Facts:

H.K. Singla, the appellant, was the Secretary of the Chandigarh State Bank of Patiala Employees Co-operative USE Thrift & Credit Society.

Avtar Singh Saini & Ors, the respondents, filed a complaint alleging non-payment of maturity amount along with interest by the society.

The District Forum directed the society to pay the amount along with additional compensation, but the society failed to comply.

Singla was sentenced to imprisonment and fined by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Issues:

Whether Singla, as Secretary of the society, could be held personally liable for the society's default.

Interpretation of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 regarding penalties.

Held:

The Court suspended the order of imprisonment against Singla during the pendency of the appeal before the State Commission. The Court expressed doubt about the legality of imprisoning Singla for the default committed by the society, especially in the absence of any order directly implicating him.

Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to suspend the imprisonment order until the State Commission determines whether Singla could be imprisoned without any personal liability imposed by the District Forum. The Court urged the State Commission to expedite the appeal process.

Additionally, the first respondent was allowed to take necessary legal steps to recover the amount owed by the society, considering it was in liquidation.

Facts:

The appellant, Hukum Chandra, was a tenant in a shop located in Madhya Pradesh.

The respondent, Nemi Chand Jain, filed a suit for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona fide requirement of the shop for his son, Rajendra Kumar Jain, to start or continue his business.

The trial court initially dismissed the suit for eviction, but the first appellate court overturned this decision, finding that the requirement of the shop for Rajendra Kumar's business was genuine.

Issues:

Whether the requirement for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act was bona fide and genuine.

Whether subsequent events, such as the landlord obtaining possession of an adjacent shop, affected the bona fide requirement for eviction.

Held:

Outlines the requirements for eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, emphasizing the need for a bona fide requirement by the landlord or his family member and the absence of other reasonably suitable accommodation.

Discusses the evidence presented regarding the tenant's son, Rajendra Kumar's, involvement in a utensils business at the time of filing the eviction petition. The trial court had initially found that Rajendra Kumar was already engaged in business, questioning the bona fide requirement for eviction.

Address the contention regarding subsequent events, particularly the landlord obtaining possession of an adjacent shop. The Court found that this adjacent shop was meant for another son of the landlord, not Rajendra Kumar, thus not affecting the bona fide requirement for eviction.

Confirms the decision of the High Court to uphold the eviction, noting that the landlord's other son, Rajesh Kumar Jain, occupied the adjacent shop. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower courts.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted three months to vacate the premises.

Facts:

The case involved an incident where the deceased, Raghumani, was found lying in a pool of blood after being attacked on November 15, 1995.

The prosecution alleged involvement of six accused, including the appellant, Gupteswar Behera, who were charged with offenses under Sections 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Various witnesses, including PW1 Pradeep and PW15, the Investigating Officer, provided testimony, along with medical evidence presented through PW13 and PW14 regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased.

Issues:

The credibility of the eye-witness accounts and the reliance on dying declarations made by the deceased were the main issues in question.

Whether the deceased survived long enough for the witnesses to hear his statements was a crucial point of contention.

Held:

The Court found doubt regarding whether the deceased survived long enough for the witnesses to hear his statements. Considering the time it would take for witnesses to reach the scene and the severity of the injuries, the Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments and orders of both the Sessions Court and the High Court. Gupteswar Behera was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be set at liberty unless required in connection with any other case.

Facts:

The appellants entered into agreements to sell with the respondent, which were found to be insufficiently stamped. The trial court directed the payment of deficit duty and penalty. The High Court directed the trial court to levy the penalty at 10 times the deficit duty, relying on a previous judgment.

Issues:

Whether the trial court had discretion in imposing the penalty for deficit stamp duty, and whether the High Court's reliance on the previous judgment was correct.

Held:

The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, particularly Sections 33, 34, 38, and 39. It found that while Section 34 mandates a penalty of 10 times the deficit duty, Section 39 provides discretion to the Deputy Commissioner to impose a penalty not exceeding 10 times the duty. The court upheld the High Court's interpretation but noted that Section 38 empowers the Deputy Commissioner to refund any portion of the penalty in excess of five rupees, indicating legislative intent for discretion in penalty imposition.

The court considered the circumstances of the case and the time it would take to seek a refund of penalty from the Deputy Commissioner. It decided to uphold the trial court's direction of payment of deficit duty with double the penalty, aiming to serve the ends of justice efficiently without prolonging the legal proceedings.

Therefore, the appeal was disposed of by approving the trial court's direction for payment of deficit duty with double the penalty instead of requiring the appellant to deposit 10 times the penalty and then seek a refund under Section 38.

Facts:

The appellant, Trust, acquired a parcel of land measuring 9797 sq. meters, including Plot No. CTS No. 97/A-5/2, with the intent of providing housing for weaker sections of society. Subsequently, the Trust constructed building A-1 on a sub-plot carved out of this land. The respondents, purchasers, took possession of flats within this building.

Issues:

Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in clarifying an order through a "Note for speaking to the Minutes" beyond the scope of correcting typographical or clerical errors.

Whether the High Court's order directing conveyance of 2700 sq. meters of land was sustainable.

Whether the respondents were entitled to the conveyance of land beyond the area specifically decreed by the Trial Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's clarification through a "Note for speaking to the Minutes" exceeded its jurisdiction as it essentially modified the original order beyond the scope of correcting typographical or clerical errors. Such notes are not meant for modifying or clarifying orders beyond their original scope. Therefore, the impugned order passed below the "Note for speaking to the Minutes" is set aside.

Furthermore, the High Court's orders directing the conveyance of 2700 sq. meters of land were deemed unsustainable. The Trial Court's decree did not direct the appellants to execute a deed of Conveyance for such an extent of land. Therefore, the High Court could not have passed any further order beyond the judgment and decree of the Trial Court without any cross-appeal or cross-objection by the respondents.

The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court's determination of 2700 sq. meters as the area for conveyance was unsupported by the evidence presented during the case. Even considering the map sanctioned by the Corporation and the Corporation's reply, the total plot area was 2593.70 sq. meters, out of which the building occupied only 1009.70 sq. meters. Thus, the High Court's order directing the appellants to execute the deed of Conveyance for 2700 sq. meters of land was not sustainable.

Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the High Court dated 23.12.14 below the "Note for speaking to the Minutes" were quashed and set aside. The order passed by the Divisional Registrar of Deemed Conveyance was modified to grant conveyance of only 1009.70 sq. meters of land, which was the built-up area of building A-1.

Facts:

The case originated from an incident where the respondent was convicted by the Trial Court under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302 (murder).

The High Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and reduced the sentence.

Issues:

Whether the evidence supported the respondent's conviction under Section 302 rather than Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and evidence, concluded that the High Court's judgment was flawed. It found that the evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and medical reports, established the respondent's intention to cause death. The Court emphasized that the circumstances of the incident warranted a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the respondent's conviction under Section 302 was restored, sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The Court directed the respondent to surrender to his sentence immediately. Any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

An application for directions and declarations was filed regarding the treatment of prisoners sentenced to death by any court.

Issues raised included the treatment of death row prisoners, solitary confinement, and access to legal representation and other facilities.

Issues:

Determination of when a convict is considered under the sentence of death.

Whether prisoners on death row are entitled to be treated like other convicted prisoners.

The constitutionality of solitary confinement for death row prisoners.

Entitlement of death row prisoners to meet with lawyers, family members, and mental health professionals.

Held:

The Court clarified the definition of a prisoner on death row, emphasizing that it applies to those whose death sentence has become final and conclusive.

Death row prisoners are entitled to be treated similarly to other convicted prisoners and should have access to similar facilities.

Solitary confinement or separate cellular confinement for death row prisoners was deemed unconstitutional.

Death row prisoners have the right to meet with lawyers, family members, and mental health professionals for effective legal representation and access to justice.

State governments and union territory administrations were directed to modify prison manuals, regulations, and rules accordingly.

The issues raised in the application were referred to the Justice Amitava Roy Committee for further consideration.

Previous court decisions, including Frances Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration, were cited to support the Court's conclusions.

Facts:

The petitioner, Dr. Ashwani Kumar, filed a writ petition (Writ Petition (C) No. 193 of 2016) seeking enforcement of the rights of elderly persons under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petition specifically sought adequate pension, shelter, geriatric care, and medical facilities for elderly persons. It also aimed at ensuring effective implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Issues:

The court was the extent to which the rights of elderly persons, encompassed within Article 21 of the Constitution, are being upheld and enforced.

Additionally, the court examined the adequacy of measures taken by the government, both central and state, to fulfill the obligations under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Held:

The court emphasized the expansive interpretation of the right to life under Article 21, which includes the right to live with dignity, the right to shelter, and the right to health. These rights are fundamental and must be protected and enforced by the State. The court recognized that while certain schemes have been initiated by the government, more efforts are required to fully meet the constitutional mandate and the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The court issued several directions to address the issue, including obtaining information on old age homes and medical facilities available for senior citizens, developing a plan to publicize the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, and exercising powers under the Act to ensure its effective implementation.

The court emphasized the importance of continuous monitoring and a continuing mandamus to ensure that the rights of elderly persons are respected and enforced, in line with the principles of social justice enshrined in the Constitution.

Decision: The court's decision aimed at enhancing the recognition and enforcement of the rights of elderly persons, ensuring adequate pension, shelter, geriatric care, and medical facilities, and effective implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Facts:

Involves a case of alleged theft of copper wires and lead sleeves from a Telecom Department's godown, seizure of goods, and subsequent trial leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Issues:

Determination of entitlement to seized goods under Section 452 of the CrPC, considering conflicting claims of ownership.

Held:

The Court reaffirmed that the claim of title to seized goods is a relevant consideration under Section 452 of the CrPC.

Emphasized the judicial discretion in disposing of seized property, considering entitlement claimed by the person seeking possession.

Reiterated the principle from N. Madhavan v. State of Kerala that ordinarily, property should be restored to the person from whose custody it was seized, unless there is a dispute regarding ownership.

Directed the conflicting claimant to establish their title in a civil court if there's a dispute.

Found that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie basis for their claim of title to the seized goods.

Reversed the High Court's decision, upholding the orders of the trial court and Sessions Court, directing the respondent to establish their claim and title in a civil court.

Allowed the appellant to sell the goods by auction and maintain the proceeds pending resolution in the civil court.