Facts:

The High Court of Delhi directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to convert preliminary enquiries into First Information Reports (FIRs)/Regular Cases (RCs) and expedite the investigation.

Appellants (Union of India and Anr) challenged this decision, arguing that it exceeded the CBI's statutory limits.

Respondents (including Sunil Tripathi) contended that CBI investigation was warranted due to potential national and international ramifications of the allegations.

Issues:

Whether the direction to the CBI to convert preliminary enquiries into FIRs/RCs and expedite investigation is legally tenable.

Whether the CBI's investigation should be carried out by the State police.

Held:

The Court observed that the High Court did not adequately analyze the appellants' contention that there was no involvement of public servants or loss to public funds. The Court also noted that the High Court did not address the argument that the appellants couldn't change their stance after previously stating that the CBI was investigating.

Instead of deciding the contentious issues, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed reconsideration by the High Court, uninfluenced by the previous observations.

The Court clarified that it didn't express any opinion on the issues requiring adjudication by the High Court. The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was restored to the High Court for fresh consideration. No costs were awarded.

Facts:

The appellants invested in a company run by the respondent, who failed to return their share. The respondent issued a promissory note and two cheques towards their dues, which were later dishonoured.

Issues:

Whether the cheques were issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

Whether the respondent successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court reinstated the Trial Court's decision, holding the respondent guilty. The Court found that:

The respondent failed to produce credible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139.

The promissory note clearly stated it was issued for a loan, and the respondent's defense regarding 10 blank cheques issued in 1995 was disbelieved.

The High Court erred in overturning the conviction, as the respondent couldn't prove the cheques were solely issued as security.

Thus, the Appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision and restoring the Trial Court's order of conviction and fine against the respondent.

Facts:

The appellant, Surinder Kumar Khanna, was convicted under Section 21(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act based on the interception of a car carrying narcotic drugs.

The prosecution's case relied heavily on the statements of the co-accused, implicating the appellant in the drug trafficking.

Issues:

The appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the basis that there was insufficient evidence against him, apart from the statements of the co-accused.

Held:

The Court accepted the appeal and acquitted the appellant. It held that the confessional statements of the co-accused cannot be considered as substantive evidence against the appellant. Without any substantive evidence, the conviction of the appellant solely based on the statements of the co-accused was deemed inappropriate.

The law laid down in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar was followed. These cases establish that a confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against another accused. It can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence against the accused. The Supreme Court reiterated that this principle should be applied unless there is a specific provision in the law making such confession admissible against another accused.

Facts:

The case involved a motor vehicle accident where the deceased, Satish, and the appellant, Anand, were injured in a collision with a speeding lorry.

Separate claim petitions were filed for compensation by the legal representatives of Satish and by Anand.

The Tribunal found the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver.

Issues:

The liability of the insurance company to pay compensation, considering the lack of a valid permit for the offending vehicle to operate in Karnataka.

Held:

The High Court modified the compensation amount for Satish's legal representatives, increasing it based on a higher notional income assumption.

However, the High Court absolved the Insurance Company from liability for compensation.

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, directing the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation amounts to the claimants, with liberty to recover from the owner of the offending vehicle.

The Court disagreed with the High Court's increase in notional income for Satish and maintained the compensation at the original amount determined by the Tribunal.

Facts:

The appellant, Lakshmi Sreenivasa Cooperative Building Society, filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement related to land. The courts below dismissed the suit due to the appellant's failure to prove the execution of the agreement, payment of earnest money, and possession of the property.

Issues:

Whether the appellant adequately proved the execution of the suit agreement, payment of earnest money, and possession of the property.

Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance.

Held:

The High Court affirmed the findings of fact and conclusions recorded by the trial court against the appellant. The appellant failed to prove the execution of the suit agreement, payment of earnest money, and possession of the property.

The trial court's finding that the appellant failed to prove the execution of the suit agreements was based on indisputable facts, including the lack of examination of attestors and the scribe, unregistered agreements, denial by defendants, and absence of a relinquishment deed by vendees.

The appellant's failure to prove possession and the absence of a valid and subsisting agreement led to the dismissal of the suit. The court upheld the findings of both lower courts on material issues.

The appellant cannot obtain relief without proof of execution of suit agreements. Additionally, the request for refund of earnest money was rejected due to lack of evidence.

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the findings of the lower courts. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims for specific performance of the sale agreement, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

Facts:

The case involved the interpretation and application of Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issues:

Whether Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory or directory.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with Section 34(5)?

The importance of timely disposal of applications under Section 34.

Held:

The court held that Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a procedural provision and its violation does not lead to any legal consequence. It should be construed as directory to ensure the advancement of justice.

It was emphasized that interpreting Section 34(5) as mandatory would defeat the objective of justice and fairness, as it would dismiss applications for procedural errors without considering the merits of the case.

Courts are encouraged to dispose of applications under Section 34 within one year from the date of service of notice to the opposite party, in line with the objective of expeditious disposal of commercial disputes.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, affirming the above principles.

Facts:

Ruby Tour Services Pvt. Ltd. applied for registration as a Private Tour Operator (PTO) for Haj Pilgrimage-2018.

The applications were rejected by the Government citing various grounds such as non-compliance with turnover requirements and submission of unclear documents.

Ruby Tour Services Pvt. Ltd. filed writ petitions seeking mandamus to register them as PTOs for Haj Pilgrimage-2018.

Issues:

Whether the rejection of registration applications by the Government was justified.

Whether the grounds for rejection were substantial or trivial.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the rejection of their application.

Held:

The rejection of the first application was deemed justified as the turnover document submitted belonged to a different entity. The Court held that the Government cannot be estopped from raising issues of ineligibility even if they were overlooked in previous years.

The rejection of the second application was considered trivial and insignificant. The Court set aside the rejection and awarded compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner.

The rejection of the third application was upheld as the petitioner failed to provide a proper explanation for the mismatch in the submitted documents. The petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of an exemption notification in the context of taxation.

Issues:

Whether exemption notifications should be interpreted strictly, and where the burden of proof lies regarding their applicability.

Clarification on the distinction between interpreting charging provisions and exemption clauses in taxation statutes.

The role of the court in interpreting statutes, particularly tax statutes, and the tools available for interpretation.

Held:

The interpretation of exemption notifications should be strict, with the burden of proving applicability resting on the assessee. Ambiguity in such notifications favors the Revenue, overturning the decision in the Sun Export case.

There exists a clear distinction between interpreting charging provisions and exemption clauses, with strict interpretation mandated for charging provisions but not necessarily for exemption clauses.

Principles of interpretation aim to discern legislative intent, with a focus on plain meaning and strict interpretation, especially in taxation matters.

Decision: The court ruled in favor of interpreting exemption notifications strictly, placing the burden of proof on the assessee and giving the benefit of ambiguity to the Revenue. The decision clarified the distinction between interpreting charging provisions and exemption clauses in taxation statutes and emphasized the importance of strict interpretation in tax matters.

Facts:

The case involved an incident where the accused allegedly assaulted the deceased and his brother with weapons, resulting in the death of the brother. The accused were charged under several sections of the IPC and the Arms Act.

Issues:

The assessment of evidence, particularly medical evidence, to determine the culpability of the accused in the assault and the intent behind the actions leading to the death of the deceased.

Held:

The Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, dismissing the appeal. The Court observed that while the primary accused had caused the gunshot injury, there was insufficient evidence to establish the intent to commit murder.

Therefore, the Court agreed with the High Court's decision to convict the primary accused under Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.