Facts:

The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of the term "originally inhabitants of the State of Assam" as mentioned in Clause 3(3) of the Schedule to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issues of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003. The appellant sought directions from the Supreme Court regarding the understanding and identification procedure of persons falling under this category.

Issues:

Interpretation of the expression "originally inhabitants of the State of Assam."

Determination of the identification procedure for inclusion in the National Register of Citizens for individuals falling under this category.

Held:

The court elucidated that Clause 3(3) provides for a less strict process compared to Clause 3(2) for determining eligibility for inclusion in the NRC. The court clarified in paragraph 6 that the identification of originally inhabitants of Assam does not confer any special entitlement or benefits regarding citizenship. The inclusion in the NRC is solely based on proof of citizenship under the Constitution of India and the Citizenship Act. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Facts:

The appellant entered into an agreement with the respondents' late father to purchase certain land.

The sale was not completed, leading to disputes over possession and ownership.

Legal proceedings ensued, including suits filed by both parties.

Issues:

Dispute over possession and ownership of the land.

Applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Entitlement to refund of earnest money.

Held:

The possession of the appellant became unauthorized and illegal after the dismissal of the suit for specific performance.

The appellant was not entitled to the protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act after the dismissal of the suit for specific performance.

The Trial Court and the High Court were justified in declaring the respondents as owners of the land and passing a decree for possession against the appellant.

The appellant was entitled to claim a refund of earnest money under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, and the respondents were directed to refund the amount within three months.

The appellant was directed to restore vacant possession of the land to the respondents within three months.

With these directions, the appeal stands finally disposed of.

Facts:

The High Court invalidated a certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat (GP) Secretary, which was considered as a supporting document for inclusion in the National Register of Citizens (NRC) under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

The certificate acknowledged the change of residence of a married woman but did not establish citizenship.

The High Court's decision had the potential to affect numerous individuals applying for inclusion in the NRC.

Issues:

Whether the certificate issued by the GP Secretary is valid for inclusion in the NRC.

Whether the High Court's decision to invalidate the certificate was justified.

Held:

The Court held that certificate issued by the GP Secretary is valid for establishing a linkage between the holder and the person from whom legacy is claimed, subject to proper verification.

The certificate does not serve as proof of citizenship, but it facilitates the establishment of a link between the claimant and the legacy person.

The issuance of such certificates could fall within the jurisdiction of authorities under the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.

The High Court's decision to invalidate the certificate was not justified, as the certificate had been agreed upon by all stakeholders involved in the NRC process and had the approval of the Union and State Governments.

The High Court's decision had the potential to affect a large number of citizens, and thus, the Supreme Court intervened to clarify the validity of the certificate.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order invalidating the certificate and allowed its limited use for establishing a linkage between the holder and the legacy person, provided the contents are duly verified.

Facts:

The appellant, Sutlej Construction, was awarded a contract by the respondent, Union Territory of Chandigarh, for earth excavation work.

The respondent terminated the contract alleging non-fulfillment of obligations by the appellant.

The appellant invoked the arbitration clause, leading to the appointment of an arbitrator.

The arbitrator partially allowed the appellant's claims while rejecting the respondent's counterclaims.

The respondent challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issues:

Whether the arbitrator's decision was valid and enforceable.

Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the arbitral award.

Held:

In the opinion of the arbitrator, the performance of the contractual obligations by the appellant were dependent on reciprocal performances by the respondent.

The dispute in question had resulted in a reasoned award. It is not as if the arbitrator has not appreciated the evidence. The arbitrator has taken a plausible view.

The learned single Judge ought to have restrained himself from getting into the meanderings of evidence appreciation and acting like a second appellate court.

We have, thus, no hesitation in concluding that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside and the enforcement of the award in to is upheld.

The appeal is accordingly allowed but in the given facts of the case we do not impose costs.

Facts:

C. Venkata Swamy (appellant) filed a suit (O.S. No. 6640/1996) seeking a declaration and permanent injunction regarding a piece of land.

H.N. Shivanna (represented by legal representatives) (respondent) filed a cross-suit (O.S. No. 2150 of 1992) related to the same land.

Both suits were clubbed together for disposal since they involved the same parties and subject matter.

The Trial Court dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the respondent's suit.

The appellant filed two first appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) before the High Court of Karnataka.

The High Court dismissed both appeals without adequately appreciating the evidence or addressing the issues raised by the parties.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's dismissal of the appeals without proper appreciation of evidence and addressing the issues raised by the parties was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments from both parties, held as follows:

The need to remand the case to the High Court has arisen due to the High Court's failure to adequately address the issues raised in the appeals. The Court emphasized the duty of the appellate court to provide a full and fair consideration of the evidence and issues raised by the parties. The Court cited various precedents to highlight the wide jurisdiction of the appellate court to review both facts and law. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

Facts:

Mohammed Abdulla Khan (the Appellant) filed a defamation complaint against Prakash K. (the Respondent) regarding a news item published in the "Jaya Kirana" Kannada Daily Newspaper, owned by the respondent.

Despite filing a complaint with the police, no action was taken, leading the appellant to file a private complaint before the Magistrate.

The proceedings initiated by the appellant were later quashed by the Karnataka High Court through a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issues:

The High Court quashed the proceedings without providing sufficient reasoning.

The question of vicarious liability in criminal law, particularly concerning defamation offenses, requires examination.

Held:

The Supreme Court analyzed relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertaining to defamation (Sections 499-502) and emphasized the need to establish the elements of defamation to constitute an offense. The court clarified distinctions between making, publishing, printing, and selling defamatory material. It noted that the High Court failed to properly examine the legal precedent set by K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham, (2002) 6 SCC 670, which established the liability of individuals other than the editor for defamatory material published in newspapers. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the case according to the law, emphasizing that prosecutions and legal decisions should not be handled casually.

Facts:

The petitioner, Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, sought a writ petition to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Chief Justice of India to investigate alleged conspiracy and bribery in a matter pending before the Supreme Court.

The petitioner also requested the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to hand over all materials/evidence collected in the FIR to the proposed SIT.

Issues:

Whether an FIR can be lodged against a sitting judge without consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

Whether the judiciary's independence can be safeguarded amidst allegations of corruption and conspiracy.

Held:

The Court held that No FIR can be registered against a sitting judge without consultation with the Chief Justice of India, as per the law laid down in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India.

The petition was frivolous, contemptuous, and aimed at scandalizing the judiciary without reasonable basis.

The petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 25 lakhs to be deposited by the petitioner within six weeks, to be transferred to the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates' Welfare Fund.

Facts:

The land of the appellants was acquired in 1981 for the construction of a dam. In 2011, they sought its release based on a government resolution allowing re-grant of land deemed of no use for public purpose.

Issues:

Whether the re-grant of land acquired for public purpose is permissible under law, and whether the state's re-grant policy violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the re-grant of acquired land is not permissible. It directed the state to frame appropriate policies for the rehabilitation of displaced persons within three months, ensuring compliance with constitutional principles. The disposal of state-owned property must adhere to Article 14.

Facts:

The case involved an appeal by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against Sunil Kumar regarding the release of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case.

Issues:

The release of 50% of the compensation amount that was deposited in the court registry to the claimant, Sunil Kumar.

Held:

The court ordered the release of 50% of the compensation amount that was deposited in the registry to the claimant, upon due identification. However, upon mention by the learned counsel for the respondent, the court clarified that the amount should be released from the deposit in the trial court.