Facts:

The petitioner, Dr. Sabu Mathew George, filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 341 of 2008 seeking necessary directions for the effective implementation of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The petition specifically sought directions to block online sex determination advertisements on websites such as Google India, Yahoo! India, and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt Ltd. The petitioner also requested the formation of a separate monitoring committee. Several orders had been pronounced by the Court earlier concerning this matter, yet the petitioner alleged that the Nodal Agency had not been effective in stopping offending material from being displayed on the internet, with Google India, Yahoo! India, and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt Ltd. being held responsible.

Issues:

The Court was to address the petitioner's concerns regarding the ineffective implementation of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, particularly regarding the prohibition of online advertisements related to sex determination.

Held:

The Court directed the Nodal Agency and the Expert Committee to convene a meeting within six weeks, with the assistance of the petitioner's counsel, to collectively understand and approach the problem. Representatives from Google India, Yahoo! India, and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt Ltd. were also directed to appear before the Committee and offer their suggestions. The Court emphasized the need for a constructive and collective approach to finding solutions to ensure compliance with the Act (Para 28).

The Court expressed confidence in the Union of India and its Committee to take appropriate steps to prevent violations of the Act and address the declining sex ratio in the country. It stressed the importance of controlling inappropriate internet exposure and urged cooperation from Google India, Yahoo! India, and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt Ltd. in finding a satisfactory solution (Para 29, 30).

Decision:The writ petition was disposed of with the directions outlined above.

Facts:

The incident occurred on 30th July 2003, where the accused persons fired upon and killed Lallu Singh. The prosecution alleged that the accused had a motive due to prior enmity.

Issues:

The credibility of eyewitness testimony, the significance of the ballistic report, the delay in lodging the FIR, and inconsistencies in the evidence.

Held:

The Supreme Court found the testimony of eyewitnesses credible and reliable, as they were close relatives of the deceased and provided consistent details of the incident (para 10).

The court upheld the importance of the ballistic report, which connected the gun recovered from one of the accused to the empty cartridges found at the crime scene (para 11).

The court accepted the prosecution's explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR, considering factors like heavy rain and fear of the accused, and criticized the High Court for relying excessively on this factor (para 15).

Minor inconsistencies in the evidence of eyewitnesses were dismissed as they did not affect the credibility of the witnesses or the prosecution's case (para 14).

The appeal by the State regarding accused Prem Yadav was allowed, confirming his conviction and sentence. The appeals concerning the other three accused were dismissed (para 18).

Facts:

The Section 4(1) Notification for land acquisition was issued on 17.01.1974.

Compensation was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer on 04.06.1977.

The appellants did not pursue the matter further under Section 18 of the Act for reference.

Other claimants pursued the matter, leading to an enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court.

The appellants filed an application under Section 28A seeking similar enhancement.

While the Section 28A application was pending, the award under LAR Nos. 123 and 129 of 1983 was challenged in appeals.

The High Court disposed of these appeals on 23.03.2009, granting compensation at a higher rate.

However, during the pendency of the appeal, the Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on the Section 28A application on 25.10.2000, awarding compensation at the previous rate.

The appellants filed fresh applications under Section 28A on 27.05.2009 based on the judgment of the High Court dated 23.03.2009.

Issues:

Whether successive applications under Section 28A are permissible.

What is the proper course of action for the Land Acquisition Collector when the award is pending in appeal.

Held:

In the peculiar facts of the case, the Court held that while only a single application is maintainable under Section 28A, the Collector should have kept the application pending until the appeals were decided. Therefore, the Court directed the Collector to reconsider the original Section 28A application dated 31.12.1992 in light of the High Court's judgment dated 23.03.2009. The Court set aside the previous award dated 25.10.2000. The Court also directed the Collector to pass orders within three months from the presentation of the judgment copy and disbursed the consequential benefits to the appellants within one month. There shall be no order as to costs. (Para. 17-19)

Facts:

The appeal arises from a Writ Petition filed by the Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India in the Delhi High Court, challenging the applicability of certain Acts and Rules to services rendered in hotels and restaurants, particularly concerning the pricing of mineral water.

Issues:

Whether composite contracts for services and food and drinks in hotels/restaurants are subject to the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, especially regarding charging prices exceeding the MRP for mineral water.

Held:

The court held that the definition of "sale" under the relevant Acts does not differentiate between the sale of goods and the provision of services in composite contracts. Despite a constitutional amendment deeming supply of goods as part of any service to be a sale, subsequent enactments retained the same definition of "sale." The objective of these enactments is to standardize weights and measures for defined goods, ensuring transparency and consumer protection, rather than regulating services.

The court affirmed that neither the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, nor the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, apply to regulate the sale of mineral water in hotels and restaurants. This interpretation is in line with previous judgments emphasizing the indivisibility of service and sale in such establishments.

Facts:

Mr. Dewan, the testator, executed a Will in 1984, bequeathing his property.

The Will granted a life interest in the suit house to his wife, Mrs. Pritam, while giving absolute ownership of the ground and first floors to his son and daughter respectively.

Disputes arose after Mr. Dewan's demise regarding the nature of Mrs. Pritam's interest in the suit house.

The matter was brought before the courts by Mrs. Pritam's son and daughter against her daughter.

Issues:

Whether Mrs. Pritam's interest in the suit house was absolute or limited.

Whether the case falls under Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Held:

The Court held that Mrs. Pritam's interest in the suit house was a "life interest," as per the terms of the Will, and fell under Section 14(2) of the Act.

The testator's intention, as reflected in the Will, was to grant only a life interest to his wife, while conferring absolute ownership on his son and daughter.

Mrs. Pritam's interest remained restricted till her death, as per Section 14(2) of the Act, despite the absence of any explicit restrictions in the Will.

The Court found similarities with previous cases, such as Sadhu Singh v. Gurudwara Sahib Narike, where similar restrictions resulted in a "life interest" falling under Section 14(2) of the Act.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision that Mrs. Pritam's interest in the suit house was limited to a life interest under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Facts:

The case involves the demolition of jhuggies in the New Sanjay Camp Slum Cluster in Delhi by the Public Works Department (PWD) for the construction of an underpass.

Writ petitions were filed before the High Court seeking suitable alternative accommodation and compensation for the affected inhabitants/slum dwellers.

The High Court issued a judgment directing the Government of NCT of Delhi to provide alternative accommodation. However, in a contempt petition, it interpreted the judgment narrowly, confining the benefit only to the petitioners.

Issues:

Whether the benefit of the judgment extends to all affected persons listed in the writ petitions or is confined only to the petitioners.

Interpretation of the judgment rendered by the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court clarified that the benefit of the judgment extends to all affected persons listed in the writ petitions, not just the petitioners. This interpretation aligns with the principle of class litigation. The Court directed the respondents to implement the judgment within three months. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, disposed of pending applications, and made no orders as to costs.

Facts:

A child named Pradyumn Thakur was found dead with a neck injury at Ryan International School.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the investigation.

The management executives of the school, including Mr. Ryan Pinto, Dr. Augustine Francis Pinto, and Mrs. Grace Pinto, approached the High Court for anticipatory/interim bail.

The High Court granted interim bail to the private respondents until the presentation of the challan by the CBI.

Issues:

Whether the private respondents concealed material facts or suppressed information.

Whether there was evidence directly implicating the private respondents in the crime.

Whether the grant of interim bail was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence implicating the private respondents in the crime. The Court noted that the investigation was ongoing, and the CBI was yet to conclude on their involvement. Therefore, the grant of interim bail was justified. The Court also observed that the private respondents had not concealed material facts or suppressed information, considering the timing of their approach to the High Court and the widespread media coverage of the incident.

The Court further emphasized that the CBI had not called the private respondents for interrogation, and there was no evidence of their complicity in the crime. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to grant interim bail to the private respondents.

Facts:

Balwant Singh Thakur filed a complaint against Kaushal Kishore Awasthi alleging professional misconduct.

Thakur accused Awasthi of objecting to the registration of a sale deed concerning a property dispute, claiming it constituted professional misconduct.

The objection stemmed from Thakur's alleged failure to repay a debt owed to Awasthi, rather than Awasthi's role as an advocate in any legal proceeding.

Issues:

Whether Awasthi's objection to the sale deed amounted to professional misconduct as per the provisions of the Advocates Act and Rules framed thereunder.

Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Awasthi by the State Bar Council was proper and within jurisdiction.

Held:

The Court held that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Awasthi was improper and without jurisdiction. The objection raised by Awasthi did not constitute professional misconduct as it was unrelated to his role as an advocate in any ongoing legal proceedings. The property in question was not being sold in execution of any decree related to a previous lawsuit where Awasthi had represented Thakur. The objection was based on a personal financial matter between Awasthi and Thakur, not on any professional grounds. Therefore, the Court allowed Awasthi's appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Bar Council of India. (Para. 7-8)

Facts:

The case involved a partition suit concerning properties inherited after partition. The appellant sought to amend the plaint to include a claim for a share in the sale proceeds of a property sold by the respondent.

The trial court rejected the amendment application, citing the limitation period for the claim.

The appellant challenged this decision in the High Court, which upheld the rejection of the amendment application.

Issues:

Whether the amendment application should be allowed considering the commencement of the trial and the limitation period for the claim.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that since evidence was led by both parties after the filing of the amendment application, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant by allowing the amendment. The Court emphasized the purpose of amendments to determine the real questions in controversy and to prevent delay in proceedings.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the trial court. It directed the trial court to allow the amendment application and to consider framing additional issues, if necessary. The parties were given an opportunity to lead additional evidence, and the suit was to be decided finally within a specified timeframe.