Facts:

Appellant No. 1 married Thushara, who was 19 years old at the time.

Thushara's father filed a Habeas Corpus petition alleging that she was in illegal custody of appellant No. 1.

The High Court found appellant No. 1 to be below the legal marriageable age of 21 at the time of marriage.

Thushara expressed her desire to be with appellant No. 1.

Issues:

Whether the marriage between appellant No. 1 and Thushara was valid considering appellant No. 1's age.

Whether Thushara's custody should be entrusted to her father.

Held:

The Court emphasized the right of adults to live together irrespective of the legality of their marriage.

Referring to relevant sections of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court noted that even if the marriage were voidable, Thushara and appellant No. 1 had the right to live together.

The Court cited the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, acknowledging the recognition of live-in relationships by the legislature.

Emphasizing the importance of an adult's right to choose their partner freely, the Court stated that Thushara's expressed desire to be with appellant No. 1 was paramount.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's decision to entrust Thushara's custody to her father was overturned.

The Court affirmed that Thushara's freedom of choice regarding her living arrangements should be respected.

Facts:

The respondent, in order to repay dues of the bank, signed an assignment deed with the Bank Manager for the assignment of a trademark. After several months, the bank cancelled the assignment deed. Litigation ensued between the parties in two proceedings. The trial court and the first appellate court erroneously treated the statutory prohibition contained in s.45(2) of the Trade Marks Act as res judicata without proper interpretation of the relevant law.

Issues:

Whether an erroneous decision on a statutory prohibition in a former suit precludes the application of res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding.

Whether the assignment deed violated provisions of the Trade Marks Act and the Banking Regulation Act.

Held:

Res judicata is a fundamental doctrine in the legal system aimed at bringing finality to litigation. An erroneous decision on a question of law that sanctions something illegal cannot be allowed to operate as res judicata. This principle is applicable in cases involving statutory prohibitions.

Until the limitation period for filing an appeal expires, the matter remains sub judice. Courts may adjourn or stay proceedings to await the outcome of an appeal in the first case to prevent conflicting judgments.

If the period for filing an appeal has expired and no appeal is filed, the court hearing the second proceeding may treat the first proceeding as res judicata based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

A belated review petition filed after the judgment was reserved cannot delay the application of res judicata. The judgment in question must be examined to determine its applicability as res judicata.

An erroneous decision on a statutory prohibition in a former suit or proceeding precludes the application of res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding, even if the issue raised is directly and substantially the same.

The assignment deed in question violated s.45(2) of the Trade Marks Act, which prohibits the admission of unregistered assignment deeds as evidence of title to a trademark.

Sections 6, 8, and 46(4) of the Banking Regulation Act also prohibit the bank from engaging in certain activities, including dealing in trademarks for purposes not permitted under the Act.

The judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court are set aside due to their erroneous application of res judicata principles and failure to consider statutory prohibitions and banking regulations.

Facts:

The case involved a summary eviction suit filed by the appellant, Apollo Zipper India Limited, against the respondent, W. Newman and Co. Ltd., regarding a business premises known as the "Great Eastern Hotel" in Kolkata.

The respondent was originally a tenant of the Great Eastern Hotel Limited (GEHL), but due to legislative acts, the ownership of the hotel premises was transferred to various entities over time, eventually leading to the appellant becoming the owner.

The respondent challenged the appellant's suit on various grounds, including questioning the ownership, disputing the monthly rent, and arguing that the suit should have been filed under a different act.

Issues:

Whether the respondent should be granted leave to defend the eviction suit based on the grounds raised by them.

Held:

The Court held that the respondent had effectively attorned to the appellant's ownership of the premises, as evidenced by their conduct and communications.

The appellant had prima facie proved their title over the premises and the monthly rent amount.

The suit was rightly filed under the Transfer of Property Act, and the provisions of the Tenancy Act did not apply due to the monthly rent exceeding the prescribed limit.

The grounds raised by the respondent for seeking leave to defend were found to lack merit and were not arguable.

The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the order of the Single Judge was restored, granting the appellant's suit for eviction.

The respondent was given six months to vacate the premises, subject to certain conditions, including depositing the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation.

Facts:

The appellants, ten in numbers, challenged the dismissal of their writ petition by the Kerala High Court.

The case pertains to admissions to the Malabar Medical College and Research Centre for the MBBS Course for the academic year 2016-2017.

Admissions were directed to be based on the NEET examination as per a Supreme Court order.

Applicants were required to submit their applications online by 09-09-2016.

Issues:

The appellants claim they couldn't submit their online applications due to technical issues but had obtained demand drafts before the deadline.

The Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) disapproved the appellants' admissions, stating they hadn't submitted online applications before the deadline.

The High Court upheld ASC's decision, declaring the appellants' admissions invalid.

Held:

The Supreme Court observed that while the appellants hadn't submitted online applications before the deadline, they had obtained demand drafts before the cutoff date.

Noting that no candidate with a higher NEET rank had protested against the appellants' admissions, the Court decided not to invalidate their admissions.

The Court acknowledged the college's good faith in allowing applicants with proof of demand drafts to apply after ASC's order.

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court and ASC's orders, allowing the appellants' admissions to stand.

Facts:

Late T.G. Basuvan left behind three properties - agricultural land and a dwelling house.

Dispute arose between the appellants (daughters of T.G. Basuvan) and respondent No. 1 (brother of the appellants) over the partition of these properties.

The trial court, district court, and High Court dismissed the appellants' suit for partition.

Issues:

Whether the appellants were entitled to partition of ancestral property.

Applicability of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, granting equal rights to daughters in coparcenary property.

Held:

The Court held that the appellants were not entitled to a share in coparcenary property due to being married before the 1989 amendment. However, they would inherit through succession upon the death of their parents. The division of property and entitlements of each party were outlined by the Court. Any sales made to respondents would not be disturbed, but the appellants would be entitled to their legitimate share. The appeal was partially allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

Facts:

Mahaveer Kumar Jain, a resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan, won a lottery prize of Rs. 20 lakhs in the 287th Bumper Draw of the Sikkim State Lottery in 1986. After deductions, he received Rs. 16,20,912.

Issues:

Whether income from the Sikkim State Lottery is taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether the deduction under Section 80TT applies to net winning amount or gross amount.

Held and Decision:

The Supreme Court examined Article 371F of the Constitution and held that while the IT Act was not applicable to Sikkim during the relevant period, income earned by a resident of Rajasthan from Sikkim is taxable under the IT Act if accrued or received in Sikkim is within the net of IT Act (Para 9).

The Court ruled that double taxation is not permissible unless expressly provided by law. Since there was no specific provision in the IT Act for including income from the Sikkim lottery prior to April 1, 1990, the income cannot be subjected to double taxation (Para 13).

Given the above findings, the Court deemed the issue of whether deduction under Section 80TT applies to net or gross income as academic (Para 14).

Facts:

The case concerned disputes arising from the election to the Thiruvalla East Cooperative Bank Ltd. Various petitions were filed challenging different aspects of the election process. The High Court referred the matters to a Larger Bench, and subsequently, a Division Bench passed an interim order allowing the election to proceed subject to the result of the writ petitions and Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act.

Issues:

Whether the High Court could extend the statutory period for referring disputes related to the election, as provided under Section 69(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, through its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not have extended the time for preferring the election dispute under Section 69(3) of the Act. It set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the writ petitions to the High Court for fresh consideration, with parties allowed to raise all available contentions.

The Court emphasized the strict interpretation of limitation periods in election cases and reiterated that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used to direct authorities to act contrary to law.

Facts:

Paradeep Phosphates Limited extended the retirement age of its employees from 58 to 60 years in response to a government directive aimed at mitigating losses in public sector units.

Subsequently, due to continued financial struggles, the government decided to revert the retirement age back to 58 years.

The trade union representing the employees raised a dispute, leading to a reference made by the Government of Orissa to the Industrial Tribunal.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the employees, stating that Paradeep Phosphates Limited had violated Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act by not giving prior notice to the employees before changing the retirement age.

Issues:

Whether the extension of retirement age constituted a change in service conditions.

Whether Paradeep Phosphates Limited violated Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act by not providing prior notice to employees before reverting the retirement age.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of the extended retirement age constituted a change in service conditions and amounted to withdrawal of a privilege granted to the employees.

Therefore, Paradeep Phosphates Limited was required to provide prior notice to the employees under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of employees and ensuring fair treatment by their employers. Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision of the High Court, dismissing Paradeep Phosphates Limited's appeal and affirming the ruling of the Industrial Tribunal.

Facts:

The appellant firm, engaged in the business of purchasing and selling sandalwood oil, had sandalwood oil seized from its premises by the Kasargod Police. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the seized sandalwood oil under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The appellants contested the confiscation, claiming ownership of the seized quantity.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in upholding the order of confiscation under Section 61-A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

Whether confiscation of sandalwood oil can be ordered under Section 61-A or Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the order of confiscation was made under Section 69 of the Act, not under Section 61-A as cited by the High Court. Sandalwood oil was not covered under Section 61-A, which only pertains to certain specified items. Section 69 merely establishes a presumption of government ownership and does not confer the power of confiscation. Therefore, the confiscation order was deemed illegal and was set aside.