Facts:

The appellant, Union of India, challenged an arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The respondent raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that Indian courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application.

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appellant's application, and the Division Bench upheld the decision.

The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, which identified the central question regarding the determination of the "seat" and "venue" of arbitration proceedings when only the venue is specified in the arbitration agreement.

Issues:

Whether Indian courts have jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

How to determine the "seat" and "venue" of arbitration proceedings when only the venue is specified in the arbitration agreement.

Held:

The Supreme Court refrained from making findings on the issues raised in the appeal and decided to refer the case to a larger bench for further consideration. It exercised its power under Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, to refer the case to a larger bench due to the complexity and importance of the legal question regarding arbitration agreements.

Therefore, the Court did not provide a definitive ruling on the jurisdictional question or the determination of the "seat" and "venue" of arbitration proceedings. Instead, it left these matters to be addressed by the appropriate larger bench.

Facts:

The appellant, Tularam, was accused and convicted of murdering Bhadri Lodhi during an altercation on 9th June 2002.

The altercation occurred between Ramnath and Raju initially, and later involved additional individuals including Tularam.

Tularam pierced Bhadri Lodhi with a spear-like weapon during the altercation, resulting in his death.

Several eyewitnesses confirmed the events during the trial.

Issues:

The central issue before the court was whether Tularam had the intention to cause Bhadri Lodhi's death.

The court examined relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), particularly Sections 299 and 300, and Exception 4 to Section 300.

Held:

The court differentiated between culpable homicide and murder, emphasizing that murder involves specific intent to cause death or inflict such bodily injury likely to cause death.

Citing Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, the court clarified the requirements for exempting culpable homicide from being considered murder.

After analyzing the evidence, the court concluded that Tularam's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Tularam's conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was set aside, and he was convicted under the second part of Section 304 instead.

Considering Tularam had already served approximately 14 years in prison, the court altered his sentence to the period already undergone, ordering his immediate release.

Facts:

The State of Kerala imposed guidelines limiting consideration of applications for CBSE affiliation, including requirements of minimum land area and student enrollment.

Legal challenges were raised by school managements against these guidelines.

The case was brought before the Supreme Court as Special Leave Petition Nos. 18475-18476 of 2013.

Issues:

Whether the guidelines imposed by the State of Kerala on schools seeking CBSE affiliation were arbitrary and lacking a rational basis.

Whether the guidelines were consistent with the CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws and other relevant regulations.

Held:

The requirement of a minimum of 3 acres of land for obtaining an NOC for CBSE affiliation, as imposed by Kerala, was arbitrary and lacked a rational basis.

Similarly, the mandate of a minimum enrollment of 300 students for schools seeking CBSE affiliation was also found to be arbitrary and not supported by any rational nexus with quality education or CBSE bye-laws.

The Court emphasized the need for flexibility and pragmatic considerations in education regulations, contrasting Kerala's inflexible requirements with the CBSE's approach.

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed. The interim applications stand disposed of.

Facts:

The Lingam at the Mahakaleshwar Jyotirlinga temple in Ujjain has been experiencing erosion due to water and impure materials used in rituals.

A writ petition and application were filed seeking directions for the preservation of the Lingam and the appointment of an Expert Committee.

An Expert Committee comprising members from ASI/GSI was constituted by the court to investigate the deterioration of the Lingam and propose conservation measures.

The Expert Committee submitted a report highlighting the causes of deterioration and providing recommendations for remedial measures.

The temple committee passed resolutions to protect and preserve the Lingam, including restrictions on certain materials used in rituals and improvements in sanitation and water quality.

Issues:

Whether the court's intervention is warranted to ensure the preservation of the Lingam without interfering with religious rituals.

How to balance the significance of religious practices with the imperative to protect cultural heritage and ancient monuments.

Held:

The court clarified that its intervention aims to ensure the preservation of the Lingam without interfering with religious rituals.

The Expert Committee's report highlighted the deterioration of the Lingam and provided recommendations for conservation measures.

The temple committee resolved to implement measures to protect and preserve the Lingam, including restrictions on certain materials used in rituals.

The court emphasized the importance of preserving the Lingam while respecting religious practices and avoiding further damage.

The temple committee was directed to prepare a concrete plan for further improvement, including modernizing facilities and manufacturing pure offering materials.

Decision: The court disposed of the appeal, directing the temple committee to implement the resolutions and recommendations for the preservation of the Lingam. It also instructed ASI/GSI teams to submit a follow-up report on improvements made. Any misreporting of the court's orders would be viewed seriously.

Facts:

The appellant and the respondents had entered into a Partnership Agreement dated 09.11.2005, which included Clause 15 stating that disputes would be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. When a dispute arose, the appellant sought to refer the matter to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act"). The trial court and the High Court rejected the application, citing the reference to the 1940 Act in the partnership agreement.

Issues:

Whether an arbitration clause referring to the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, in a partnership agreement executed after the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would be governed by the 1996 Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court clarified that if arbitral proceedings had not commenced before the enactment of the 1996 Act, the 1996 Act would govern the arbitration proceedings, regardless of any reference to the 1940 Act in the arbitration agreement. The court emphasized the importance of the parties' agreement to refer disputes to arbitration and held that incorrect references to previous arbitration acts would not invalidate the arbitration agreement.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and allowed the appeal, directing the matter to be dealt with by the trial court under the provisions of the 1996 Act. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court for effectuating the arbitration agreement.

Facts:

M/S Narbheram Power and Steel Pvt. Ltd. had an insurance policy with Oriental Insurance Company Limited for their factory in Odisha. Following damages from a cyclone named "Phailin," they claimed damages from the insurer. The insurer repudiated the claim entirely.

Issues:

Whether the dispute arising from the repudiation of the claim falls within the scope of the arbitration clause in the insurance policy?

Whether the High Court's interpretation of the arbitration clause was correct?

Held:

The Court held that the communication from Oriental Insurance Company Limited, denying the claim entirely, amounted to a dispute on liability, not just quantum. Thus, as per Clause 13 of the policy, disputes over liability couldn't be referred to arbitration. The Court rejected the High Court's interpretation and ruled that the only remedy available to Narbheram Power and Steel Pvt. Ltd. was to file a civil suit.

In view of the above, the appeal was allowed, and the order passed by the High Court was set aside. The Court directed Narbheram Power and Steel Pvt. Ltd. to pursue their grievances through a civil suit if they wished. If a civil suit is filed within two months hence, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, will enure to its benefit.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal by the accused, Murugan, against his conviction for offenses under Sections 364 and 302/34 of the IPC.

Murugan and another individual named Kumar were accused of kidnapping and murdering Murugan's uncle.

Kumar died before the trial, and thus, only Murugan's case proceeded.

The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence linking Murugan to the crime, including his presence with Kumar and the victim on the night of the incident.

Issues:

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to uphold Murugan's conviction.

Whether Murugan's denial of involvement without offering any explanation for the circumstances against him affects the case.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence and legal arguments, upheld Murugan's conviction. The Court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence and the theory of "accused last seen in the company of the deceased" as strong circumstances against the accused.

The Court found that Murugan's presence with Kumar and the victim, along with other circumstantial evidence, established a chain of events leading to a strong conclusion against him. Murugan's failure to explain the circumstances against him further supported his conviction.

Therefore, the Court dismissed Murugan's appeal, affirming his conviction for the offenses charged.

Facts:

The case involved a search conducted by the Income Tax Department at the premises of the assessee and a related business entity, M/s. ECIL. During the search, evidence was found indicating that the assessee had made a cash payment of Rs. 95.16 lakhs to M/s. ECIL, which was not accounted for.

Issues:

Whether the cash payment discovered during the search should be included in the block assessment as undisclosed income.

Held:

The court analyzed relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly Section 158BB, which governs the computation of undisclosed income for block assessments. It was emphasized that undisclosed income for the block period should be based solely on evidence found during the search or related proceedings. The power of survey under Section 133A allows for the collection of evidence at connected premises, which can be utilized in block assessments. The court referred to precedents, including the decision in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hotel Blue Moon, to highlight the purpose and scope of block assessments.

The court concluded that the cash payment discovered during the search could be included in the block assessment. It was noted that evidence found during a search or survey, even if conducted at related premises, can be used in block assessments. The decision was based on a strict interpretation of relevant provisions and precedents.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue, setting aside the orders of the High Court and restoring the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for block assessment. However, it was mentioned that the parties would bear their own costs.

Facts:

Satyawati, the wife of Tribhuwan Singh, died due to gunshot injuries at her in-laws' house.

Allegations of dowry harassment were made against Chandra Bhawan Singh and others.

Chandra Bhawan Singh, along with others, was convicted by the trial court.

The High Court upheld Chandra Bhawan Singh's conviction while acquitting others.

Chandra Bhawan Singh appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction.

Issues:

Whether the conviction of Chandra Bhawan Singh is legally sustainable.

Whether the circumstances indicate suicide or murder.

Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the chain of events leading to the murder.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld Chandra Bhawan Singh's conviction. The Court found that the lower courts had properly evaluated the evidence and concluded that Chandra Bhawan Singh was involved in the murder. The Court emphasized that when both lower courts have recorded concurrent findings based on evidence, the Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere unless there are glaring errors or perversities in the findings.

The Court further stated that the evidence of dowry demands and harassment was credible. The suicide theory was deemed improbable based on the nature of injuries and circumstances. Additionally, Chandra Bhawan Singh's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation further incriminated him.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals failed and were accordingly dismissed.