Facts:

The case involves a fatal accident where a Maruti car collided with a truck.

The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation for the death of Balvinder Kaur, who was in the car during the accident.

The Tribunal and the High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, holding the Maruti car driver responsible for the accident.

Issues:

Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver or the Maruti car driver.

Another issue was the applicability of contributory negligence in the absence of parties.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the finding that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the Maruti car driver.

The court found no liability on the part of the truck driver.

Despite finding no negligence on the part of the truck driver, the court invoked Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, holding the owner of the truck liable for compensation.

The court awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the appellants under Section 140 of the Act.

The appeal was partly allowed, granting limited relief to the appellants under Section 140 of the Act, holding the truck owner and insurer jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for the death of Balvinder Kaur.

Facts:

The case involves a motor accident claim arising from an accident that occurred on November 14, 2006.

The deceased, Krishna Kumar Sahu, was allegedly riding as a pillion passenger on a motorcycle driven by one of the appellants, Prem Lal Rajawade.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the claimants, determining that Prem Lal was driving the motorcycle.

The High Court reversed the Tribunal's finding, holding that Krishna Kumar was driving the motorcycle and was liable for contributory negligence.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's reversal of the Tribunal's finding was justified.

Whether the liability, if any, should be determined under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court was appropriate.

Held and Decision:The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the Tribunal's finding without adequately analyzing the evidence. The Court declined to intervene on the issue of contributory negligence. It upheld the Tribunal's finding that Prem Lal was driving the motorcycle and caused the accident. Since the difference in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court was marginal, the Court declined to interfere on this aspect. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

M/S Carpet India (P) Ltd., the assessee, filed a 'Nil' return for the Assessment Year 2001-2002, claiming a deduction under Section 80HHC based on its export sales and incentives received. The Assessing Officer allowed a lesser deduction than claimed by the assessee, leading to an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction as claimed by the assessee. The Revenue appealed to higher authorities, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, which upheld the assessee's claim.

Issues:

The core contention of the Revenue is that since the assessee is a supporting manufacturer and not a direct exporter, it should not be entitled to claim the deduction at par with the direct exporter under Section 80HHC.

Held:

The Supreme Court noted that the issue in this case is distinct from previous judgments, including the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Baby Marine Exports. The Court highlighted the provisions of Section 80HHC, which provide for deductions in respect of profits retained from export business, and delineate between direct exporters and supporting manufacturers. It proposed a substantial question of law for reconsideration: "Whether in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, supporting manufacturer who receives export incentives in the form of duty draw back (DDB), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc. is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" Consequently, the Court referred the matter to a larger bench and directed it to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. This indicates that the Supreme Court seeks further deliberation on the issue before arriving at a final decision.

Facts:

Chennai Port Trust had a canteen run by a Cooperative Society named "Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Co-operative Canteen Limited" since 1964.

Workers in the canteen formed an association and filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking recognition as regular employees of Chennai Port Trust and associated benefits.

The Chennai Port Trust contested, stating they had no control over the canteen's operations, and the employment status was a factual matter for an Industrial Tribunal.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, and the Division Bench affirmed the decision on appeal.

Issues:

Whether the canteen workers should be considered regular employees of Chennai Port Trust and entitled to benefits.

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter or if it should have been referred to an Industrial Tribunal.

Held:

The Division Bench upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming the employment status and benefits of the canteen workers. The Court found that the Chennai Port Trust exercised significant control over the canteen operations, similar to precedents established in previous cases, notably Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Shramik Sena.

The Court rejected the argument that the dispute should have been referred to an Industrial Tribunal, as the writ petition had already been decided on its merits and no disputed facts requiring trial existed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

On 23.11.2002, based on secret information, a raiding party intercepted the appellant who admitted possession of charas.

The appellant consented to a search by the raiding police party, but the search and seizure were not conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer as required by Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution charged the appellant under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, leading to his conviction by the trial court and the confirmation of the same by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the search and seizure conducted in this case complied with the mandatory procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the failure to comply with Section 50 renders the prosecution's case fatally flawed, entitling the appellant to acquittal.

Held:

In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled law that the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. Despite the appellant's consent to the search, it is the obligation of the officer to inform the suspect of their right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 50. None of the police officials testified that the search was conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Therefore, the non-compliance with Section 50 rendered the prosecution's case fatally flawed.

As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant of the charges under the NDPS Act.

Facts:

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking restoration of possession, mesne profits, and a permanent injunction with respect to House No. ED-48, Tagore Garden, New Delhi. The property was initially acquired in the name of Kumari Sneh Lata and later transferred to the plaintiff, Dharampal Dhall. However, the defendant claimed that the property was family-owned and the plaintiff had no exclusive right over it. The entire family had resided in the house from the beginning, including the plaintiff, defendant, and their siblings. Marriages of family members were also solemnized in the house.

Issues:

Whether the property in question was exclusively owned by the plaintiff or if it was family-owned, which would affect the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Held:

The Court examined the evidence presented by both parties and observed that the entire family had resided in the house from the beginning, indicating collective ownership and enjoyment. The source of funds for acquiring the property was the father of the parties, who had spent money on getting the land allotted and constructing the house. The plaintiff, at the time of acquisition, was a student with no source of income. Therefore, the Court held that the property was family-owned and not exclusively owned by the plaintiff.

The Court further emphasized that the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 were not applicable in this case, as the property was held by a coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family for the benefit of the family members.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals filed by the defendant and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. No costs were awarded, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

Kurk Amins were appointed by the UP Government for recovering dues of cooperative societies.

Their appointment conditions changed over time, leading to disputes over their status and entitlements.

Legal battles ensued, with judgments confirming their status as government servants.

After the creation of Uttarakhand, many Kurk Amins were absorbed into its government service.

A writ petition was filed seeking the counting of past services for benefits.

Issues:

Whether past services of Kurk Amins should be counted for benefits entitlement.

The date from which past services should be counted.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that past services of Kurk Amins could not be disregarded due to state reorganization. The benefits of previous judgments confirming their status as government servants should extend to them. The Division Bench's decision to limit the counting of past services was deemed contrary to law and service jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Division Bench's decision. It directed that past services of Kurk Amins should be counted for all purposes, including selection grade, promotional scale, post-retiral benefits, and pension. The appellants were entitled to all the relief granted by the Single Bench. The benefit of the judgment was extended to all similarly situated incumbents, aiming to prevent further litigation.

Facts:

The State of Rajasthan issued a notification upgrading Gram Panchayat of Napasar Village to Nagar Palika (Municipality) Class IV category.

Legal challenges were raised against this notification through various writ petitions and appeals.

The constitutional validity of the notifications and subsequent actions taken by the state government were questioned before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the notifications issued by the State of Rajasthan regarding the establishment of municipalities, particularly the upgrading of Napasar Village Gram Panchayat to Nagar Palika, comply with the constitutional mandate under Article 243Q.

Whether the actions taken by the state government are consistent with the parameters set forth in Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the notifications issued by the State of Rajasthan, including the one upgrading Napasar Village Gram Panchayat to Nagar Palika, were unconstitutional as they failed to meet the requirements of Article 243Q of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Governor is obligated to specify parameters uniformly for the entire state through public notification, considering factors such as population density, revenue generated, etc. Since the notifications only classified municipalities based on population without considering other necessary parameters, they were deemed inconsistent with the constitutional mandate.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the duty of courts to examine constitutional issues even if not explicitly raised by the litigants, citing relevant precedents. The Court rejected arguments raised by non-state respondents regarding potential development consequences, finding no substantial basis for such apprehensions.

Therefore, the Court disposed of the appeals, declaring the initial notification and subsequent actions taken by the State of Rajasthan as unconstitutional.

Facts:

The case involves the murder of a person allegedly by 16 accused individuals. The trial court acquitted all accused, which was later reversed by the High Court. Upon appeal, various discrepancies and shortcomings in the prosecution's case were observed.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution's case established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the appellate court's interference with the trial court's acquittal was justified.

Held:

The trial court's acquittal signifies the presumption of innocence reinforced by the advantage of firsthand witness testimony. The appellate court should interfere only when substantial reasons exist.

Circumstantial evidence, when forming an unbroken chain, can justify conviction.

Testimony from related witnesses should be approached cautiously due to potential bias.

While motive plays a role, solely dismissing a case based on lack of motive is not warranted.

Inconsistencies and contradictions in witness statements weakened the prosecution's case.

The failure to prove motive and the absence of identification parades undermined the prosecution's case.

Discrepancies in the FIR and lack of corroborative evidence weakened the case further.

The non-examination of vital witnesses and misinterpretation by the High Court contributed to the acquittal.

The accused were acquitted due to shortcomings in the prosecution's case and lack of compelling reasons for appellate interference.

Decision: The trial court's acquittal was upheld, and the appellate court's decision was deemed unjustified. The accused individuals were acquitted due to deficiencies in the prosecution's case.