Facts:

The complainant, Shiv Prakash Mishra, filed a complaint against several accused, including Subhash Chandra Shukla.

Subsequent investigations led to the exclusion of Subhash Chandra Shukla from the charge sheet, as evidence indicated his absence at the place of the incident.

During the trial, the appellant sought to summon Subhash Chandra Shukla under Section 319 CrPC.

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented justifies summoning Subhash Chandra Shukla as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.

Held:

The court emphasized the discretionary nature of the power under Section 319 CrPC, to be exercised sparingly and based on strong and cogent evidence. The court found contradictions in witness statements and highlighted the absence of Subhash Chandra Shukla at the place of the incident during the investigation. The trial court's decision to dismiss the application under Section 319 CrPC was upheld. The appellant failed to file a protest petition during the investigation, and the court concluded that the power under Section 319 CrPC should not be exercised in a casual or cavalier manner.

Facts:

Respondent No.1 was found tampering with the meter, leading to a loss assessed at Rs. 6,28,383.

The appellant argued that this was respondent No.1's second offense, with a prior case compounded in 2009.

The complaint was filed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Issues:

Delay in filing the complaint within 24 hours as required under Section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Jurisdiction of the Special Court under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Held:

The Special Court is empowered by the proviso to Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to take cognizance directly, negating the need for an order of committal under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Dismissing the claim of delay, the Supreme Court accepts the appellant's submission that the disconnection occurred within the specified time.

The government notification (G.O.Ms. No.118) designates the 1st Additional District Judge's Court as a Special Court, establishing jurisdiction.

The High Court's order quashing proceedings is set aside. The Supreme Court does not delve into the merits, leaving it to the trial court.

Facts:

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance in 2006.

The trial court decreed the suit, and both parties appealed the decision.

The appellate court confirmed the trial court's judgment, resulting in the merger of the two decrees.

The main issue revolved around the time frame for the deposit of the balance sale consideration.

The executing court rejected the objections of the respondents and allowed the appellant's execution petition.

The High Court set aside the executing court's order, citing a failure on the appellant's part to deposit the balance within the specified time.

Issues:

Applicability of the doctrine of merger.

Interpretation of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.

Validity of the High Court's decision regarding the time frame for depositing the balance sale consideration.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized the doctrine of merger, stating that once the appellate court confirms the trial court's judgment, there is a merger of the decrees. The court discussed the applicability of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, which allows the court to rescind the contract or extend the time for compliance with the decree.

The court held that the appellant acted bona fide, and the executing court was justified in rejecting the objections of the respondents. The High Court's modification of the decree was deemed impermissible. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment.

Facts:

Appellant Sanjay Rajak convicted for kidnapping a 5-6 year old child in 2007.

Co-accused Balram acquitted by the High Court.

Child last seen with both accused.

Confessional statements indicated kidnapping, murder, and burial of the child.

Ransom calls made by Balram according to the parents.

Belongings of the deceased found in the appellant's house.

Issues:

Acquittal of co-accused affecting the appellant's conviction.

Reliability of witness testimonies.

Failure to recover the child's body and its impact on the prosecution's case.

Held:

The court considered the evidence, including witness testimonies, identification of the accused, recovery of belongings, and the failure to recover the body. The High Court's acquittal of the co-accused was deemed irrelevant, and the court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 364(A) IPC. The court emphasized that the failure to recover the body does not necessarily undermine a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant's denial and lack of explanation for the recovered belongings, coupled with strong circumstantial evidence, led to the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts:

Fictitious bank account opened on 13.07.1992.

Forged credit entries and subsequent withdrawals.

Appellants (messenger and assistant clerk) implicated during investigation.

Issues:

Validity of prosecution sanction.

Appellants' involvement in opening the fictitious account.

Evidence supporting criminal conspiracy.

Critique of the investigation quality.

Held:

The trial court criticized the investigation but found strong evidence against the appellants.

Validity of prosecution sanction established.

Handwriting and signatures linked to appellants during investigation.

Evidence sufficient to establish conspiracy.

Fraud committed systematically by individuals well-versed in banking procedures.

No interference with the conviction; appeals dismissed.

Facts:

The respondent applied for the allotment of an LIG tenement in 1990.

The respondent deposited Rs 4,000 on 21 February 1991.

On 30 April 1992, a letter of allotment was issued, specifying a balance of Rs 47,674 payable at the time of possession.

The appellant claimed the allotment was canceled in 1994 due to the respondent's failure to deposit the balance.

The respondent contested, stating she did not receive a letter of possession.

Issues:

Whether the letter offering possession was made available to the respondent.

Whether the balance payment was required only at the time of possession.

Held:

The Court set aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's judgment, emphasizing the real dispute about the availability of the letter offering possession. The respondent's letters in 1996 and 2008 admitted financial inability to deposit the balance. The Court found the complaint filed in 2008 was time-barred. The appellant was directed to refund Rs 25,000, and the respondent was awarded a total of Rs 1 lakh, including litigation expenses. This decision was made under the Court's jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

The appellant, M/S PRRSAAR, appealed against the order dated 20.02.2017 by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the Disciplinary Action Committee's decision of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. The disciplinary action involved a fine and suspension imposed on the appellant for financial irregularities and misconduct in business conduct.

Issues:

The appellant argued that the penalty/fine could only be imposed in accordance with the Circular dated 27.06.2013, while the respondent relied on bye-laws, particularly Chapter IV Rule 1.

The appropriateness of suspending the trading membership and the quantum of penalty imposed by the relevant authority.

Held:

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and directed the appellant to reapproach the Securities Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration. The reconsideration is limited to the issue of the quantum of punishment awarded to the appellant. The Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal failed to address the appellant's contentions about the appropriateness of the order and the specific provisions in the Circular. The Tribunal is instructed not to delve into technicalities related to the withdrawal of a specific appeal but to decide the restored appeal expeditiously, focusing solely on the quantum of punishment. The Appeal is allowed.

Facts:

CCL Products (India) Limited, engaged in instant coffee manufacturing, faced complaints of environmental pollution.

Pollution Control Board issued directions, including the submission of bank guarantees, to ensure compliance with environmental standards.

Three bank guarantees were provided by the respondent, each covering specific compliance requirements.

Issues:

Whether the Pollution Control Board's invocation of bank guarantees was justified.

Whether principles of natural justice were followed in the invocation process.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that bank guarantees constitute independent contracts between the issuing bank and the beneficiary. Unless there is fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities, the court should not interfere with the invocation as long as it aligns with the terms of the bank guarantee. The Tribunal erred in requiring principles of natural justice to be followed in the context of bank guarantees. The invocation was justified based on non-compliance with environmental norms, and the court set aside the Tribunal's judgment. The appeal was allowed.

Facts:

The dispute arose from a construction project where M/S Treaty Construction & another (appellants) undertook to build a structure with flats and shops. The purchasers formed a co-operative housing society (M/S Ruby Tower Co-op. HSG. Society Ltd.). The society alleged that the appellants failed to complete interior works, obtain necessary certificates, and borrowed money on false pretenses.

Issues:

The completion of construction, allegations of illegal alterations, and financial transactions between the parties.

Held:

The National Commission's direction to pay Rs.25,00,000/- by the appellants to the respondent was upheld. The appellants had agreed to this amount in meetings, and the National Commission rightly enforced this commitment.( Para 10)

The part of the order requiring the appellants to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was set aside. The court found no evidence on record to establish the appellants' liability for compensation, and there was a lack of material proving loss suffered by the respondent-society.( Para 11)

The direction for the appellants to pay Rs.1,000/- per day after 60 days until obtaining full Occupancy Certificate was also set aside. The court considered the Municipal Corporation's objections and the ongoing dispute over alleged illegal constructions by the respondent-society.( Para 12)

In summary, the court partly allowed the appeal, directing the appellants to pay Rs.25,00,000/- to the respondent. The compensation and daily penalties were set aside. Both parties were instructed to fulfill their respective obligations within specified time frames. The court left open the option for the parties to seek appropriate remedies for future grievances.( Para 14)