Facts:

The case originated from a ban on mining activities imposed by the Supreme Court in three districts of Karnataka due to rampant illegal mining and ecological concerns.

Lessees, including M/s Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and M/s MSPL Ltd., sought modifications of earlier orders to increase iron ore extraction within permissible limits.

Various stakeholders, including mining associations, the State of Karnataka, and others, presented arguments regarding the cap on iron ore production.

Issues:

Whether the cap on iron ore production should be maintained, modified, or lifted in light of changing circumstances and recommendations by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).

Whether category C mines, auctioned under a different regime, should be included within the production cap for the districts.

Held:

The Court accepted the recommendations of the CEC to increase the cap for category A and B mines in Bellary, Tumkur, and Chitradurga districts. This decision was based on changes in mineral reserves, infrastructure improvements, and R&R Plans.

The Court decided not to include category C mines within the revised cap, recognizing them as operating under a different legal and business regime. Separate consideration for their production limits in the future was suggested.

Pending proposals for MPAP enhancement were directed to be decided without delay, subject to the revised cap.

The Court emphasized the need for a realistic solution based on current circumstances and projected future developments, including the availability of iron ore reserves and infrastructure improvements.

Facts:

Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd. (the petitioner) sought registration of their trademark "Royal Orchid" in class 42.

Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd. (the respondent) challenged the registration, claiming prior use of the mark "Orchid."

The Deputy Registrar refused registration based on evidence showing the respondent as the first user.

The IPAB reversed the decision, allowing registration of the petitioner's trademark.

The High Court, upon review, sided with the Deputy Registrar's decision, considering detailed evidence presented by both parties.

Issues:

Determination of the first user of the mark "Orchid/Royal Orchid."

Assessment of similarity between the marks and potential confusion among customers.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, upheld the decision of the High Court. They found the conclusions reached by the High Court to be reasonable and justified. The Court emphasized that confusion could arise among customers using the hotels due to the similarity between the marks. Therefore, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Facts:

The appellant, Prem Giri, filed an application for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with various offences under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the bail application without providing adequate reasoning.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's rejection of the anticipatory bail application without proper reasoning was justified.

Whether the case warrants remand to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision lacked judicial reasoning and was passed in a casual manner, which is not acceptable in bail applications. Referring to established legal principles, the Court emphasized the need for courts to provide reasons for their decisions, especially in bail matters. The Court highlighted factors that should be considered before granting bail, such as the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses.

The Court also noted that if previous bail applications had been rejected, the court must justify granting bail in subsequent applications. Consequently, the Supreme Court decided to remand the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application.

The Supreme Court clarified that it did not assess the merits of the appellant's case but instructed the High Court to reconsider the bail application based on legal principles and without influence from the Supreme Court's observations on the case's merits. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on the bail application.

Facts:

The Institute of Nano Science and Technology, Mohali, issued a notice inviting tenders (NIT) for the construction of its campus.

The NIT specified eligibility criteria for bidders, including completion of similar works meeting certain cost and structure requirements.

Respondent No.1 submitted its bid but was deemed ineligible by expert committees due to non-compliance with the eligibility criteria.

The High Court allowed Respondent No.1's appeal, overturning the decision of the learned Single Judge.

Issues:

Whether the interpretation of tender documents by the tendering authority should be deferred to by the courts, barring evidence of malafides or perversity?

What is the scope of judicial review in tender matters, particularly regarding the interpretation of eligibility criteria in tender documents?

Held:

The Supreme Court, upon review, upheld the importance of deferring to the interpretation of tender documents by the tendering authority, unless evidence of malafides or perversity is present. The Court reinstated the judgment of the learned Single Judge, setting aside the High Court's decision, as it found no malafides or perversity in the expert committee reports.

The Court directed that the tender awarded to Respondent No.1 be set aside, and the tender be awarded to the Appellant, subject to the Appellant matching the offer of Respondent No.1.

The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The appellant, Madan Mohan, filed an application under Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a Sessions Trial, seeking the summoning of two additional accused persons. The Sessions Judge allowed the application and issued non-bailable warrants against the additional accused. The accused filed a Criminal Revision Petition in the High Court, challenging the order of the Sessions Judge. The High Court partly allowed the revision, setting aside the issuance of non-bailable warrants and directing the accused to surrender before the Trial Court and move for regular bail. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision.

Issues:

Whether the complainant should have been impleaded as a party to the criminal revision?

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to direct the Sessions Judge to "allow" the bail application of the accused?

What is the discretion of the Sessions Judge in deciding bail applications?

Held:

The Single Judge seemed to have passed the impugned order without application of judicial mind... Therefore, he should have been impleaded as respondent along with the State in the revision.

The High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Sessions Judge to 'allow' the application for grant of bail.

It is the sole discretion of the Sessions Judge to find out while hearing the bail application as to whether any case on facts is made out for grant of bail by the accused or not.

We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the direction given by the High Court to the Sessions Judge to 'consider and allow' the bail application made by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in Sessions Trial Case No.44/2016 on the same day on which it was moved.

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside to the extent indicated. The Sessions Judge would now decide any bail application made by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on its merits and in accordance with the law.

Facts:

The case involves an incident where an unlawful assembly attacked individuals, resulting in the death of one person, Kennedy, and injuries to others.

Issues:

The prosecution alleged that the accused were part of the unlawful assembly and acted with common intention, resulting in Kennedy's death.

Held:

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish the common object among the accused or their knowledge of the likely commission of murder. Accordingly, the convictions of some accused under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC were set aside, and they were acquitted of those charges. The court modified the convictions and sentences of some accused based on their individual acts and involvement. Specific modifications and dispositions were made for each accused based on their role in the incident.

Facts:

The incident occurred on 30th July 2003, where the accused persons fired upon and killed Lallu Singh. The prosecution alleged that the accused had a motive due to prior enmity.

Issues:

The credibility of eyewitness testimony, the significance of the ballistic report, the delay in lodging the FIR, and inconsistencies in the evidence.

Held:

The Supreme Court found the testimony of eyewitnesses credible and reliable, as they were close relatives of the deceased and provided consistent details of the incident (para 10).

The court upheld the importance of the ballistic report, which connected the gun recovered from one of the accused to the empty cartridges found at the crime scene (para 11).

The court accepted the prosecution's explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR, considering factors like heavy rain and fear of the accused, and criticized the High Court for relying excessively on this factor (para 15).

Minor inconsistencies in the evidence of eyewitnesses were dismissed as they did not affect the credibility of the witnesses or the prosecution's case (para 14).

The appeal by the State regarding accused Prem Yadav was allowed, confirming his conviction and sentence. The appeals concerning the other three accused were dismissed (para 18).

Facts:

The petitioner, Dr. Sabu Mathew George, filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 341 of 2008 seeking necessary directions for the effective implementation of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The petition specifically sought directions to block online sex determination advertisements on websites such as Google India, Yahoo! India, and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt Ltd. The petitioner also requested the formation of a separate monitoring committee. Several orders had been pronounced by the Court earlier concerning this matter, yet the petitioner alleged that the Nodal Agency had not been effective in stopping offending material from being displayed on the internet, with Google India, Yahoo! India, and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt Ltd. being held responsible.

Issues:

The Court was to address the petitioner's concerns regarding the ineffective implementation of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, particularly regarding the prohibition of online advertisements related to sex determination.

Held:

The Court directed the Nodal Agency and the Expert Committee to convene a meeting within six weeks, with the assistance of the petitioner's counsel, to collectively understand and approach the problem. Representatives from Google India, Yahoo! India, and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt Ltd. were also directed to appear before the Committee and offer their suggestions. The Court emphasized the need for a constructive and collective approach to finding solutions to ensure compliance with the Act (Para 28).

The Court expressed confidence in the Union of India and its Committee to take appropriate steps to prevent violations of the Act and address the declining sex ratio in the country. It stressed the importance of controlling inappropriate internet exposure and urged cooperation from Google India, Yahoo! India, and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt Ltd. in finding a satisfactory solution (Para 29, 30).

Decision:The writ petition was disposed of with the directions outlined above.

Facts:

The appeal arises from a Writ Petition filed by the Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India in the Delhi High Court, challenging the applicability of certain Acts and Rules to services rendered in hotels and restaurants, particularly concerning the pricing of mineral water.

Issues:

Whether composite contracts for services and food and drinks in hotels/restaurants are subject to the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, especially regarding charging prices exceeding the MRP for mineral water.

Held:

The court held that the definition of "sale" under the relevant Acts does not differentiate between the sale of goods and the provision of services in composite contracts. Despite a constitutional amendment deeming supply of goods as part of any service to be a sale, subsequent enactments retained the same definition of "sale." The objective of these enactments is to standardize weights and measures for defined goods, ensuring transparency and consumer protection, rather than regulating services.

The court affirmed that neither the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, nor the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, apply to regulate the sale of mineral water in hotels and restaurants. This interpretation is in line with previous judgments emphasizing the indivisibility of service and sale in such establishments.