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.

Facts:

Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the respondent) adopted the trademark 'NANDINI' in 1985 for milk and milk products. On the other hand, NANDHINI DELUXE (hereafter referred to as the appellant) adopted the mark 'NANDHINI' for its restaurants in 1989.

The appellant applied for trademark registration for 'NANDHINI' for various food products, including milk and milk products. The respondent opposed this registration, citing deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion.

The Deputy Registrar rejected the respondent's objections and granted registration to the appellant. However, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) allowed the respondent's appeals, leading to writ petitions filed by the appellant, which were subsequently dismissed.

Issues:

Whether the appellant is entitled to seek registration of the mark 'NANDHINI' in respect of the goods it deals with and whether such registration would infringe the rights of the respondent.

Held:

The Court found that not only were the visual appearances of the two marks different, but they also related to different products. Furthermore, the manner in which they were traded by the appellant and respondent respectively made it unlikely for an average person to associate the goods of one with the other.

It was noted that the appellant operated restaurants under the trademark 'NANDHINI' and had applied the mark for goods like coffee, tea, sugar, etc., which are used in restaurant services, not milk or milk products.

Disagreeing with the reasoning of the IPAB and the High Court, the Court held that there was hardly any question of confusion or deception as the goods belonging to the appellant and the respondent, although different, were not in the same class under the Trade Mark Rules, 2002.

The Court found no convincing evidence to suggest that the appellant adopted the trademark to take unfair advantage of the respondent's mark. It noted that the use of 'NANDHINI' by the appellant would not harm the distinctive character or reputation of the respondent's mark.

Consequently, the Court restored the order of the Deputy Registrar granting registration to the appellant, with the modification that registration would not be given for milk and milk products for which the appellant had abandoned its claim.

Facts:

The appellant, Central Board of Trustees, issued summons to the respondent, Indore Composite Pvt Ltd, for non-payment of Provident Fund contribution.

The appellant ordered the respondent to deposit a certain amount within a specified time and later directed them to pay damages for delayed payments.

The respondent appealed against the order, leading to a dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court without adequate consideration of the issues and arguments.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was justified.

Whether there was adequate consideration of the issues and arguments by the High Court.

Held:

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits in accordance with law.

We, however, make it clear that we have refrained from making any observation on merits of the controversy having formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for the reasons mentioned above. The High Court would, therefore, decide the writ petition, uninfluenced by any of our observations, strictly in accordance with law.

Decision: The appeal is allowed, the High Court's order is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

Facts:

The State of Andhra Pradesh acquired land for laying a new broad gauge single railway line from Karimnagar to Jagitial Phase -II.

Disputes arose regarding the compensation to be paid to the landowners.

The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) determined compensation, which was challenged by both the landowners and the Railways.

The Civil Court redetermined the compensation, which was appealed to the High Court by both parties.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in enhancing the compensation and reducing the deduction towards developmental charges.

Whether the deduction towards developmental charges made by the Reference Court was justified.

Whether the market value determined by the Reference Court should be upheld.

Held:

The Court analyzed the principles of land valuation and deduction towards developmental charges. It considered factors such as the size, development status, and potentiality of the acquired land. The Court noted that the Reference Court's decision to deduct 50% towards developmental charges was justified based on the characteristics of the acquired land and the lack of exemplar sale deeds. The Supreme Court upheld the market value determined by the Reference Court and found the High Court's reduction in developmental charges unjustified.

Therefore, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Reference Court's decision on compensation.

Facts:

The appellant, Mohammed Zakir, appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order dated 28.04.2017, which recalled its own order dated 18.04.2017 under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Issues:

Whether the High Court's use of Section 362 Cr.P.C. to correct the earlier order on merits was permissible?

What action should be taken regarding the appellant's appeal against the notice issued by the Sessions Court?

Held:

The Court held that the High Court's use of Section 362 Cr.P.C. to correct the earlier order on merits was impermissible. Section 362 is meant for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors only, not for rehearing matters on their merits. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 28.04.2017.

Regarding the appellant's appeal against the notice issued by the Sessions Court, the Supreme Court decided not to delve into the merits of the matter since the appeal was pending before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 18.04.2017 and directed the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, to dispose of Criminal Appeal No.95/1997 expeditiously.

Facts:

The case involved writ petitions seeking the quashing of repeated imposition of police orders under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which declared the Central Delhi area as a prohibited area for holding public meetings, dharnas, and peaceful protests. The petitions also sought the quashing of an order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) prohibiting demonstrations at Jantar Mantar road. Additionally, the petitioners requested the issuance of a writ of mandamus laying down guidelines for holding public meetings and dharnas.

Issues:

Whether the repeated imposition of section 144 orders and the NGT's order amounted to a violation of the fundamental right to protest.

Whether there exists a need to balance the rights of protestors with the rights of residents and the larger public interest.

Whether regulations and guidelines should be formulated to govern protests and demonstrations effectively.

Held:

The right of people to hold peaceful protests and demonstrations is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.

The court emphasized the need to balance the rights of protestors with the rights of residents and the larger public interest.

Certain categories of peaceful protests and demonstrations should be allowed in a regulated manner to enable protestors to exercise their rights without causing inconvenience to residents.

The Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, in consultation with other concerned agencies, is directed to devise proper guidelines for regulating protests and demonstrations in Jantar Mantar and Boat Club area.

The court reiterated that while the right to protest is fundamental, it is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, and public order.

Decision: The court disposed of the matters by directing the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, to formulate guidelines for regulating protests and demonstrations in Jantar Mantar and Boat Club area, ensuring that protests are conducted without causing inconvenience to residents or disrupting public order.