Facts:

The appellants, claiming to be working as clerical staff, filed writ petitions against the Food Corporation of India (FCI) seeking regularization of their services.

FCI contested the petitions, asserting that the appellants were not its employees but were appointed by a Cooperative Society.

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, which were then appealed to the Division Bench. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's decision.

The appellants then filed appeals in the Supreme Court against the Division Bench's judgment.

Issues:

Whether there existed an employer-employee relationship between the appellants and FCI.

Whether the appellants' claims for regularization of services against FCI were valid.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, held as follows:

The Court found no merit in the appeals and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

The appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish an employment relationship with FCI. Instead, the evidence showed they were appointed by a Cooperative Society.

The Court emphasized that the appellants' claims against FCI lacked merit due to the absence of an employment relationship.

The Court dismissed the relevance of a previous industrial reference case cited by the appellants, stating it did not support their claims.

Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the appeals.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over ancestral land measuring approximately 164 Kanals 1 Marla.

Pritam Singh, the father, sold the land to Tara Singh and Ajit Singh.

Kehar Singh, the son, contested the sale, claiming it was invalid due to lack of consent and legal necessity.

Legal proceedings ensued, including litigation in trial and appellate courts, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the sale of ancestral land by Pritam Singh was justified by legal necessity, and if so, whether it was valid and binding on the plaintiff.

Additionally, the court needs to determine the rights of co-coparceners in challenging such sales under Hindu law.

Held:

The High Court found that the sale was justified by legal necessity, which included the payment of debts and the need for agricultural land improvement.

The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, stating that the defendants had successfully proven legal necessity for the sale.

As a result, the plaintiff, being a co-coparcener, did not have the right to challenge the sale.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the sale of ancestral land to the defendants.

Facts:

The appeals arose from judgments of the High Court of Kerala concerning writ petitions filed by workers' unions against the Food Corporation of India (FCI).

The petitions sought the implementation of an award (Ex.P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Chennai, which directed the regularization of workers' services after the abolition of the contract labor system.

The appeals pertained to employees working in FCI depots in Kerala, while previous appeals dealt with employees in the Chennai branch office.

Issues:

Whether the benefits of the Industrial Tribunal award should be extended to workers in FCI depots in Kerala.

Whether there are significant differences between the present appeals and previous appeals that would warrant a different decision.

Held:

The Court upheld the decision of the High Court of Kerala, dismissing the appeals. It found no justifiable reason to overturn the High Court's decision, as there were no significant differences between the cases. Technical issues raised by FCI did not alter the fundamental aspects of the case. Moreover, previous judicial orders against FCI in similar matters were considered, leading to the conclusion that the benefits of the award should be extended to workers in Kerala depots. Thus, the appeals were dismissed.

Facts:

The dispute arose between the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and around 955 employees regarding their regularization.

The employees claimed to be regularized as FCI employees, while FCI contended they were employees of a contract laborers' society.

The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government of India for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Industrial Tribunal and subsequent courts ruled in favor of the employees, holding that they were entitled to regularization as FCI employees.

Issues:

Whether the employees were entitled to be regularized as FCI employees.

Whether FCI failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the claims of the employees.

Held:

The Court, after examining the evidence and findings of the lower courts, upheld the decisions.

The Industrial Tribunal correctly concluded that the employees were entitled to regularization based on various factors, including the nature of their work, direct payment of wages by FCI, and the lack of evidence presented by FCI.

FCI's failure to provide evidence to prove their case resulted in adverse inference against them.

The findings of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were based on sufficient evidence adduced by the workers' Union and were not legally unsustainable.

Similar cases involving FCI branches had been adjudicated similarly, with the courts ruling in favor of the workers' Union.

The appeals filed by FCI lacked merit and were accordingly dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.

Facts:The appeals concern assessees who established manufacturing units in specified areas, including Himachal Pradesh, and claimed exemption at 100% under Section 80-IC for the first five assessment years. They sought continued exemption at the same rate for the subsequent five years based on substantial expansion.

Issues:

Whether assessees, after availing 100% exemption for the initial five years under Section 80-IC, are entitled to claim the same rate of exemption for the next five years due to substantial expansion.

Held:

The Court rejected the assessees' claim and ruled in favor of the Revenue. It held that once the initial assessment year commences and the assessee starts enjoying deduction under Section 80-IC, there cannot be another initial assessment year within the 10-year period, even with substantial expansion. The Court emphasized the clear provisions of sub-sections (3) and (6) of Section 80-IC, limiting the deduction to 100% for the initial five years and 25% (or 30% for companies) for the subsequent five years, with a total cap of 10 years.

The Court distinguished this case from previous judgments where assessees claimed deductions under different provisions. It clarified that in this case, the assessees had initially claimed deductions solely under Section 80-IC. Therefore, the Court held that after availing deduction for the initial five years at 100%, the assessees are entitled to deduction for the remaining five assessment years at the rate of 25% (or 30% for companies), as per the provisions of Section 80-IC.

The appeals were allowed, and the Court directed the Assessing Officer to carry out fresh assessments and pass appropriate orders accordingly. No costs were awarded in the case.

Facts:

In a writ petition filed by the appellants against the State in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the appellants sought ad-interim stay during the pendency of the writ petition regarding a land matter. The High Court declined to grant the ad-interim stay, citing that the required land was vacant.

Issues:

The High Court's refusal to grant ad-interim stay during the pendency of the writ petition.

Held:

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The Court found two main reasons for remand: Firstly, the impugned order lacked adequate reasons for not granting the stay. Secondly, the reason provided by the High Court did not justify the rejection considering the nature of the controversy involved in the writ petition.

The Court emphasized the need for justifiable reasons to support either the grant or rejection of the stay application. Therefore, the case was remanded to the High Court to reconsider the ad-interim prayer made by the appellants or consider disposing of the writ petition itself based on merits and in accordance with the law.

Facts:

The case involved a challenge to the validity of Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, which stipulated eligibility criteria for state quota seats. The rule required candidates to have obtained education from Class VII to XII in the State of Assam.

Issues:

Whether Rule 3(1)(c) violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

Held:

The Court upheld the validity of Rule 3(1)(c), stating that it was permissible to lay down essential educational requirements and residential/domicile conditions for basic courses like MBBS/BDS/Ayurvedic. This decision was in line with previous rulings where preferences for state residents had been upheld to uplift educational standards and ensure service to the state.

The Court found that the exclusion of certain categories of students, such as those whose parents were government employees of other states or private employees working outside the state, was justified. Such students were less likely to return to the state after completing their education elsewhere.

Concerns about students obtaining education outside the state for better coaching were addressed by stating that they could compete for All India Quota seats or open seats within the state if they could afford coaching in other states. The criteria laid down in Rule 3(1)(c) were deemed to be in line with the spirit of Article 14.

Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of Rule 3(1)(c) and stating that it did not violate the constitutional principle of equality.

Facts:

The case involves the State of Karnataka appealing against the acquittal of the respondents (accused) for the offense under Section 302 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to murder Mohan Kumar due to his wife's alleged illicit relationship with one of the accused.

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court should be upheld or overturned by the Supreme Court.

Held:

The Court, after careful consideration of the evidence and legal arguments, upheld the acquittals of respondent nos. 1 and 2. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the court noted:

The weaknesses in the prosecution's case, including the retraction of extra-judicial confessions and the lack of substantive evidence supporting the allegations against the accused.

The court emphasized that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and must be supported by other substantive evidence, which was lacking in this case.

The photographs recovered from one of the accused only indicated an illicit relationship but did not establish involvement in the murder conspiracy.

Therefore, the court concluded that there were no compelling reasons or substantial infirmities warranting interference with the order of acquittal.

Facts:

An F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant by PW-1, a Sub-Inspector, alleging possession of opium.

The appellant was searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, leading to the recovery of 4 kg of opium.

Certain irregularities were noted in the investigation, including the absence of deposition of seized narcotics in the malkhana, delay in sending samples for analysis, and non-examination of key witnesses.

The appellant alleged false implication due to a dispute with PW-1.

Issues:

Whether the investigation in the present case was fair and judicious, considering the reverse burden of proof under the NDPS Act.

Whether the involvement of the informant as the investigating officer affects the fairness of the investigation.

Whether the prosecution established a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt before shifting the burden of proof onto the accused.

Held:

The Court held that the investigation in the present case was not fair and raised serious doubts about its veracity. Several irregularities, such as the failure to deposit seized narcotics in the malkhana, delay in sending samples for analysis, and non-examination of key witnesses, undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case. The involvement of the informant as the investigating officer was deemed to compromise the fairness of the investigation, especially under laws like the NDPS Act with a reverse burden of proof. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair investigation as a constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was held that the appellant should be acquitted due to the infraction of the constitutional guarantee of a fair investigation, and the prosecution was held to be vitiated. Consequently, the appellant was directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case.