Facts:

The High Court allowed a post-award application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, requiring the appellant to release the amount covered by the arbitral award along with interest, subject to the respondent furnishing a Bank Guarantee equal to the awarded amount for one year. The appellant argued that the High Court's order was premature as the period for challenging the award under Section 34 had not yet expired.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was premature given the pending period for challenging the award under Section 34.

Held:

The Court set aside the High Court's order dated 22 August 2016. It clarified that its judgment should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the correctness of the High Court's order, particularly considering the submission that the High Court might have exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Civil Appeal was disposed of with no costs, and all rights and contentions of the parties concerning the challenge to the arbitral award were kept open to be argued in accordance with the law.

Facts:

The fifth respondent filed a PIL before the Allahabad High Court seeking the construction of a new tehsil building for Tehsil Hasanpur.

The High Court directed the State Government to take steps for the construction based on the petition.

The appellant challenged this order, alleging that the PIL was filed to serve the personal interest of the fifth respondent, as the proposed land belonged to his family.

Issues:

Whether the PIL filed by the fifth respondent was genuinely in the public interest or intended to serve personal interests.

Whether the decision regarding the construction of government buildings is within the jurisdiction of the judiciary or the executive.

Held:

The Supreme Court found that the PIL was not genuinely in the public interest but was intended to serve personal interests, as the proposed land belonged to the fifth respondent's family (Paragraph 8).

The Court emphasized that decisions regarding the construction of government buildings are administrative matters and should be left to the executive. It highlighted the misuse of PILs for extraneous and motivated purposes (Paragraph 9).

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's directions to construct the new Tehsil office and clarifying that the State Government should make the decision in accordance with the law (Paragraph 11).

Facts:

Manimaran, the respondent, was accused of running a medical shop without a valid drug license.

Drugs Inspectors seized drugs stored without a valid license during an inspection of Manimaran's shop.

Manimaran was charged under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The trial court convicted Manimaran based on his admission in a memo where he confessed to not having a valid license.

Manimaran appealed, but the appellate court upheld his conviction.

Manimaran filed a revision petition before the High Court, which acquitted him based on non-examination of key witnesses.

Issues:

Whether the non-examination of certain witnesses was fatal to the prosecution's case.

Whether the admission made by Manimaran in the memo was sufficient evidence to convict him.

Whether the carbon copies of documents were admissible as evidence.

Whether Manimaran's claim of signing blank papers was credible.

Held:

The Supreme Court reinstated Manimaran's conviction, emphasizing the importance of his admission in the memo.

Non-examination of certain witnesses was not fatal to the prosecution's case, as Manimaran's admission was sufficient evidence.

Carbon copies of documents were admissible evidence under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Manimaran's claim of signing blank papers lacked credibility, as he failed to provide evidence to support it.

The Supreme Court reduced Manimaran's sentence from one year to three months considering factors such as the passage of time since the offense, lack of prior convictions, and his admission of ignorance regarding the need for a license.

Facts:

The writ petitioners were employed in various capacities within the State of Bihar.

Their appointments were found to be irregular or illegal due to violations of recruitment procedures and the use of false or forged documents.

The State Government initiated proceedings to terminate their services based on these irregularities.

The matter was challenged before the High Court, leading to a series of appeals and legal proceedings.

The Supreme Court of India heard the case and considered the findings of the State Committee regarding the legality of the appointments.

Issues:

Whether the appointments of the writ petitioners were legal and valid.

Whether the termination of their services was justified.

Held:

The Court upheld the findings of the State Committee, which concluded that many of the appointments were illegal and void ab initio. The Court emphasized the importance of adherence to recruitment rules and procedures, particularly in public employment, to ensure fairness and equality. It cited the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and others, which established that appointments made without following due process do not confer any right on the appointees. The Court also clarified that regularisation or permanent employment cannot be granted to individuals whose initial appointments were illegal or irregular.

Based on these findings, the Court dismissed the civil appeals filed by the writ petitioners and allowed the appeals filed by the State of Bihar. The orders of the High Court directing reinstatement of the writ petitioners were set aside, and their writ petitions were dismissed.

Facts:

The landowners executed a lease deed for 99 years, which expired on October 21, 1990.

The property housed a cotton mill. Subsequently, the property was vested in a public charitable trust, with the respondents being trustees.

'P' Mills continued to occupy the property as a protected or statutory tenant under the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, even after the lease expired.

Issues:

The retrospective impact of subsequent legislation, namely the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2014, on the rights and liabilities of the parties involved, particularly regarding the enforceability of the decree against NTC.

Held:

The amended Section 3 of the Textile Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1995, as per the 2014 Act, transferred the statutory or protected tenancy rights of 'P' Mills to the Central Government from April 1, 1994. Consequently, any decree against NTC, including its undertaking, became unenforceable by legal fiction.

The court clarified that any person considering themselves aggrieved can file a review petition, as per Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This remedy is not limited to parties in the original judgment but extends to third parties who consider themselves aggrieved.

Decision: The review petition is dismissed, affirming the retrospective impact of the legislative amendments on the rights and liabilities of the parties involved, particularly concerning the decree against NTC.

Facts:

The case involved multiple suits, including ones for partition of properties and specific performance of an agreement of sale. The appellants contested the validity of the Wills presented by the defendants, as well as the right of the defendants to alienate the properties they purchased from Veeraswamy. Additionally, challenges were raised against a specific performance suit, citing escalation in property prices.

Issues:

Validity of the Wills presented by the defendants.

Right of the defendants to alienate the properties purchased from Veeraswamy.

Challenges to the specific performance suit, including the escalation in property prices.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the Wills presented by the defendants were valid, thereby conferring ownership of the properties to Veeraswamy. Since Veeraswamy was the owner of the properties, he had the right to alienate them, and the defendants who purchased properties from him were considered bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. The challenges to the specific performance suit were dismissed, as the appellants lacked the right to question the agreement of sale and failed to prove hardship.

The court further held that due to the absence of legal representatives of deceased parties and deleted parties, the appeals could not proceed without the necessary parties.

Allowing the appeals to proceed could result in conflicting decrees, violating the principle of avoiding inconsistent decrees about the same subject matter. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed both on the ground of non-maintainability due to abatement and on the merits of the case.

Facts:

The case involved allegations of sexual assault by the respondent-accused on the prosecutrix, a minor girl aged about nine years.

The prosecutrix alleged that the accused, her cousin, had been sexually assaulting her for about three years.

The prosecutrix disclosed the incidents to her school teachers and the president of the Gram Panchayat.

The Trial Court convicted the accused based on the prosecutrix's testimony and medical evidence, but the High Court reversed the conviction on the grounds of lack of confidence in the prosecutrix's testimony and inconclusive medical evidence.

Issues:

Whether the prosecutrix's testimony inspires confidence and is reliable.

Whether the medical evidence is conclusive regarding the sexual assault.

Whether the non-examination of the prosecutrix's aunt is fatal to the prosecution's case.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the prosecutrix's testimony was credible and reliable, emphasizing that corroboration is not mandatory in rape cases if the victim's testimony is trustworthy.

The absence of injuries on the prosecutrix's private parts did not negate the possibility of sexual assault, especially considering her young age.

The Court dismissed the argument regarding the non-examination of the prosecutrix's aunt, stating that it was not fatal to the prosecution's case.

The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the conviction of the respondent-accused under Section 376 IPC was restored, along with the sentence of ten years' imprisonment.

The respondent-accused was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence, failing which he would be taken into custody.

Facts:

The appellant lodged FIR No.35/2015 against the first respondent alleging harassment and abetment to suicide.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur quashed the proceedings instituted against the first respondent.

The appellant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings against the first respondent.

Whether the investigation being incomplete and no charge-sheet filed justified the High Court's delve into the intention of the respondent.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court was not justified in delving into questions of the respondent's intention to abet suicide at that stage, especially when the investigation was incomplete and no charge-sheet had been filed. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the concerned authorities to complete the investigation promptly.

The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to be considered at the appropriate stage. The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms.

Facts:

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for murder, causing grievous injuries, criminal intimidation, and house trespass. The High Court confirmed the conviction and awarded the death penalty. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals and commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in confirming the death penalty without properly applying established legal principles.

Whether mitigating circumstances were adequately considered.

Whether the conduct of the appellant in prison and the possibility of reform were properly weighed.

Whether a psychological assessment was necessary.

Whether there was procedural impropriety in the sentencing process.

Held:

The High Court erroneously confirmed the death penalty without correctly applying the law laid down in previous cases such as Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, Santosh Bariyar, and Shankar Kisanrao Khade.

Mitigating circumstances, including the appellant's lack of a significant criminal record and positive conduct in prison, were not adequately considered by the High Court.

The conduct of the appellant in prison, indicating the possibility of reform, should have been taken into account while deciding the appropriate punishment.

A proper psychological or psychiatric evaluation should have been conducted to assess the probability or possibility of the appellant's reform.

Procedural impropriety occurred as the Trial court failed to conduct a separate hearing for sentencing, denying the appellant an opportunity to present relevant evidence for mitigation.

Decision: The Supreme Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment, emphasizing that imprisonment for life was a suitable alternative and that the death penalty was not the only option in this case.