Facts:

Parties entered into separate contracts for the sale of Non-Basmati Parboiled Rice of Thailand origin. The contracts were governed by GAFTA 48, and disputes were to be resolved through Arbitration 125 as per GAFTA 125 in London. The Arbitral Tribunal passed two separate awards. The respondent filed two execution cases under Part-II of the 1996 Act before the High Court for the enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards. The petitioner raised objections regarding the maintainability of the execution case, which were rejected.

Issues:

Whether the objections raised by the petitioner in the earlier round regarding the maintainability of the execution case were valid?

Whether the conduct of the petitioner, including changing the company's name and registered office address, affected the proceedings?

Whether the subject foreign awards were deemed to be decrees and thus enforceable?

Held:

The petitioner's contention that objections were limited to the maintainability of the execution case and not the enforceability of foreign awards is dismissed. The petitioner had the opportunity to raise all available grounds. The High Court had made it clear that the subject foreign awards were deemed to be decrees, implying enforceability. The petitioner's attempts to protract the execution on untenable grounds are rejected.

The grounds regarding maintainability of the execution case could not be considered in isolation from the enforceability of foreign awards. Section 48 does not allow piecemeal consideration, and both aspects must be addressed simultaneously. The petitioner's application is rejected, barred by constructive res judicata.

The petitioner's conduct, including changing the company's name and registered office address, indicates an attempt to overreach the Court. Such actions are criticized, and the special leave petitions are rejected.

The High Court's view on the petitioner's grounds questioning the enforceability of foreign awards is upheld. The limited scope for interference in foreign awards under Section 48 is acknowledged. The attempt to have a re-look at the award is not permissible.

The Arbitral Tribunal considered all aspects, and even if errors occurred, they are matters for correction through appeal under English Law. The Court doesn't express an opinion on the merits. Exemplary costs of Rs. 20,00,000/- are awarded to the respondent. The Registrar (OS), Calcutta High Court is directed to encash FDs and remit the amount to the respondent.

Facts:

The appellant was tried and found guilty for the murder of a minor child named 'Rishikesh.' The trial court awarded capital punishment, which was confirmed by the High Court. The appellant, aged 22 at the time, had spent 18 years in jail.

Issues:

The appeal against the capital punishment imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court.

Held:

The appellant did not challenge the conviction but sought commutation of the death sentence. The appeal was restricted to the sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, confirmed by the High Court.( Para 4)

Mitigating circumstances favoring commutation included the appellant's age at the time of the crime, good conduct in jail, efforts at rehabilitation, completion of graduation, and reflection on past mistakes. The appellant's behavior and conduct in jail indicated reformative potential.( Para 6)

After considering the facts and circumstances, the court concluded that capital punishment was not warranted. Mitigating circumstances favored the accused, justifying commutation to life imprisonment.( Para 6.1)

Referring to legal precedents, including Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab and Shyam Singh alias Bhima vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court decided in the interest of justice to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.( Para 8)

Facts:

The case involves the termination of services of Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. A dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 4(k) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issues:

The justification of the termination and the applicability of the notification dated 24.04.1990 under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

Held:

The Labour Court, relying on the notification, concluded that the workmen were directly employed by the appellant and ordered reinstatement without backwages.

The appellant contested the review petition, denying any concession made before the Labour Court and asserting the inapplicability of the notification.

The High Court, in the first instance, upheld the Labour Court's decision, considering the workmen's duties identical to regular employees and the alleged contract with the contractor as 'sham.'

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments, finding the Labour Court's decision perverse. The notification, exempting the appellant, was erroneously applied.

The Court emphasized that concessions on mixed questions of fact and law cannot solely determine the case. Gate passes and concessions did not establish a direct relationship between the appellant and the workmen.

The Court held that the extended definition of 'employer' in the Act requires evidence that the work performed by contract labour is ordinarily part of the industry, which was lacking in this case.

The High Court's findings were deemed contrary to the evidence on record, and the contract labour relationship was not proven to be 'sham.'

The Court rejected arguments based on non-compliance with the Labour Court's award and the contractor's minimal profit, emphasizing the need for a factual foundation.

Facts:

Union of India (Appellant) vs. Avtar Chand and others (Respondents).

Respondents, skilled workers, claimed they were paid less than the minimum wages during their employment from 01.03.2001 to 30.06.2004.

Claimed the difference in wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Issues:

Discrepancy in compensation rates awarded by the High Court (200% to some workers, 100% to others) without clear justification.

Held:

The Specified Authority ordered the appellants to pay the claimed amount plus 200% compensation.

High Court upheld the order, dismissing the appellants' writ petitions.

Supreme Court found disparity in compensation rates without adequate justification.

Emphasized the necessity for reasons when awarding different compensation rates for similarly placed workers.

Modified the order, holding each respondent entitled to 100% compensation (Rs. 49,804/-), totaling Rs. 99,608/-.

Directed appellants to pay within three months.

Facts:

On 12.11.1997, the Complainant and his brothers were attacked after a court hearing. The Complainant was stabbed multiple times by the Accused No. 1, resulting in injuries to the chest, scapula, back, and hips. The medical examination confirmed the injuries caused by a sharp-edged, pointed object.

Issues:

Whether the injuries inflicted by the Accused No. 1, though not fatal, establish the intention to cause harm sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC.

Held:

The prosecution successfully proved that Accused No. 1 had inflicted multiple injuries on the Complainant, supported by eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence.( Para 5.1)

Section 307 IPC requires intent or knowledge that the action might cause death; it does not necessitate injuries to vital parts. The nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows are crucial in determining intent.( Para 5.6)

The Prosecution established the motive for the assault based on an existing court case. The intention to commit murder was clear from the conduct and surrounding circumstances.( Para 5.9)

The High Court erred in reducing the sentence; the conviction of Accused No. 1 under Section 307 IPC is reinstated. He is directed to serve the remainder of the 5-year sentence.( Para 5.10)

Accused No. 2 is acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 307 r.w. Section 34 IPC. The lack of consistency in witness statements is affirmed.( Para 7)

Facts:

Pursuant to a public notice, the auction for shops/showrooms was conducted by the appellant on 18.10.2016.

Disputes arose regarding the readiness of the auctioned premises, completion of construction, and availability of civic amenities.

The matters reached the High Court through various Writ Petitions, leading to referral to a sole arbitrator.

The arbitrator passed an award on 14.10.2010, directing the Municipal Council to complete the work and awarding damages and interest to the petitioners.

Issues:

Validity of the arbitrator's award and the subsequent dismissal of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Interpretation of the interest rate mentioned in the award.

Held:

The appellants' objections under Section 34 were dismissed at different levels, including the High Court and this Court, rendering the directions in the award final (Para 4).

As for the interest rate, the Executing Court and the High Court erred in awarding compound interest when the award specified a simple interest rate of 7% per annum. The Court directed that the interest mentioned in the award should be construed as simple interest at 7% per annum (Para 9-11).

Conclusion: The appeals were partly allowed with modifications in the interest calculation, and no costs were awarded (Para 12).

Facts:

The writ petition, filed under Article 32, sought a mandamus to direct the Union of India to appoint a regular Director of CBI following the procedure in section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The petition also aimed to quash the appointment of Mr. Nageshwar Rao as the interim Director, alleging arbitrary and illegal appointment.

Issues:

Legality of the appointment of Mr. Nageshwar Rao as the interim Director.

Adherence to the procedure laid down in section 4A of the DSPE Act in the appointment process.

Held:

The Court examined the resolution passed by the Committee on 9/10th January 2019 and determined that the appointment of the interim Director was authorized by the Committee under section 4A. The submission that the Selection Committee had not authorized the appointment was deemed fallacious. The Court concluded that the appointment was not unauthorized or illegal and dismissed the petition.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court found no grounds to interfere in the matter. It emphasized that, if necessary, challenges to the appointment should be made in accordance with the law, without routine haste.

:

Facts:

The prosecution alleges that the accused, numbered 1 to 4, intercepted the victims on a motorcycle. Accused 2 and 3 restrained the victim while accused 1 fired at close range, causing immediate death. The incident was witnessed by PW-2, PW-3, and PW-13.

Issues:

The appellants, accused 1 to 3, contested the conviction, claiming material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of eyewitnesses PW-2, PW-3, and PW-13.

Held:

The court found PW-2, PW-3, and PW-13's accounts consistent and credible, attributing specific acts to each accused. The trial court's assessment of their evidence as credible and trustworthy was upheld. (Para 13)

The appellants argued a blind murder, citing alleged contradictions in the testimonies. However, the court deemed these contradictions trivial and not affecting the core of the prosecution case. The power of observation differences among eyewitnesses does not undermine credibility. (Para 14)

Contradictions in the evidence of PW-2, PW-3, and PW-13 were considered normal discrepancies due to errors of observation, not affecting the trustworthiness of the witnesses. (Para 16)

Despite variations in injuries sustained by the victim, the court emphasized that the consistent oral evidence of eyewitnesses prevails over opinionative medical evidence. (Paras 25, 26)

The alleged inconsistencies between eyewitnesses and medical evidence were deemed minor contradictions that did not shake the prosecution case. Eyewitnesses' accounts were accorded primacy over medical evidence. (Para 27)

Regarding Section 34 of the IPC, the court clarified the necessity to establish common intention through a pre-arranged plan and simultaneous conscious action. Accused 2 and 3 were acquitted as evidence did not prove their shared common intention in committing the murder. (Para 33)

The court affirmed the conviction of accused No. 1 under Sections 302 IPC, 341 IPC, and Section 25(1A) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, along with a sentence of life imprisonment. However, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted under Section 302 r/w s.34 IPC. (Paras 37 and 38)

Facts:

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai initiated action under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, for the removal of unauthorized stalls/structures. The respondents, who were running various food stalls, challenged this action through writ petitions, claiming the removal was arbitrary and illegal.

Issues:

The legality of the removal under Section 314, the validity of health licenses, and the issuance of mandamus under Article 226.

Held:

The action under Section 314 was justified as the stalls were erected on public sewer lines, causing hindrance and traffic congestion.

Grant of health license does not exempt from removal under Section 314; the section requires compliance with the conditions specified.

The High Court's mandamus to provide alternate land was unjustified as there was no legal duty or right in favor of the respondents.

A writ of mandamus is issued when there is a right and corresponding legal duty, which was lacking in this case.