Facts:

The case involves the appellant, Dilawar, who was accused in a case related to mob violence during a 'jat agitation'.

The investigation was initially conducted by the state police but later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The appellant applied for bail, which was denied by the High Court.

The Supreme Court, while not granting bail, directed that the trial be concluded within six months.

The CBI filed an application for modification of the previous order, stating that the investigation was transferred to them and required time.

Issues:

The delay in completing the investigation by the CBI and its impact on the appellant's fundamental rights.

The court also considers the need for timelines for completing investigations and proposes an in-house oversight mechanism to address delays.

Held:

The court observed that speedy investigation is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It set a deadline for the CBI to complete the investigation within the next two months, allowing the trial to commence by July 10, 2018, and conclude by the end of the year. The appellant was given the option to file a bail application before the trial court.

The court recognized the need for timelines for completing investigations and proposed an in-house oversight mechanism to ensure accountability and prevent undue delays. The Union of India was impleaded as a party, and the Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to interact with all Central and State investigating agencies to formulate an action plan for completing pending investigations within a proposed timeframe. The matter was scheduled for further consideration on 3rd July 2018.

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.

Facts:

The case initially involved concerns regarding the treatment of an eight-month-old female child who had become a victim of a crime under the POCSO Act. Additionally, the petitioner raised the issue of the need for speedy trials and child-friendly court procedures under the Act.

Issues:

Treatment of the child victim of sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

Speedy trial and monitoring of cases under the POCSO Act, ensuring child-friendly court procedures.

Held:

The Court examined the medical condition of the child victim and ensured appropriate treatment. It also addressed the compensation awarded to the victim's family and provided legal aid. Regarding speedy trials and monitoring, the Court emphasized the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act, highlighting the need for child protection and speedy disposal of cases.

The Court issued several directives to ensure effective implementation of the POCSO Act. This included sensitizing presiding officers of Special Courts, establishing Special Courts if not already done, fast-tracking trials, constituting monitoring committees, and forming Special Task Forces in state police departments. High Courts were instructed to provide a child-friendly atmosphere in Special Courts. The directives were aimed at protecting child victims and expediting trials in cases of sexual offences against children.

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 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.