Facts:

The appellants, licensed traders of agricultural produce, sought allotment of plots/shops in the new grain market after the de-notification of the old market. The High Court upheld the validity of the rules, leading to the present appeals.

Issues:

Validity of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board Rules, 1999, and the First Amendment Rules of 2008.

Conditions for allotment of plots/shops in new grain markets.

Interpretation of turnover proof requirements.

Held:

The Court emphasizes that deviations from the rules can only be allowed if they occur due to reasons beyond the control of the dealer. Examples include the dealer being incapacitated or facing circumstances affecting turnover or license renewal. Such deviations are to avoid injustice while still following the letter of the law. Every law must be read in an equitable and humane manner, and only technical violations, not violations going to the root of the matter, can be condoned.( Paragraphs 21 and 22)

The Court disposes of the appeals with specific directions, including upholding the validity of the Rules, requiring a valid license for more than 3 years for first-time license holders, providing a 3-month window for renewal of licenses, and emphasizing the primary evidence of turnover through Form 'M.' The Court directs the Market Board/Committee to reconsider cases with marginal deficiencies within three months, taking into account reasons beyond the control of the dealer.( Paragraph 23-24)

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that the accused were found in possession of poppy husk in a vehicle. The trial court convicted them, but the High Court acquitted them, citing non-compliance with Section 50 in the personal search.

Issues:

Whether non-compliance with Section 50 in the personal search of the accused invalidates the recovery of contraband material from the vehicle.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized that the recovery from the vehicle, even if there was non-compliance with Section 50 in the personal search, should not be invalidated. The court referred to previous judgments, including the Baldev Singh case, stating that non-compliance with Section 50 may render the recovery suspect but does not vitiate the trial if other evidence exists. The court set aside the High Court's acquittal, restored the trial court's conviction, and reduced the sentence to 10 years. The accused were given until November 15, 2019, to surrender. The appeals stand allowed in aforesaid terms.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal challenging an interim order from the Delhi High Court in a writ petition related to the Black Money Act.

The issues concern the retrospective application of the Act, specifically Sections 50 and 51, and the one-time declaration opportunity under Section 59.

Issues:

Whether the High Court correctly observed the retrospective application of penal provisions.

The impact of the date change in sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Black Money Act on the one-time declaration opportunity.

Held:

The court holds that the High Court was not correct in deeming the penal provisions retrospective.

The date change in sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Black Money Act was intended to allow assesses to benefit from Section 59.

The penal provisions (Sections 50 and 51) apply when an assessee fails to utilize Section 59 for disclosure and payment of tax and penalty.

The interim order by the High Court is quashed, and the case is remanded for a decision on its merits.

Concludes by allowing the appeal, quashing the interim order, and requesting the High Court to decide the writ petition on its merits.

Facts:

The appellant, H. S. Yadav, filed an appeal under Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, directly to the Supreme Court. The constitutional challenge revolved around the authority of the State Legislature to enact a law allowing such a direct appeal.

Issues:

Whether the State Legislature has the competence to enact a law providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.

The validity of Section 13(2) in this context.

Held:

The court emphasized that the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court are exclusive to the Union, and the State Legislature lacks the power to enact laws in this regard (Para 12).

Entries 77 and 65 of Lists I and II were referenced, supporting the argument that legislative competence on the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court lies solely with the Union (Para 11).

The court questioned the rationale behind making the order appealable directly to the Supreme Court, criticizing the lack of consideration for the hierarchy of courts in the Act (Para 13).

The court referred to the case of L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119, which affirmed the writ jurisdiction of High Courts over tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution (Para 16).

The court suggested that the appellant can seek redressal through the High Court under Article 227 and dismissed the appeal filed under Section 13(2) (Para 17).

Facts:

The case involves a dispute regarding the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The contention arises from the acquisition process initiated through Section 4 notification and subsequent transactions involving the purchased land.

Issues:

The legality of land transactions after the Section 4 notification, the rights of subsequent purchasers under the Act of 2013, and the interpretation of Section 24(2) concerning the restoration of land or the lapse of acquisition.

Held:

The judgment holds that incumbents who purchased land after the Section 4 notification have no right to question the acquisition. The Act of 2013 is designed to benefit landowners mentioned in the Section 4 notification, not subsequent purchasers. (Para: 6, 8, 9.)

The definition of "affected family" and "landowner" as per Sections 3(c) and 3(r) is discussed. A person acquiring interest after the Section 11 notification is not considered part of the "affected family" or a "landowner."( Para: 10, 12.)

Section 24(2) is examined, and it is emphasized that subsequent purchasers cannot claim rights under this provision. The proviso to Section 24(2) reinforces the rights of recorded owners at the time of the Section 4 notification to receive compensation.(Para: 16, 17.)

The judgment asserts that the Act of 2013 does not confer any right on purchasers whose sale is ab initio void. Transactions made after the Section 4 notification are considered void, and such void transactions are not validated under the Act of 2013.(Para: 18-21.)

The objective of the Act of 2013 is outlined, emphasizing the acquisition of land with minimal disturbance to landowners, fair compensation, and rehabilitation. Subsequent purchasers are not considered landowners entitled to restoration of land. (Para: 22, 23, 24)

Decision: The Court dismisses the appeal, affirming that purchasers after the Section 4 notification cannot question the acquisition or claim rights under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

Facts:

The plaintiffs, successors of the ex-Zamindar, filed a suit seeking declaration of Bhumiswami rights and permanent injunction for certain land.

The State denied the claims, stating that the land was not Khud-kasht but recorded as 'Bir' (Grass) land before the Zamindari abolition.

Issues:

Whether the land, recorded as 'Grass' before the date of vesting, can be considered Khud-kasht land of the ex-Zamindar?

Whether the entries in revenue records support the claim of the plaintiffs?

Held:

The Court held that for land to be saved from vesting, it must fulfill three requirements: personal cultivation (as per Section 2(c)), recorded as Khud-kasht, and recorded before the date of vesting (as per Section 4(2)).

The Khasra entry of 2007, presented by the plaintiffs, was found to be spurious, manipulated, and against the instructions, leading to no presumption of correctness under Section 52.

The land, not recorded as Khud-kasht, did not meet the requirements of Section 4(2), and thus, it automatically vested in the State under Section 4(1).

The Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 4(1) prevail, and the grassland, i.e., 'Bir' land, vests in the State.

The decision of the High Court, which favored the plaintiffs, was set aside, and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were restored.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision, and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were restored. No costs were awarded.

Facts:

The case involves the State of Uttarakhand's recruitment of Junior Engineers (JEs) in the Irrigation Department, where 200 posts were advertised. The promotion to the next higher post, Assistant Engineers (AE, Civil), was governed by the 2003 Rules, which included a 10% accelerated promotion quota for JEs (Civil) holding a Degree in Civil Engineering with 3 years of service. An amendment in 2004 sought to alter the appointment ratio, resulting in writ petitions filed by Diploma-holders challenging the accelerated promotion quota.

Issues:

The classification based on educational qualifications for accelerated promotion and the constitutional validity of the amendment in 2004, particularly the accelerated promotion quota.

Held:

Qualification-Based Classification (Para 16): The court holds that the State has the right to provide different periods of experience for Degree-holders and Diploma-holders at the time of promotion, considering both promotion and direct appointment to AEs may require a Degree as the essential qualification.

Justifiability of Classification (Paras 26-28): The court emphasizes that higher educational qualifications, intrinsically linked with exclusive, earlier, or accelerated promotion, bring in specific skills with a nexus to the job. Administrative authorities are deemed best suited to evaluate this nexus.

Equality Principle in Service Jurisprudence (Paras 26-28): While acknowledging the importance of the equality principle, the court recognizes that classifications are a necessity in service jurisprudence, balancing equality with the principle of classification.

Historical Perspective (Paras 29-33): The court notes that historical support exists for the accelerated promotion quota, as even the State of Uttar Pradesh had a similar quota, unchallenged by any party.

Decision (Paras 29-33): The court deems the impugned judgment unsustainable and dismisses the writ petitions filed by Diploma-holders, allowing the appeal of the Government.

Facts:

Incident occurred on 01-11-1983 at about 06:30 PM.

Appellants and others were members of an unlawful assembly armed with spears and lathis.

Deceased was surrounded to prevent escape; initial assault on the head with a lathi.

Witnesses (PW7 and PW8) were also assaulted; appellants convicted under Section 302/149 IPC.

Issues:

Defective charge under Section 147 against four persons.

Prejudice in defense due to inadequate Section 313 CrPC questioning.

Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and challenges to witness credibility.

Absence of injury reports for PW7 and PW8.

False implication due to previous enmity.

Held:

Omission in framing charge under Section 147 deemed inadvertent and non-prejudicial.

Absence of injury reports considered a case of defective investigation, not discrediting witness credibility.

Challenges to convictions based on procedural irregularities require demonstration of actual and material prejudice.

Despite objections to Section 313 CrPC questioning, no prejudice found; upheld convictions.

Bail canceled; appellants directed to surrender for remaining sentence.

Facts:

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. filed a suit before the Commercial Court seeking registration of a mortgage deed related to an immovable property.

The High Court held that the immovable property was not used for trade or commerce, making the suit not maintainable before the Commercial Court.

Issues:

Whether the dispute arising from the agreement qualifies as a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act.

Whether the immovable property was used exclusively in trade or commerce.

Held:

The court examined Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, which defines commercial disputes arising from agreements related to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce.

The plaintiff's suit sought specific performance of the MoU terms, but neither the agreement nor the plaint indicated exclusive use of the immovable property for trade or commerce.

Emphasized the need for basic pleadings and a purposive interpretation of the Commercial Courts Act to avoid burdening the system with non-commercial disputes.

Stressed the importance of entertaining only disputes that fit the definition of 'commercial disputes' and ensuring a strict procedure for such litigation.

Highlighted that a dispute involving immovable property becomes a commercial dispute only if the property is "used exclusively" in trade or commerce, and the term "used" means "actually used."

Described the facts of the case involving a Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2017 and the execution of a mortgage deed, emphasizing that the property's use was not exclusively for trade or commerce.

Pointed out that the trial court incorrectly assumed the property's use based on the plaintiff's business activities, and the property was not being exclusively used in trade or commerce in 2012.

Reiterated the purpose of Commercial Courts for speedy resolution of commercial disputes, and the need for meaningful interpretation to benefit litigants engaged in trade and commerce.

Conclusion: The court held that the suit did not qualify as a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) due to the lack of pleadings indicating exclusive use of the property for trade or commerce. The Commercial Court was directed to return the plaint to the court with jurisdiction.