Facts:

The deceased and accused were friends who traveled together.

The deceased was injected with a drug leading to overdose and subsequent death.

Prosecution alleged murder and conspiracy based on circumstantial evidence.

Issues:

Lack of direct eyewitnesses; reliance on circumstantial evidence.

Failure of prosecution to establish a clear motive for murder.

Inconsistencies in medical evidence regarding the cause and time of death.

Allegations of the accused injecting the deceased with the drug.

Held:

The court emphasized the importance of proving each circumstance separately in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Last seen together: Room No. 203 was hired by all involved, suggesting no premeditated murder plan by the accused.

Medical evidence: The prosecution failed to link the accused to the death, and inconsistencies in medical reports raised doubt.

Motive: Alleged motive of a love triangle not proven, and the introduced motive four years later lacked credibility.

Chandru being a medical student: Inference of his involvement in the crime was unfounded.

Inconsistency in statements: Discrepancies in statements cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence.

Delay in filing the private complaint: Lack of protest during the investigation against the accused raised questions about the credibility of the complainants.

Clean hands doctrine: The complainants did not come to court with clean hands, as the motive was introduced after four years.

FACTS:

On 26.07.1989, the State Government made a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for resolving disputes.

The appellant did not appear before the Industrial Tribunal and suffered an adverse ex parte award.

The Industrial Tribunal decided the reference ex parte against the appellant.

The Single Judge set aside the award in a writ petition filed by the appellant.

The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the respondent's appeal and set aside the Single Judge's order in the appellant's absence.

The review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

ISSUES:

Whether the appellant, having not appeared before the Industrial Tribunal, is entitled to contest the reference on merits.

Whether there was a sufficient cause for the appellant's absence before the Industrial Tribunal.

HELD:

The appellant did not receive an opportunity to contest the reference before the Industrial Tribunal.

The cause shown for the appellant's absence constitutes a sufficient cause, entitling them to claim an opportunity to contest the reference on merits.

The appellant did not appear before the Tribunal from the inception, thus having no opportunity to contest the matter.

Every party has the right to contest the case on merits, and no exception disentitled the appellant.

Substantial justice demands an opportunity for both parties to contest the case on merits.

The appeals are allowed, setting aside the impugned orders and the ex parte award. The case is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal.

The appellant is granted an opportunity to file a written statement, and parties can amend statements, file documents, and present oral evidence.

The Industrial Tribunal is directed to decide the reference within six months from the date of appearance.

Facts:

The landlord, initially a minor on tillers day, filed an application under Section 31(3) for personal cultivation upon attaining majority. The application was dismissed, leading the tenant to initiate proceedings under Section 32G. The original authority rejected the tenant's claim, citing non-compliance with Section 32F(1A). The appellate authority reversed this finding, but the Tribunal upheld the original authority's decision. The tenant's writ petition in the High Court was dismissed, and the review petition faced a similar fate.

Issues:

Whether the tenant, upon rejection of the landlord's application under Section 31, attains the status of a deemed purchaser under Section 29 r/w Section 32.

Whether compliance with the provisions of Section 32F(1A) is necessary for a tenant who has acquired deemed status.

Held:

The First Proviso to Section 32(1) along with Section 29 establishes that if a landlord's possession application is rejected, the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land. Section 32F, however, entitles the tenant to purchase, especially in cases involving a minor landlord attaining majority.( Para 52)

Sections 29, 32, and 32F deal with two mutually exclusive situations. If a tenant has a deemed status under Section 29 r/w Section 32, there is no need for the tenant to apply for purchase under Section 32F. The two scenarios are distinct.( Para 53)

In the present case, if the landlord invoked Section 29 r/w Section 32, and the application was rejected, the tenant would acquire deemed status. In such cases, Section 32F need not be invoked.( Para 54)

The appellant, being a tenant of the first respondent, acquired deemed status with the rejection of the landlord's application. No further action, such as sending intimation under Section 32F(1A), was required.( Para 65)

Despite discrepancies in dates, the appellant produced orders by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, showing that the landlord litigated the matter at multiple levels. Discrepancies should not be a basis for adverse findings against the appellant.( Para 64)

Facts:

The Trial Court convicted 11 accused persons under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149, and 506/149. The High Court acquitted 8 accused persons under Section 302/149 IPC and upheld the conviction of 3 accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC. During the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, one of the appellants (No. 1) expired.

Issues:

Validity of the alteration of charges from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 302/34 IPC.

Applicability of Section 149 IPC after the acquittal of 8 co-accused.

Justification for sustaining the conviction of the three appellants.

Held:

Once eight co-accused were acquitted under Section 302/149 IPC, the charge under Section 149 IPC collapsed against the three appellants as there could be no unlawful assembly consisting of less than five accused persons. In other words, the appellants (3 in number) could not be charged with the aid of Section 149 IPC for want of numbers.( Para 55)

The High Court had the jurisdiction to alter the charge from Section 149 IPC to Section 34 IPC, but in the absence of evidence of common intention among the three appellants, their conviction under Section 302/34 IPC is not legally sustainable.( Para 56)

The prosecution did not set up a case that all 11 accused persons shared a common intention under Section 34 IPC. The High Court failed to give any reasons in support of the altered conviction, and the invoking of Section 34 IPC at the appellate stage cannot be upheld.( Paras 62 and 63)

The post-mortem report indicated that both assaults by appellant Nos. 2 and 3 caused simple injuries to the victim, not resulting in her death.( Para 67)

In a case of this nature, where there is a fight between two groups and the State does not pursue the plea of Section 149 IPC against the acquitted eight accused, and no evidence is relied upon for the charge of Section 34 IPC against the three accused, the two appellants are entitled to claim the benefit of entire scenario.( Para 68)

Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 could, at best, be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC based on their individual participation in the commission of the crime.( Para 69)

Facts:

The appellant was charged under Section 20(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for carrying "charas" on his scooter in gunny bags. The Trial Court acquitted him citing non-compliance with Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., and the High Court reversed the acquittal based on the production of seals and chemical examiner's report.

Issues:

Validity of the seizure under NDPS Act.

Compliance with Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

The role of the informant being the investigating officer.

Held:

The Trial Court's conclusion on non-production of the seal in court was deemed perverse, as two specimen seal impressions were marked as Exhibits PH and PK, and there was no evidence of tampering.( Para 6)

Section 50 of NDPS Act had no application since the recovery was from gunny bags on the scooter, not the person. The independent witness, PW-5, turned hostile but was duly confronted with his earlier statements.( Para 7)

The appellant's defense of false implication lacked evidence regarding his complaint against the C.I.D. department, as noted by the Trial Court. No reason found to differ from the High Court's conclusion.( Para 8)

The only surviving issue was the informant (PW-10) also being the Investigating Officer. The ground was not raised earlier and not pleaded in the appeal.( Para 9)

The court held that the law in Mohan Lal (regarding informant and investigating officer being different) cannot be a springboard for acquittal, considering societal interest and the history of the appellant's previous convictions.( Para 18)

Facts:

IMTRAT personnel filed writ petitions seeking parity between BCA and FA.

Cabinet decision dated 30.11.1999 regarding the removal of depression on BCA and imposition of charges for free facilities.

Ministry of Defence order dated 20.09.2005 implemented the cabinet decision prospectively.

High Court allowed writ petitions on 22.11.2005, setting aside the Ministry of Defence order to the extent it gave relief prospectively.

Issues:

Interpretation of the term "civilian counterparts."

Validity of the clarification made in the impugned judgment dated 07.05.2007, affirming parity between BCA and FA.

Held:

High Court not justified in concluding a legitimate case for parity. Differences in requirements and entitlements outlined.

IMTRAT and MEA personnel have distinct terms of appointment and conditions of service, negating the case for parity.

Clarification beyond the scope of the original order. No valid grounds for granting parity. Original order directions fully complied with.

Decision: Partly allowing the appeal, the Court held that there was no valid ground for parity between BCA payable to IMTRAT personnel and FA payable to MEA personnel. The clarification in the impugned judgment exceeded the scope of the original order, and the differences in requirements and entitlements between the two groups were emphasized.

Facts:

Faquirey was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court.

The High Court converted the conviction to an offense under Section 304 Part I, IPC, and sentenced Faquirey to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The incident involved Faquirey shooting the deceased due to a grudge, stemming from the deceased's past conduct regarding Faquirey's wife.

Issues:

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was rightly converted to Section 304 Part I, IPC by the High Court.

Application of Exception I to Section 300 IPC in the context of provocation.

The voluntariness of the provocation and its relevance to the accused's liability.

Held:

The shot fired by Faquirey was a result of a grudge against the deceased, and the High Court erred in converting the conviction.

Exception I to Section 300 IPC was discussed, emphasizing that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender is deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation.

The First Proviso to Exception I highlights that the provocation should not be voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for harming another person.

The court concluded that the provocation in this case was voluntary on Faquirey's part, and he cannot claim exemption under Section 304 Part I, IPC.

The High Court's conversion of the conviction was deemed a serious error, and the judgment of the Trial Court convicting Faquirey under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment was restored.

Despite Faquirey having served 10 years, he was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

Facts:

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("NCDRC") disposed of the consumer complaint filed by flat purchasers.

The possession, as per the flat purchase agreement, was to be handed over by 31 January 2014, but the developer breached its contractual obligations.

The occupation certificate was received on 10 February 2016, and possession letters were issued from May 2016.

The NCDRC awarded compensation for delayed possession until 31 July 2016 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

Issues:

The adequacy of compensation and the duration of interest awarded by the NCDRC.

Held:

The NCDRC's conclusion that the stipulated compensation of INR 3 per sq. ft. per month was insufficient was upheld. The flat purchase agreement's terms did not provide just compensation. (Para 9)

The delay in possession was acknowledged, and interest at the rate of 6% per annum was deemed reasonable and justified. (Para 11)

The NCDRC's decision to award interest only up to 31 July 2016 was found inappropriate. Possession had not been handed over to all purchasers, and the liability to pay interest continued until possession was offered. (Para 17-18)

Facts:

The respondent was convicted for an offense under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The trial court sentenced the respondent to six months of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-.

Issues:

The appeal challenges the High Court's decision to sentence the respondent to the term already undergone but enhancing the fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3000/-.

Held:

The High Court, upon the appeal, maintained the conviction but modified the sentence to the extent of the term already undergone by the respondent. The fine imposed by the trial court was enhanced to Rs. 3000/-.

The Court observed that when minimum sentence is prescribed by law, Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to reduce the sentence, as it would be against the statutory mandate.

The Court referred to the case of Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat (2012) 7 SCC 80, emphasizing that in cases where a minimum sentence is provided, it is inappropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 to reduce the sentence based on mitigating factors. Corruption, in particular, was highlighted as a crime that should not receive leniency.

The judgment reiterated the principle that when the legislature prescribes a minimum sentence without discretion, the courts cannot reduce it. The imposition of a minimum sentence is mandatory and leaves no discretion to the court.

The Court cited State v. Ratan Lal Arora (2004) 4 SCC 590, stating that when a specific enactment prescribes a minimum sentence after the enactment of another statute (Probation of Offenders Act, in this case), the latter cannot be invoked to grant relief.

The judgment also referred to Mohd. Hashim v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 2 SCC 198, emphasizing that the discretion to reduce a sentence cannot be equated with a provision prescribing a minimum sentence.