Facts:

An agreement was entered into between Cochin Shipyard Ltd. (Appellant) and Apeejay Shipping Ltd. (Respondent) on 29.11.1980 for the construction and delivery of a cargo ship.

Disputes arose between the parties leading to arbitration, and an award was passed by a former Judge of the Supreme Court as the arbitrator/sole umpire on 15.07.2009.

The Respondent filed an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereafter "the 1940 Act") seeking to set aside the award.

The Respondent sought permission to examine the arbitrator and the General Manager of the Respondent as witnesses, which was rejected by the lower court but granted by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether examination of witnesses is permissible in proceedings under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act?

Whether the High Court's grant of permission to examine witnesses was justified?

Held:

The Court held that examination of witnesses in court is impermissible to establish legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act. The ground of legal misconduct must be discernable from the arbitral proceedings themselves, and evidence cannot be adduced in court to substantiate such a challenge. The Court directed the Civil Judge to requisition the records from the arbitrator and allowed the Respondent to press the issue of misconduct based on those records. The appeal was partly allowed insofar as it granted permission to examine witnesses in court.

Facts:

The appellant completed B.Sc. with Forestry as a major subject and obtained an M.Sc. in Forestry from Garhwal University, Uttarakhand.

He also passed the National Eligibility Test (NET) in Forestry.

The J & K Forest Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1970, prescribed the eligibility qualification as "B. Sc. Forestry or its equivalent from any University recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)."

The appellant was declared ineligible by the JKPSC for the post of Range Officer Grade-I (Forest) on the grounds of not possessing the prescribed qualification.

The appellant challenged this decision through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the appellant met the eligibility criteria for the post of Range Officer Grade-I (Forest) despite not possessing a B.Sc. specifically in Forestry.

Whether the interpretation of the eligibility criteria by the lower courts was correct.

Held:

The court held that the appellant possessed the prescribed qualifications for the post of Range Officer Grade-I (Forest). The appellant's B.Sc. with Forestry as a major subject and M.Sc. in Forestry fulfilled the eligibility criteria mentioned in the J & K Forest Service Recruitment Rules.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed. The court directed the respondents to issue the necessary appointment order in favor of the appellant for the said post within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment.

Facts:

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit under Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking a declaration regarding property rights.

The appellant (defendant) sought to lead secondary evidence in the form of a letter of disclaimer executed by Justice Tek Chand.

Issues:

Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the appellant to lead secondary evidence.

Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the trial court's order.

Held:

The court held: "After considering the entire facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the Appellant for the purpose of admission of the secondary evidence, we are of the view that all efforts have been taken for the purpose of leading secondary evidence.

The trial court has noticed that the photocopy of the Exhibit DW-2/B came from the custody of DEO Ambala and the witness, who brought the record, has been examined as witness. In that view of the matter, there is compliance of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Merely because the signatures in some of the documents were not legible and visible that cannot be a ground to reject the secondary evidence. In our view, the trial court correctly appreciated the efforts taken by the Appellant for the purpose of leading secondary evidence."

Regarding the final decision, it's stated: "For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside."

Facts:

The appellants, private recognized institutions, sought permission to conduct college-level counseling to fill up vacant seats for B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses in Madhya Pradesh for the academic session 2015-16. They contested that the Higher Education Department's alleged arbitrary decision left seats vacant. The respondent department restricted admissions to students who appeared in the entrance examination conducted by Vyapam, rather than opening it to all students meeting the minimum eligibility criteria. The appellants argued that this violated mandatory provisions of the Admission Rules 2008 framed by the State Government.

Issues:

Whether the appellants should be granted permission to conduct college-level counseling to fill vacant seats, despite the restrictions imposed by the respondent department.

Held:

The Court dismissed the applications of the appellants, affirming the decision of the respondent department. The Court found no reason to grant any interim relief for conducting college-level counseling and admitting students who had not appeared in the entrance test. It cited the exhaustion of the student pool who participated in the Vyapam examination and the lack of interest among students in the appellant colleges.

The Court's decision upheld the respondent's actions, denying the appellants' request for permission to conduct college-level counseling. This decision was based on the understanding that the available student pool had been exhausted and there was no justification to allow further counseling beyond the rounds already conducted.

Facts:

The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 primarily focuses on regulating paper lotteries. However, online lotteries were not contemplated when the Act came into force. Kerala, in exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Act, imposed a ban on online lotteries within its territory.

Issues:

Whether the State of Kerala has the authority to discriminate between paper lotteries and online lotteries.

Whether the ban imposed on online lotteries by Kerala is constitutionally valid.

Whether the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 empowers States to regulate and ban online lotteries.

Held:

The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 primarily focuses on regulating paper lotteries, and online lotteries were not contemplated when the Act was enacted. The Act empowers States to prohibit a particular type of lottery, which includes online lotteries. The Court acknowledges the potential risks associated with online lotteries, such as rapid draws leading to financial losses for consumers.

The legislative power to regulate lotteries is vested in the Parliament under the Constitution of India. However, the Act delegates the power to regulate lotteries to States. This delegation of power is valid and does not amount to an abdication of legislative power by the Centre. States have the authority to ban lotteries, including online lotteries, within their territories.

Kerala's ban on online lotteries is upheld as valid. The principles laid down in previous cases apply to online lotteries as a separate class. If a State decides to prohibit a particular type of lottery, the prohibition must be applied uniformly to all lotteries of that type, including those from other States.

Facts:

Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. claimed deduction of interest paid on borrowed sums from banks under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 1988-1989.

The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction on grounds related to advances made by Hero Cycles to its subsidiary company and its directors.

Issues:

Whether the advances made by Hero Cycles were for business purposes and thus eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the advances made by Hero Cycles were justified by business expediency.

The Court emphasized the concept of "commercial expediency" in allowing deductions under the Income Tax Act.

It concluded that if the expenditure is incurred for the purpose of business expediency, it should be allowed as a deduction.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring that of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Facts:

The appellant, Baldev Singh, was found in possession of poppy husk during a police operation. Thirty-three bags of poppy husk were recovered from the trolley attached to his tractor during a Nakabandi operation. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of Ram Singh, ASI, a member of the police team involved in the operation. The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to twelve years of rigorous imprisonment.

Issues:

The appeal included the credibility of the prosecution's witness, the non-examination of the investigating officer who prepared the case report.

The burden of proof regarding the conscious possession of the contraband by the appellant.

Held:

After carefully considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court upheld Baldev Singh's conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The court found Ram Singh's testimony to be reliable and sufficient to establish the appellant's possession of the contraband. Despite the non-examination of the investigating officer, the court determined that it did not prejudice the prosecution's case. The court also clarified the burden of proof under Section 35 of the NDPS Act, which shifts to the accused to prove their lack of knowledge about the contraband once physical possession is established.

In light of the prolonged legal proceedings, the court reduced Baldev Singh's sentence from twelve years to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The appeal was partly allowed, confirming Baldev Singh's conviction but modifying his sentence.

Facts:

The incident leading to the case occurred promptly after the lodging of the FIR, with no significant delay. Allegations of ante-dating the FIR were unsubstantiated.

Issues:

Whether the delay in transmitting the special report to the Magistrate was fatal to the prosecution's case.

The significance of the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) in evaluating the prosecution's evidence.

The inconclusive nature of the FSL report regarding the connection between the recovered bullet and pistol.

The credibility of eyewitness testimony regarding the circumstances of the incident.

Held:

The delay in transmitting the special report to the Magistrate was not deemed fatal to the prosecution's case, especially since there was no delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution was not obligated to explain the delay unless questioned, and in this case, no adverse inference could be drawn.

The absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) does not invalidate the prosecution's case if eyewitnesses are found to be trustworthy and reliable. In this instance, the witnesses were local residents who knew the accused and the deceased, and their testimony was consistent.

While the FSL report was inconclusive regarding the connection between the recovered bullet and pistol, there was no mismatch between the bullet and the gun.

The credibility of eyewitness testimony was upheld, despite minor discrepancies. The testimony indicated that the shot was fired from close quarters, corroborated by the absence of blackening of the deceased's skin due to clothing.

Decision: The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, based on the reliability of the evidence and circumstances presented in the case.

Facts:

Vidarbha Engineering Industries, the appellant no. 2, held three plots of land in Nagpur and entered into a collaboration agreement with Unitech Ltd. for a commercial project.

The agreement specified that Unitech would develop the property at its own cost and retain 78% of the constructed area while transferring 22% to Vidarbha Engineering.

The consideration mentioned in the agreement was Rs. 100.40 lakhs.

The Appropriate Authority issued a show cause notice alleging understatement of consideration based on a comparison with a sale instance in an adjoining locality.

The authority's calculation of consideration was found to be erroneous, and it failed to consider differences in property types and sizes.

Issues:

Whether the collaboration agreement constituted a transfer of property under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Whether the authority's determination of consideration was valid.

Whether the High Court's judgment adequately addressed the relevant aspects of the case.

Held:

The collaboration agreement constituted a transfer of property within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite Vidarbha Engineering not being the owner of the entire built-up area.

The authority's determination of consideration was erroneous and failed to consider relevant factors, rendering its decision invalid.

The High Court's judgment did not adequately address crucial aspects of the case, leading to the appeal being allowed and the High Court's judgment and the authority's order being set aside.