Facts:

The case involved a dispute arising from the marriage between Muthulakshmi (Accused No. 4) and Murugan. Due to strained relations between the families, the accused attacked Murugan, resulting in his death, and later attacked Poomari, leading to her death as well.

Issues:

The defense argued that the witnesses, who were family members of the deceased, were interested witnesses and their testimonies should not be given undue weight.

Additionally, the defense presented evidence to challenge the presence of one witness at the school during the time of the incident.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that being related to the deceased does not automatically make a witness interested. It emphasized that related witnesses cannot per se be discarded and that their evidence should be evaluated carefully. The court found that the testimonies of the family members provided consistent and credible evidence, which was corroborated by medical evidence (Paragraphs 9-15).

The court also considered the defense evidence but found it unconvincing, noting discrepancies in the attendance records presented. Therefore, the High Court's judgment was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants (Paragraphs 16-18).

Facts:

B.N. Firos, proprietor of Comtech IT Solutions, challenged a notification declaring certain computer systems as "protected systems" under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Firos developed software for the "FRIENDS" project initiated by the State of Kerala.

Disputes arose over the ownership of copyright for the software developed for the project.

Issues:

The ownership of copyright in the software developed for the government project.

The validity of the notification under the Information Technology Act, 2000, was also questioned.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that Firos did not have valid copyright ownership in the software developed for the government project.

The court held that Firos, by virtue of his agreement with Microsoft, did not own the copyright, as Microsoft was the first owner under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, having paid Firos for the software development.

Additionally, the Memorandum of Understanding stated that intellectual property rights in software developed for government projects vested in the government, further supporting the rejection of Firos's copyright claim.

The court dismissed Firos's appeal, directing each party to bear its own costs.

Facts:

Anilkumar Patel and Pravinchandra Patel, brothers, initiated arbitration proceedings to partition their assets.

An arbitral award was passed on 07.07.1996, which was signed by both parties.

Anilkumar Patel and his family members challenged the award, claiming they were not served with a copy and alleging fraud.

Anilkumar Patel, as head of the family, received the award on behalf of his family members.

Issues:

Whether service of the arbitral award on Anilkumar Patel constituted service on his family members.

Whether the challenge to the award was time-barred.

Held:

The Court held that the limitation period for challenging the arbitral award starts from the date of receipt of the award, and service on Anilkumar Patel amounted to service on all his family members involved in the proceedings. The Court noted various instances where Anilkumar Patel had acknowledged the award and used it in legal proceedings, indicating awareness of the award. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision that the challenge to the award was time-barred.

The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment, concluding that service of the award on Anilkumar Patel was in compliance with the law, and the challenge to the award was indeed barred by limitation.

Facts:

The appellant, Bharatkumar Rameshchandra Barot, was convicted for offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act by the Sessions Court. He was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The State of Gujarat appealed against the leniency of the sentence under Section 377 of the CrPC, seeking enhancement of the sentence to life imprisonment. The High Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the sentence, prompting the appellant to file this appeal in the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's enhancement of the appellant's sentence was legal and justified.

Whether the appellant was denied adequate opportunity to defend himself during the appeal process.

Held:

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision to enhance the appellant's sentence to life imprisonment. The Court held that any punishment less than life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 IPC is illegal.

The Court found that the appellant was served with notice of the appeal and had the opportunity to defend himself, but he failed to appear or file a regular appeal challenging his conviction.

Therefore, the High Court's appointment of an amicus curiae was justified. Compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 377(3) of the CrPC was found adequate by the Supreme Court.

Facts:

Rajaiah and Nanjaiah, heirs of the late Nanjaiah Thavarekatte, filed suits against the University of Mysore claiming possession and enjoyment of certain land.

The University contested these claims, asserting its ownership of the land based on a lease agreement with the President of India.

Issues:

Whether Rajaiah and Nanjaiah had valid claims to the land.

Whether the Land Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights over land leased to the University.

Whether the documents presented by Rajaiah and Nanjaiah were fraudulent.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the disputed land belonged to the University of Mysore, as evidenced by a registered lease deed.

The Court found that the claims of Rajaiah and Nanjaiah's heirs were based on fraudulent documents, including a fabricated order from the Land Tribunal.

It was determined that the Land Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights over land leased to a university, as per Section 107 of the KLR Act.

Therefore, the High Court's judgment was set aside, the trial court's decision was reinstated, and the Land Tribunal's order was quashed.

The Court directed expedited legal proceedings in related criminal cases and affirmed that the University was in lawful possession of the land.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute between two brothers over the division of self-acquired properties of their late father.

The plaintiff claimed that a document dated 09.09.1994 was a memorandum of partition reflecting a partition that took place on 25.10.1992.

The defendant contended that the document dated 09.09.1994 was a family settlement and required compulsory registration.

Issues:

Whether the document dated 09.09.1994 could be admitted as evidence in the case.

Whether the document required compulsory registration.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions of both parties and perusing the records, made the following determinations:

The document dated 09.09.1994 was held to be a family settlement rather than a mere memorandum of partition.

As a family settlement, the document was found to be compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

The document was also deemed inadequately stamped, rendering it inadmissible in evidence.

The Court cited the principles laid down in Kale vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation regarding the necessity of registration for family settlements.

Additionally, the Court referred to Yellapu Uma Maheswari vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao regarding the admissibility of unregistered documents for collateral purposes.

The Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the decision that the document dated 09.09.1994 required compulsory registration but permitting its admissibility for collateral purposes upon payment of stamp duty and penalties.

Facts:

Satyendra Kumar Mehra (also spelled as Satendera Kumar Mehra) appealed against his conviction under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to fraud. The trial court convicted Mehra and imposed a sentence with a fine. He filed an appeal before the High Court and sought the suspension of his sentence.

Issues:

Whether Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 automatically stays the payment of fine as part of the sentence pending appeal.

Held:

The court clarified that Section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not stay the sentence of fine during the pendency of the appeal. The purpose of Section 357(2) is to defer or withhold the utilization of compensation awarded until the appeal process is completed. It does not relate to the suspension of sentence or stay of fine.

The court further explained that Section 357(2) is applicable only when the court orders payment of compensation utilizing the fine as part of the sentence or directs compensation under specific circumstances mentioned in Section 357(1) or (3). Since there was no such direction from the trial court in the present case, Section 357(2) was not applicable.

Therefore, the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to deposit the fine amount pending appeal. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the High Court.

Facts:

Netram Sahu (the appellant) worked as a daily wager for 22 years and 1 month, then his services were regularized as a Pump Operator by the State of Chhattisgarh. The appellant retired on 30.07.2011 but was not paid gratuity. He filed for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority allowed the application, but the High Court later set aside this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the appellant, having served 22 years as a daily wager and 3 years as a regular employee, was entitled to gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Held:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that he is entitled to gratuity. The Court emphasized that the appellant actually served for 25 years, with 22 years under the State. The regularization of his services by the State made him eligible for gratuity regardless of his earlier status as a daily wager.

The Court criticized the State's opposition to the appellant's legitimate claim and ordered the State to pay the gratuity along with a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant within three months.

Facts:

Gorusu Nagaraju was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and Section 235(2) of the CrPC for the murder and disappearance of evidence related to the murder of Desineedi Venkateswararao @ Venkatesh. The prosecution proved seven circumstances connecting the appellant to the crime, including being last seen with the deceased, purchasing liquor together, recovery of the body with injuries, presence of appellant's fingerprints at the scene, recovery of seized articles at appellant's instance, appellant holding grudge against the deceased, and failure of appellant to explain the circumstances.

Issues:

Whether there were grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction by the lower courts.

Held:

The Supreme Court noted that the findings of conviction by the Sessions Judge and the High Court were concurrent and based on the appreciation of evidence, which usually binds the Supreme Court unless there are indications of perversity, arbitrariness, absurdity, or illegality.

The Court reviewed the evidence and found that the prosecution proved the seven circumstances linking the appellant to the crime. Despite some witnesses turning hostile, the evidence of witnesses who maintained a consistent version of the circumstances was rightly relied upon. The Court emphasized that minor contradictions or inconsistencies in evidence do not affect the material evidence.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction was upheld.