Facts:

The case involved allegations against the accused-appellants, including a former Minister of Power, a Chief Electrical Engineer, and officials of certain companies, regarding conspiracy and wrongful gains related to a rebate scheme on power supply tariffs to industrial units.

Issues:

Whether the charges framed against the accused under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act were justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court, which discharged the accused from certain charges but directed framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court applied the prima facie standard while noting that there was sufficient evidence to indicate the existence of essential facts justifying the framing of charges. The Court clarified that at this stage, a detailed examination of evidence akin to a trial should not occur.

The Court found that prima facie, a case could be made out against the accused, especially considering the alleged issuance of notifications without proper approval. The framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld, and the appellants were allowed to submit additional material to the trial court for consideration.

The appeals were disposed of accordingly, affirming the High Court's order.

Facts:

The case involved a service dispute between an employee and their employer, a Co-operative Society.

Issues:

The jurisdiction of the labor court under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to decide the service dispute.

Held:

The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, both possess concurrent jurisdiction to decide service disputes between a Co-operative Society’s Employee and his/her Employer-Co-operative Society.

The employee has the option to choose the forum under either the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act or the Industrial Disputes Act, provided they meet the necessary criteria under the latter.

The interpretation of legislative provisions, particularly in comparison with similar laws in other states such as Karnataka, establishes the framework for jurisdiction in such cases.

The impact of amendments to legislation and the significance of receiving assent from relevant authorities, such as the President or Governor, are crucial in determining the applicability of laws.

The judgment distinguishes between the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly regarding the exclusion of jurisdiction of certain courts in deciding service disputes.

Facts:

The case pertains to the admission procedure for medical courses. Specifically, it addresses the treatment of Meritorious Reserved Candidates (MRC) in the allocation of seats in colleges.

Issues:

Whether a Meritorious Reserved Candidate (MRC) can opt for a seat earmarked for the reserved category to which they belong.

What happens to the 50th seat, which would have been allotted to the MRC had they opted for a general category seat.

Held:

The court discusses the concept of Meritorious Reserved Candidates (MRC), who qualify for higher rankings based on their own merit despite belonging to reserved categories. These candidates may be placed in the general merit list.

It is held that a MRC can opt for a seat earmarked for the reserved category. However, they will be treated as part of the general category. This ensures that the number of seats in each category remains constant, preserving the upper limit of 50% reservation.

The court addresses the consequence of the MRC's choice on lesser-ranked reserved category candidates. It is decided that the 50th seat, which would have been allotted to the MRC had they opted for a general category seat, will now be filled by the candidate in the reserved category list who stands to lose out due to the MRC's choice. This maintains the percentage of reservation at 50% without any breach. Appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Facts:

The Mullaperiyar Dam was constructed in 1886 under a lease agreement between the Maharaja of Travancore and the British Secretary of State for Madras Presidency for a duration of 999 years.

Russell Joy filed a writ petition expressing concerns about the dam's safety due to its age and potential risks to downstream populations.

The petition sought the appointment of an international agency to assess the dam's lifespan, the formation of a High Powered Committee to suggest a decommissioning date, and financial provisions for potential damages.

Issues:

Whether adequate measures had been taken to ensure the safety of the Mullaperiyar Dam and to address concerns raised regarding its lifespan and potential risks to public safety.

Held:

The Supreme Court directed the formation of separate Sub-Committees under the Disaster Management Act to monitor disaster preparedness specifically for the Mullaperiyar Dam.

The Central Government, as well as the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, were instructed to constitute these Sub-Committees to ensure high levels of preparedness for any potential disaster related to the dam.

The Court emphasized that the formation of Sub-Committees did not imply doubts about the dam's safety but was a precautionary measure to address potential risks effectively.

The judgment was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The appellant, Ramji Singh Patel, filed a suit against the respondent, Gyan Chandra Jaiswal, alleging that the operation of a flour mill by the respondent caused vibrations and air pollution, adversely affecting the appellant's property and health.

The appellant sought perpetual injunction against the respondent's activities.

The timeline of events was crucial in determining the limitation period for filing the suit.

Issues:

Whether the suit filed by the appellant was time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the commencement of the alleged nuisance in 1990 and the filing of the suit in 2004.

Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of the limitation period and subsequent dismissal of the suit.

Held:

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's decision, noting that the respondent did not raise the issue of limitation during the trial, and no evidence was led on this matter.

The Court found that the nuisance caused by the respondent's activities, particularly the installation of a diesel generator set in 2003, constituted a continuing cause of action, rendering the suit filed in 2004 within the limitation period.

Additionally, the Court criticized the High Court for overlooking the serious consequences of the respondent's activities on the appellant's property and health.

The Supreme Court reinstated the decrees passed by the lower courts in favor of the appellant, granting perpetual injunction against the respondent.

Facts:

The case involved the construction of a multi-storey residential complex by DLF on the bank of Chilavannurkayal (back waters) in Kerala. The Single Judge of the High Court deemed the construction illegal and ordered its demolition. However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned the demolition order and directed regularization on payment of Rs. 1 crore as a fine.

Issues:

Whether DLF violated the CRZ Notification and whether the construction could be regularized.

Held:

The Court emphasized the importance of strict enforcement of environmental laws.

It noted the creation of specialized bodies like the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA) to deal with CRZ Regulations.

The Court rejected the argument that lack of an enforcement mechanism hindered action by authorities.

It highlighted the need for clarity in the permission process and prompt action by authorities.

The Court criticized the contradictory stance of authorities, which put large investments at risk.

DLF had legally purchased the land and obtained requisite permissions, including environmental clearance and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permissions.

The delay in obtaining CRZ permission led to the perception of a deemed permission case.

The Court clarified that Clause 8(3) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006 should imply a prior clearance in the future.

The Rs. 1 crore fine was directed to be transferred to KCZMA for better enforcement and development of CRZ areas .

Decision: The findings of the lower courts regarding violations alleged against DLF were set aside, except for the issue of not obtaining prior clearance. The Court directed the Rs. 1 crore fine to be transferred to KCZMA for better enforcement and development of CRZ areas. It emphasized the need for simplification of the permission process to reduce uncertainty and improve enforcement.

Facts:

The appellant, Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava, was convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court for causing the death of his wife during an altercation.

The High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The incident occurred when the deceased and her mother returned home from agricultural work, and an argument ensued between the appellant and his wife over lunch preparation delay.

The appellant struck his wife with a wooden object during the altercation, resulting in her death.

Issues:

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is justified or should be converted to one under Section 304 IPC.

Determination of the appropriate punishment considering the circumstances of the incident.

Held:

The Court analyzed the factors laid down in the case of Dhirendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2015) to determine the nature of the offense.

After considering the circumstances of the incident, including the sudden provocation, nature of the weapon used, and lack of premeditation, the Court concluded that the offense falls under Section 304 Part-II IPC.

The Court noted that the incident occurred due to a sudden altercation and in a heat of passion, without any undue advantage taken by the appellant.

Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction to Section 304 Part-II IPC and reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, which was approximately 9 years and 3 months.

The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Facts:

The appellant, I.C. Sharma, had purchased a householder insurance policy from the Oriental Insurance Company, which was later renewed. A burglary occurred at the appellant's premises, resulting in loss of valuables. The appellant filed a claim with the Insurance Company, which was initially rejected. Various consumer dispute redressal forums adjudicated on the matter, leading to the present appeal.

Issues:

The court was the concept of under-insurance and its implications on insurance claims.

The court also examined the obligations of the insurance company regarding policy terms and proper guidance to policyholders.

Held:

The court held that under-insurance occurs when the insured value is less than the actual value of the insured item. The appellant is entitled to the insured amount, even if it's less than the actual value, if all insured goods are lost. However, if only some goods are lost, the principle of under-insurance applies, and the insured receives an amount proportionate to the extent of insurance compared to the actual value of the goods insured. The insurance company cannot deny liability based on insufficient details provided by the insured if the policy terms were changed from item-wise details to consolidated amounts.

The court reviewed the appellant's claims for various categories of items and determined the entitlement based on the principles of under-insurance. It awarded compensation and interest to the appellant, along with the approved claim amounts.

Facts:

The plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase land from the respondents.

Despite receiving full consideration and possession, the sale deed was not executed, and a gift deed was executed instead.

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of the contract.

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court.

During the pendency of the second appeal, the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.

Issues:

Whether specific performance of the contract was still feasible considering the acquisition of the land during the pendency of the appeal.

What relief should be granted to the plaintiff in lieu of specific performance.

Held:

The Court held that since the land was acquired during the appeal, specific performance of the contract was not feasible.

It invoked Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, which allows for the award of compensation in certain cases. The Court directed that Rs. 10 lakh be awarded to the plaintiff-appellants out of the compensation received for the acquired land, and the remainder be paid to the respondents, deducting the awarded amount.

If compensation had not yet been disbursed, it was to be disbursed according to the Court's directions. If already received by respondent No.1, they were to return Rs. 10 lakh to the appellants and the remainder to the other respondents.