents. It emphasized that it was for the appellant to prove their case with adequate evidence.

As a consequence, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Trial Court and High Court, and allowed the appellant to file additional documents and amend the plaint. The appellant was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents. The Trial Court was instructed to reframe the issues and decide the suit in accordance with law, preferably within one year.

Facts:

Individuals with M.Phil. degrees obtained through distance education before 11.07.2009 were denied consideration for the position of Guest Lecturer in Government Colleges in Madhya Pradesh.

The Higher Education Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh issued an order outlining selection criteria, which excluded candidates with M.Phil. degrees obtained through distance education.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled that M.Phil. qualifications obtained before the enforcement of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 should be considered valid for eligibility.

Issues:

Whether M.Phil. qualifications obtained through distance education before the enforcement of the UGC Regulations 2009 are valid for eligibility as Guest Lecturers.

Whether the UGC Regulations 2009 pertaining to minimum qualifications for teacher appointments affect the eligibility criteria for Guest Lecturers.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the validity of M.Phil. qualifications obtained before the enforcement of UGC Regulations 2009 for eligibility as Guest Lecturers.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the need to consider the UGC Regulations 2009 regarding minimum qualifications for teacher appointments in assessing eligibility.

The Court directed that the eligibility of the petitioners be reevaluated, considering both sets of Regulations applicable at the time of advertisement and selection for Guest Lecturer positions in 2012.

Facts:

Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were prosecuted under Sections 307/325/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to two persons with a Hockey stick on 29.07.1988.

The Trial Court acquitted all accused persons, which was challenged by the State and the complainant before the High Court.

The High Court convicted four accused persons under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC, while one accused was acquitted.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the accused under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC.

Whether the sentence imposed by the High Court was appropriate.

Held:

The Court affirmed the High Court's decision regarding the conviction under Section 325 IPC, stating that it was based on proper appreciation of the evidence. The Court found no reason to disturb this finding.

The Court upheld the sentence already undergone by the accused, considering the long lapse of time since the incident, the death of one of the injured, and the compensation already awarded. The Court found no reason to interfere with the quantum of fine imposed by the High Court.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the High Court.