Facts:

The Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), initially registered under Section 302 IPC but later converted to Section 306 IPC during investigation.

The charge was framed based on allegations that the accused assaulted the deceased and subsequently he committed suicide due to apprehension of further harassment.

The trial court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced them to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

The High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused, considering them as first offenders from weaker sections of society.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's reduction of sentence was justified in a case involving abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

Held:

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's decision, noting that it reflected a casual and fanciful approach rather than a just one.

The court emphasized the duty of the judiciary to respond to the collective cry of society for justice and to consider the gravity of the offence and the social interest involved.

The High Court's exercise of discretion in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused was deemed capricious and against the principles of proportionality and just punishment.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and restored the sentence imposed by the trial court.

The appeal challenging the reduction of sentence by the High Court was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence by the trial court was reinstated.

The appeal challenging the High Court's decision in the revision was dismissed, and the respondents were ordered to be taken into custody to serve the remaining part of their sentences.

Facts:

The case involved an assault on the deceased, Bansilal, by the appellants, resulting in his death. Eyewitnesses testified to the events of the assault, identifying the appellants and detailing their involvement. Medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts, confirming the injuries sustained by the deceased.

Issues:

The credibility of the evidence presented, particularly regarding the presence of one of the appellants, Ramvilas, at the scene of the crime.

Held:

The court upheld Ramvilas's conviction based on the credible evidence provided by the eyewitnesses, supported by medical evidence. The High Court's findings regarding Ramvilas's presence at the scene were deemed valid, and his failure to assert his absence during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was noted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

Saroj Kumar, an officer in the Indian Defence Accounts Service, was denied promotion.

He filed multiple rounds of litigation challenging the denial of promotion and the promotion of his juniors.

After the first round of litigation, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ordered a reconsideration, leading to the communication of Saroj Kumar's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and subsequent rejection of his representation against the downgrading of his remarks.

In the second round, Saroj Kumar challenged the rejection of his representation, leading to another reconsideration by the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court.

In the third round, Saroj Kumar filed another case after the rejection of his representation in the second round, leading to another reconsideration by the Tribunal.

Issues:

Whether the Tribunal erred in directing authorities to consider Saroj Kumar's case for promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted, ignoring the communicated remarks after the first round of litigation.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that there was no error in the High Court's judgment. They concurred with the High Court's finding that after the ACRs were communicated and Saroj Kumar's representation was rejected, the Tribunal should not have treated the remarks as uncommunicated. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

Selvaraj was convicted under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for allegedly demanding illegal gratification.

The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of the complainant, Peter Philip, who passed away before the trial.

The trial court acquitted Selvaraj, citing discrepancies in witness testimonies and questioning the credibility of the evidence.

However, the High Court overturned the acquittal without adequately addressing the reasons provided by the trial court.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without proper consideration of the trial court's reasoning.

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove Selvaraj's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Held:

The Court emphasized the importance of considering all evidence and circumstances in favor of the accused in cases of appeal against acquittal. It cited precedents to assert that the prosecution must prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in bribery cases, and that the court should exercise caution when relying on witness testimonies, particularly when the complainant is unavailable for cross-examination.

Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found that the trial court's acquittal was based on plausible reasoning and that the High Court failed to provide substantial reasons for reversing it. The Court reiterated that the High Court should have thoroughly considered the trial court's rationale and re-appraised the evidence before overturning the acquittal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's acquittal of Selvaraj.

Facts:

The state initiated acquisition proceedings in 1981, which subsequently lapsed due to various reasons including the failure to pass an award within the required timeframe.

Subsequent attempts by the state to acquire the land were made in 1995-96, leading to legal challenges by the landowner based on the argument that the 1981 acquisition had lapsed.

Issues:

Whether the 1981 acquisition had lapsed due to procedural irregularities and failure to comply with legal requirements.

Held:

The court held that the 1981 acquisition had indeed lapsed due to the failure to pass an award within the stipulated time frame.

Subsequent attempts by the state to acquire the land were deemed invalid as well.

The court analyzed provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, particularly Section 24 of the latter, which deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.

It was concluded that the acquisition proceedings regarding the subject lands had lapsed, and the state was directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings or take any other lawful action within a specified timeframe.

Facts:

The case involved the termination of a contract entrusted by a government department to a contractor. The contractor challenged the termination through a writ petition. A single judge of the High Court refused to interfere with the termination order. In appeal, the Division Bench appointed advocates as Commissioners. Based on their report, the Bench concluded that the termination order was erroneous due to factual inaccuracies and quashed it.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's exercise of power under Article 226 in a contractual matter was appropriate.

Whether the appointment of Commissioners without allowing objections from the State and reliance on their report without following proper procedure was valid.

Held:

The Supreme Court observed that a writ court should generally refrain from entertaining writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact, especially in contractual matters. The respondent had a history of invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 on various issues related to the contract, leading to a disturbing labyrinth of litigation. The Court criticized the High Court's decision to appoint Commissioners without giving the State an opportunity to object and without following proper procedure, stating that such a roving enquiry was impermissible and did not serve any public interest. It emphasized the need for restraint and adherence to legal procedures in such cases.

Decision: The Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of the High Court. The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

Stantech Project Engg. Pvt. Ltd. filed winding-up petitions against Nicco Corporation Ltd. due to outstanding debts.

Despite receiving a statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, Nicco Corporation Ltd. failed to pay the debts.

The respondent sought to avoid winding-up by proposing to pay the debts in installments.

Issues:

Whether the concessions made by the respondent's counsel should be recognized by the court.

Whether the Division Bench's decision to set aside the original order was justified.

Held:

The Division Bench's decision to set aside the original order was unjustified. The concessions made by the respondent's counsel were legal tactics to avoid winding-up, which the Company Judge rightly acknowledged.

The respondent abused the judicial process to delay the discharge of an acknowledged debt for almost a quarter of a century.

The original order of the Company Judge is upheld. The respondent is directed to pay the admitted dues, interest, costs, and any sums withheld for tax purposes within 45 days. Failure to comply empowers the appellant to re-initiate winding-up proceedings.

Facts:

Sampath was allegedly beaten to death while in custody by the State police.

Sampath's brother filed a petition seeking CBI investigation due to dissatisfaction with the State police's investigation.

Haridath, the Chief Investigating Officer, committed suicide and left behind a note implicating certain individuals, including the Respondents.

Criminal proceedings were initiated against the Respondents based on the suicide note.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR against the Respondents for abetment of suicide.

Held:

The Court analyzed the suicide note and surrounding circumstances, finding it lacking in specificity regarding the alleged abetment by the Respondents. The note accused the Respondents of compelling actions that led to the author's distress, but lacked concrete details or evidence of continuous harassment. The Court referenced previous judgments to clarify the requirements for establishing abetment of suicide, emphasizing the need for a clear mens rea (intention) and a direct act leading to suicide. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the criminal proceedings against the Respondents due to the lack of evidence establishing abetment of suicide.