Facts:

The case involved the acquisition of land in Vijayashreepura village under the Mysore Improvement Act, 1903. The acquisition and subsequent allotment of land to respondent No. 28 were challenged by the appellant.

Issues:

The legality and validity of the acquisition process, including procedural irregularities and the legality of the land allotment to respondent No. 28.

Held:

The Court held that the mandatory requirement of having a development scheme in place before the publication of a preliminary notification under Section 16(1) of the Mysore Improvement Act, 1903, was not followed.

Furthermore, there was a clear infringement of the mandatory requirement under Section 18 of the Act, as the acquisition process did not obtain the necessary sanction from the government.

The Court found that the sequence of events demonstrated state action that did not conform to the requirements of the law.

Despite procedural irregularities, a substantial development, including an academic campus, had taken place on the allotted land. Therefore, the Court balanced the equities by directing respondent No. 28 to surrender a minimum of 15 acres of land to MUDA.

Compensation for the remaining 40 acres of allotted land was to be determined based on the Land Acquisition Act, with the compensation date set as the midway point between relevant dates.

The Court emphasized that delay in approaching the court should not prevent the adjudication of a writ petition on its merits. The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not bound by strict rules of limitation.

Facts:

The accused confessed to killing his wife and daughter.

The Trial Court convicted him based on evidence including eyewitness testimonies and recovery of weapons.

The High Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case lacking.

Issues:

Motive: The prosecution claimed the accused had a motive to kill his wife and daughter, but the evidence presented was deemed insufficient and hearsay.

Eyewitness Testimonies: The credibility of eyewitnesses, particularly PW1 and PW4, was questioned due to inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimonies.

Ante-timed FIR: The timing and circumstances of the FIR lodged by PW1 were questioned, raising doubts about its authenticity.

Confessional FIR: The accused claimed the FIR was coerced and ante-timed, casting doubt on its reliability as evidence.

Held:

In a detailed analysis of the issues, the Court found flaws in the prosecution's case. It highlighted inconsistencies in testimonies, lack of corroborative evidence, and procedural irregularities.

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Upholding the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the acquittal of the accused.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence and procedural integrity in criminal cases, thus reiterating the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts:

The Supreme Court issued directives on 9th October 2015 aimed at reducing pollution levels in Delhi. These directives included diversion of commercial traffic, imposition of ECC, and restrictions on the entry of vehicles not bound for Delhi. However, despite these measures, pollution levels remained high.

Issues:

The ineffective enforcement of directives aimed at diverting non-Delhi bound vehicles and reducing pollution levels in Delhi.

Additionally, there were concerns regarding the compliance of vehicles with pollution control standards and the management of construction activities and solid waste disposal contributing to pollution.

Held:

The court clarified that vehicles not bound for Delhi should be diverted through alternative routes and should not be allowed to enter Delhi, especially from National Highway-8 and National Highway-1 entry points. Vehicles bound for Delhi were subject to ECC, with loaded vehicles paying twice the prescribed ECC. Older vehicles not compliant with pollution standards were prohibited from entering Delhi. The court also banned the registration of private cars and SUVs with diesel engines of 2000 cc and above until March 31, 2016. Taxis operating in Delhi were directed to transition to CNG by March 1, 2016.

The government was tasked with road maintenance, pavement repair, and procurement of vacuum cleaning vehicles. Strict enforcement of CPCB rules for construction activities and waste management was mandated. These measures were deemed necessary to address the severe pollution crisis in Delhi.

Facts:

The appellants, who were police constables, were convicted for their involvement in the murder of a person named Laxman Singh.

Laxman Singh was allegedly picked up by the police, illegally confined, severely beaten, and ultimately burnt to death in police custody.

The prosecution relied on a dying declaration made by the deceased, along with other corroborative evidence, to secure the convictions.

Issues:

Reliability of the dying declaration.

Compliance with procedural requirements in recording the dying declaration.

Validity of the alibi presented by one of the appellants.

Credibility of the revenge motive alleged by another appellant.

Held:

The dying declaration was found to be properly recorded and truthful, despite some minor procedural defects. The identity of the deceased was verified, and the declaration was made when the deceased was deemed fit to provide a statement.

The alibi presented by one of the appellants was deemed insufficient, as it did not sufficiently account for his whereabouts during the relevant time period.

The defense of revenge presented by another appellant was dismissed as flimsy compared to the evidence against him.

Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellants by the lower courts.

Facts:

Prem Nath Bali, the appellant, was employed at the District & Sessions Court, Delhi.

He filed a complaint against another employee, leading to a departmental inquiry against him and subsequent suspension.

The inquiry lasted for over nine years, and he was eventually imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, representing himself.

Issues:

Justification of the penalty of compulsory retirement.

Validity of the departmental inquiry proceedings.

Treatment of the suspension period in determining the appellant's pension.

Held:

The Court upheld the penalty of compulsory retirement, considering it appropriate based on the gravity of the charges against the appellant. It emphasized the discretion of the appointing authority in determining the punishment, with interference by the courts limited to rare and appropriate cases. However, it directed the respondent to reconsider the appellant's pension, taking into account the period of suspension.

The Court criticized the prolonged duration of the departmental inquiry and stressed the need for timely completion of such proceedings. Consequently, the respondent was instructed to re-determine the pension within three months, considering the period of suspension, and to pay the appellant arrears of the difference amount accordingly.

Facts:

The appellant and his wife went on a honeymoon trip after four months of marriage and spent several days together.

Upon their return journey, the wife disappeared from the train.

A few days later, a dead body of a woman was found near the railway track, but it was unrecognizable.

Despite initial suspicions, further investigation revealed discrepancies, including differences in clothing and doubts from family members about the identity of the body.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution could establish beyond reasonable doubt that the dead body was that of the appellant's wife and that her death was unnatural.

Whether the prosecution could prove charges related to dowry demand and harassment under various sections of the Penal Code.

Held:

The testimony of witnesses established that the wife was seen alive with the appellant in the train till a station far away from where the dead body was found, making it unlikely that the body was hers.

The post-mortem report and other evidence cast doubt on the identity of the dead body as that of the appellant's wife.

The prosecution failed to provide evidence on how and when poison was administered to the deceased, despite finding poisonous substances in the body.

The DNA test conducted at a private laboratory lacked credibility due to procedural deficiencies.

The prosecution's case lacked direct evidence and relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, which did not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The investigation process was criticized for various shortcomings, including the failure to produce crucial evidence and conduct proper tests.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be set at liberty as the prosecution failed to prove the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts:

The case pertains to a dispute regarding the Reserve Bank of India's obligation to disclose information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), particularly concerning its relationship with other banks and the extent of fiduciary duty involved.

Issues:

Whether the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is obligated to disclose certain information under the RTI Act, and if so, to what extent.

Additionally, the court addresses the concept of fiduciary relationships in the context of RBI's interactions with other banks.

Held:

The Court affirms the importance of the right to information as a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution and the enactment of the RTI Act to facilitate access to information on matters of public concern.

While acknowledging that the right to information is not absolute, the Court emphasizes the necessity of transparency and accountability in governance.

Regarding fiduciary relationships, the Court clarifies that the RBI's duty primarily lies in upholding the interest of the public at large, rather than fostering a fiduciary relationship with other banks.

The Court rejects the RBI's argument that disclosing certain information would harm the economic interest of the nation, stating that transparency serves the public interest and prevents the concealment of irregularities.

It is affirmed that the RBI, as a public authority, is bound by the provisions of the RTI Act, and withholding information on grounds such as economic interest or fiduciary relationship is not justified in this case.

Facts:

Hari Shankar Vidyarthi married Savitri Vidyarthi and later married Rama Vidyarthi. Rama Vidyarthi purchased a property, which was claimed to be joint family property.

Various suits were filed regarding the property, with disputes arising over its ownership and division among family members.

The appellant, Shreya Vidyarthi, contested the claims made by Ashok Vidyarthi, the respondent, regarding the property.

Issues:

Whether the property was purchased using joint family funds or Rama Vidyarthi's personal funds.

Whether a Hindu widow can act as the manager of an HUF and look after the affairs of a minor coparcener.

The legality of the High Court's decision regarding the partition of the property and the apportionment of shares.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the property was purchased using joint family funds, including insurance money received by Rama Vidyarthi. Thus, it was considered joint family property.

The court clarified that while Hindu widows cannot act as Karta (head) of the HUF, they can act as managers in their capacity as legal guardians of minor coparceners. This distinction was crucial, and Rama Vidyarthi's management role was deemed legitimate.

The court found no error in the High Court's decision regarding the apportionment of shares in the property among the parties involved.

The previous litigation history did not affect the maintainability of the current suit.

The appeals were dismissed, and each party was left to bear its own costs.

Facts:

The Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee filed a claim for recording the lands in favor of the Temple, which were previously vested in the State Government under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951.

The Math challenged this claim, asserting that the lands were accorded the status of 'amrutamanohi' and recorded as Trust Estate under Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act. The dispute arose due to conflicting provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, and the OEA Act, 1951.

Issues:

Whether the lands belonging to the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri were vested in the Temple Management Committee under the Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955?

Whether the provisions of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, could divest the Temple Committee of its vested lands?

What was the effect of the conflicting provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, and the OEA Act, 1951, on the status of the Temple lands?

Held:

The Court struck down the first part of the proviso of Section 2(oo) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, which pertained to the properties of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri.

It quashed the notification issued by the State Government under Section 3A of the OEA Act, 1951, to the extent it applied to the lands and estate of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri.

The Court clarified that the decision in the previous case of Lord Jagannath did not bar the instant case by res judicata.

The Court also deemed the previous judgment to be per incuriam, as it was passed without considering the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955.

The Court emphasized the primacy of the Temple Act, 1955, over any other legislation concerning the Jagannath Temple lands, stating that the Temple lands were already vested in the Temple Management Committee under this Act.

The Court held that the conflicting provisions of the OEA Act, 1951, and the Temple Act, 1955, could not coexist, and struck down the first part of the proviso to maintain the effectiveness of both acts.

Additionally, the Court ruled that the lands of the Jagannath Temple at Puri were already vested in the Temple Committee under the Temple Act, 1955, and could not be divested by applying the provisions of the OEA Act, 1951.

The Court concluded that since the provisions of the OEA Act, 1951, had no application to the lands of the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri, there was no need to pass an order in favor of the Temple under the OEA Act, 1951.