Facts:

The case involved allegations of anti-competitive practices, including cartelization, bid-rigging, and collusive bidding, in a tender floated by IOCL for the supply of LPG Gas Cylinders.

Issues:

Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the existence of an agreement between the appellants for bid rigging.

Held:

The court emphasized the duty of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to curb anti-competitive practices and promote competition, consumer interest, and free trade as mandated by the Competition Act, 2002.

The Act presumes that certain types of agreements have an appreciable adverse effect on competition, shifting the burden of proof onto the parties to rebut this presumption. The evidence must be examined against the factors mentioned in Section 19 of the Act.

Bid rigging involves agreements between parties engaged in similar trades to eliminate or reduce competition in the bidding process. Collusive bidding overlaps with bid rigging and refers to cooperation between bidders to manipulate bidding processes.

While direct evidence of cartelization may be lacking, the standard of proof required is one of probability. Even in the absence of formal agreements, practical cooperation between parties can amount to anti-competitive practices.

The court considered various factors such as the nature of the market, behavior of the parties, and the influence of buyers in determining whether anti-competitive practices existed.

Parallel behavior among suppliers doesn't necessarily indicate collusion, especially in oligopolistic markets where few buyers dominate. Suppliers may adjust prices competitively to secure orders.

The appellants were able to provide explanations and evidence rebutting the presumption of collusion. The court found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to establish collusion among the appellants.

The court criticized the CCI for failing to conduct a comprehensive inquiry, including summoning IOCL to clarify aspects of the tendering process.

Since there was insufficient evidence to prove collusion and no penalty was payable, the appeals of the manufacturers were allowed, and the appeals of the CCI were dismissed as infructuous.

Facts:

The case revolves around the eruption of mob violence, protests, and demonstrations across India, particularly in response to cultural programs and establishments. The petition was triggered by incidents related to the release of the film "Padmaavat.

Issues:

The Court was the rise in intolerance towards differing viewpoints, leading to attempts to suppress artistic freedom and freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Court also examined the adequacy of measures to prevent mob violence and hold perpetrators accountable.

Held:

The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and preventing mob violence, which runs against established legal principles. It stressed that nobody has the right to administer their interpretation of the law forcibly, especially through violent means. The State has a duty to protect its citizens against illegal acts of violence by groups.

The Court acknowledged the comprehensive recommendations made in previous cases regarding the destruction of public and private properties during protests. It urged the central and state governments to implement these recommendations, including legislative changes if necessary.

The Court highlighted the need for a comprehensive structure in each state to address accountability and efficiency in handling incidents of peaceful protests turning into mob violence. It referenced previous cases and emphasized the importance of following the directions given therein.

The Court provided additional recommendations and directions under various heads, including structural and preventive measures, remedies to minimize mob violence, liability of those causing violence, responsibilities of police officials, and compensation for victims. It emphasized the applicability of these measures to peaceful protests turning into mob violence.

The Court directed the central and state governments to implement the recommendations expeditiously.

Decision: The Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the need for immediate action to prevent mob violence and ensure accountability for perpetrators. It provided comprehensive guidelines for structural, preventive, and remedial measures to address the issue effectively.

Facts:

The writ petition was filed by five individuals acting as next friends of five activists-accused arrested in connection with FIR No.4/18, which was registered in Pune concerning communal violence in Bhima Koregaon.

The petitioners contended that the accused were not present at the event in question and that the FIR was fabricated by the Pune Police following FIR No.2/18 filed against some Hindutva right-wing leaders.

The petitioners sought the appointment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and court-monitored investigation.

Issues:

Whether the accused have the right to choose the Investigating Agency?

Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the present case?

Whether the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 extends to matters pertaining to criminal investigation?

Whether a Special Investigation Team (SIT) should be appointed in this case?

Whether the conduct of the Pune police, as alleged by the petitioners, necessitates an independent investigation?

Held:

The accused cannot select the Investigating Agency, and the court must exercise power regarding the change of agency with circumspection.

The writ petition, initially filed by next friends of the accused, is assumed to be pursued by the accused themselves. Therefore, the next friends cannot espouse the cause of the accused, and the relief sought in the petition cannot be granted.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 32 encompasses ensuring fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. While the normal remedies under the criminal law should not be displaced, the present case warrants the Court's intervention.

It is a proper case for the appointment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure a fair and impartial investigation. The SIT shall submit periodical status reports to the Court, and the interim order for house arrest of the accused shall continue for a specified period.

The conduct of the Pune police, as alleged, raises concerns about fairness in the investigation process. The use of electronic media by the police to influence public opinion undermines the impartiality of the investigation.

Facts:

The prosecutrix, a 9-year-old girl, was sexually assaulted on 20.02.2004.

The appellant challenged his conviction by the High Court, which had sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

The trial court initially acquitted the appellant due to lack of evidence.

The High Court reversed the acquittal based on various pieces of evidence, including medical reports, presence of semen on the prosecutrix's clothes, and identification of the appellant in the Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.).

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the failure to question the appellant about the serological report during trial constitutes a prejudice.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the importance of considering all available evidence, including corroborative evidence like T.I.P. identification. The Court noted that while failure to identify the accused in T.I.P. doesn't necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case, it should be considered alongside other evidence. In this case, the corroborative evidence, including medical reports and semen analysis, supported the prosecutrix's identification of the appellant.

The Court also addressed the issue of prejudice caused by the failure to question the appellant about the serological report during trial, stating that the prosecution cannot be faulted for the trial court's omission. It further declined to prosecute the prosecutrix for false evidence due to her young age at the time of the incident and the significant time elapsed since then.

Facts:

The State of Orissa appealed against the decision concerning whether the tribe "Kulis" included the "Kuli" community. The State contended that since "Kulis" were declared as a Scheduled Tribe, members of the "Kuli" community could not claim benefits.

Issues:

Whether the term "Kulis" encompassed the "Kuli" community, as stated in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976.

Held:

The Court clarified that its power was limited in modifying the Presidential Order or Parliament's notification regarding Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It noted that while it cannot alter the notified lists, it also cannot interpret a caste or tribe in a way that contradicts Parliament's intention.

The Court found no evidence to suggest that "Kulis" and "Kuli" were distinct castes or tribes. Documents indicated that the terms were used interchangeably, suggesting "Kulis" was likely the plural form of "Kuli." Thus, interpreting "Kulis" to include the "Kuli" community aligned with Parliament's intention and ensured no tribe was excluded from the Scheduled Tribes list.

Therefore, the term "Kulis" in the English version was interpreted to include members of the "Kuli" community, and the appeals were dismissed accordingly.

Facts:

Appellant and seven members submitted a No Confidence Motion against the President of Masughat Gaon Panchayat.

Delays occurred in convening the special meeting required by law.

Meeting eventually took place, where nine members voted in favor of the No Confidence Motion, resulting in the removal of the President.

President challenged the legality of the resolution through a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court.

Issues:

Validity of the resolution passed against the President in the special meeting.

Procedural irregularities in convening the meeting.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after analyzing Section 15 of the Assam Panchayat Act, noted the requirement of strict compliance with the law. However, it recognized exceptions when no public interest is affected. As the respondent, who benefited from attending the meeting, had effectively waived the procedural irregularities by participating in the meeting, the Court upheld the validity of the resolution passed against the President.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments of the High Court. The competent authority was directed to implement the consequences of the resolution. Costs were not awarded in this case.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of provisions within the Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970 (the Act of 1970).

A Member of the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), who was also the President of CCIM representing the State of Uttarakhand, had his term expire on 27.8.2016.

An election was held on 14.3.2017 for the post of President, in which Dr. Vanitha R. was elected.

There was a dispute regarding the tenure for which the election was held, with one party arguing for a five-year term and the other contending it was only for the remainder of the term of the previous officeholder.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 7 of the Act of 1970, specifically in relation to the tenure of the President of the CCIM.

The dispute revolved around whether the election held on 14.3.2017 was for a full five-year term or only for the remainder of the term of the previous officeholder.

Held:

The tenure for which the election was held was only for the remainder of the term of the previous officeholder, not a full five-year term.

Section 7(3) of the Act of 1970 deals with casual vacancies in the Central Council, and the term of the person elected to fill such a vacancy is only for the remainder of the term of the outgoing member.

Interpretation of Sections 7(1) and 7(3) must be harmonious, and in this case, the election was held to fill a casual vacancy, thus the term was limited.

The court dismissed arguments related to regulations governing the term of the President, emphasizing that regulations cannot supersede the provisions of the Act.

The court set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and declared the election for the President held on 23rd March 2018 as legal and valid.

The court ordered the declaration of the election results within ten days.

Facts:

A dispute arose between Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no.3 regarding a development agreement for a property. Respondent no.3 sought information about development plans submitted by Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. The Public Information Officer (PIO) declined the information, leading to appeals and ultimately to the Court.

Issues:

Whether the information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding development plans submitted by a developer, should be disclosed.

Whether the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, mandate the disclosure of such development plans.

Held:

The Court held that there was no 'personal information' sought for disclosure. The information requested had a clear relation to public activity and interest.

Provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, specifically required developers to make available sanctioned plans and layout plans to the public. This was aimed at enhancing transparency in the real estate sector.

Disclosure of development plans did not infringe copyright laws as per the Copyright Act, 1957. Reproduction of works for certified copies is permitted under the Act.

The Court emphasized the importance of public interest and transparency in matters concerning land development and investments. Full disclosure of information regarding development plans was deemed necessary.

The Court recommended that sanctioned plans and layout plans should be displayed at project sites, in addition to any other specified manner by the Authority's regulations, to ensure transparency and accountability.

Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals and directed Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. to disclose the information regarding development plans. Costs of Rs.2.50 lakhs were imposed on the appellant.

Facts:

The State of Kerala acquired land in Ernakulam District for the Infopark project, invoking the urgency clause under section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Subsequently, a notification was issued under section 4(1) of the Act for the acquisition of the aforementioned land.

The appellants, who owned separate land, contested that the Special Tahsildar exceeded his authority by attempting to act as Collector for land acquisitions beyond those explicitly mentioned in the notification.

Issues:

Whether the Special Tahsildar was empowered to perform the functions of a Collector for land acquisitions beyond those explicitly mentioned in the notification.

Whether adherence to legal procedures, even in cases involving public interest, is mandatory.

Held:

On perusal of the notification dated August 21, 1989, it is evident that the Special Tahsildar was appointed to perform the functions of a Collector only within Ernakulam District, specifically for lands for which notifications under section 4(1) had been published.

The Special Tahsildar was not authorized to issue fresh notifications for other land acquisitions beyond the scope outlined in the notification. The explanatory note accompanying the notification clarified this limitation.

Adherence to legal procedures is crucial, and any violation of these procedures could render the act voidable, if not void. The Court rejected the notion that technicalities should be overlooked in cases involving public interest.

Decision: The Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the Special Tahsildar exceeded his authority by attempting to act as Collector for acquisitions beyond those explicitly mentioned in the notification.