Facts:

Kurk Amins were appointed by the UP Government for recovering dues of cooperative societies.

Their appointment conditions changed over time, leading to disputes over their status and entitlements.

Legal battles ensued, with judgments confirming their status as government servants.

After the creation of Uttarakhand, many Kurk Amins were absorbed into its government service.

A writ petition was filed seeking the counting of past services for benefits.

Issues:

Whether past services of Kurk Amins should be counted for benefits entitlement.

The date from which past services should be counted.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that past services of Kurk Amins could not be disregarded due to state reorganization. The benefits of previous judgments confirming their status as government servants should extend to them. The Division Bench's decision to limit the counting of past services was deemed contrary to law and service jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Division Bench's decision. It directed that past services of Kurk Amins should be counted for all purposes, including selection grade, promotional scale, post-retiral benefits, and pension. The appellants were entitled to all the relief granted by the Single Bench. The benefit of the judgment was extended to all similarly situated incumbents, aiming to prevent further litigation.

Facts:

The State of Rajasthan issued a notification upgrading Gram Panchayat of Napasar Village to Nagar Palika (Municipality) Class IV category.

Legal challenges were raised against this notification through various writ petitions and appeals.

The constitutional validity of the notifications and subsequent actions taken by the state government were questioned before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the notifications issued by the State of Rajasthan regarding the establishment of municipalities, particularly the upgrading of Napasar Village Gram Panchayat to Nagar Palika, comply with the constitutional mandate under Article 243Q.

Whether the actions taken by the state government are consistent with the parameters set forth in Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution of India.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the notifications issued by the State of Rajasthan, including the one upgrading Napasar Village Gram Panchayat to Nagar Palika, were unconstitutional as they failed to meet the requirements of Article 243Q of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Governor is obligated to specify parameters uniformly for the entire state through public notification, considering factors such as population density, revenue generated, etc. Since the notifications only classified municipalities based on population without considering other necessary parameters, they were deemed inconsistent with the constitutional mandate.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the duty of courts to examine constitutional issues even if not explicitly raised by the litigants, citing relevant precedents. The Court rejected arguments raised by non-state respondents regarding potential development consequences, finding no substantial basis for such apprehensions.

Therefore, the Court disposed of the appeals, declaring the initial notification and subsequent actions taken by the State of Rajasthan as unconstitutional.

Facts:

The case involves the murder of a person allegedly by 16 accused individuals. The trial court acquitted all accused, which was later reversed by the High Court. Upon appeal, various discrepancies and shortcomings in the prosecution's case were observed.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution's case established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the appellate court's interference with the trial court's acquittal was justified.

Held:

The trial court's acquittal signifies the presumption of innocence reinforced by the advantage of firsthand witness testimony. The appellate court should interfere only when substantial reasons exist.

Circumstantial evidence, when forming an unbroken chain, can justify conviction.

Testimony from related witnesses should be approached cautiously due to potential bias.

While motive plays a role, solely dismissing a case based on lack of motive is not warranted.

Inconsistencies and contradictions in witness statements weakened the prosecution's case.

The failure to prove motive and the absence of identification parades undermined the prosecution's case.

Discrepancies in the FIR and lack of corroborative evidence weakened the case further.

The non-examination of vital witnesses and misinterpretation by the High Court contributed to the acquittal.

The accused were acquitted due to shortcomings in the prosecution's case and lack of compelling reasons for appellate interference.

Decision: The trial court's acquittal was upheld, and the appellate court's decision was deemed unjustified. The accused individuals were acquitted due to deficiencies in the prosecution's case.

Facts:

Dispute between appellants (plaintiffs) and respondent (defendant) over land.

Land previously owned by Mr. K.G. Yellappa Reddy, subject to suits by appellants.

Respondent provided evidence of land acquisition by the State in 1941.

Appellants claimed ownership without rebuttal evidence.

Issues:

Validity of suits filed by appellants over land.

Effect of State's acquisition of land in 1941 on appellants' claims.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the suits filed by the appellants were misconceived due to the State's acquisition of the land in 1941. The appellants failed to provide any rebuttal evidence to the documents provided by the respondent, establishing the land's acquisition.

The Court upheld the decision of the High Court to allow the respondent to file additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus, the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed.

Facts:

The State of Himachal Pradesh sought to acquire the appellants' land for the public purpose of constructing a road. The appellants filed objections within the prescribed time under Section 15 of the Act. However, the Collector did not provide the appellants with an opportunity as required under Section 15(2) of the Act, nor did the Collector submit any report to the appropriate Government regarding the objections.

Issues:

Whether there was compliance with Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by the Collector? Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition took into account the non-compliance of Section 15(2)?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that compliance with Section 15(2) of the Act by the Collector is mandatory to ensure the legality and conformity of land acquisition proceedings. The Court found that the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition did not consider the non-compliance of Section 15(2) by the Collector. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the Collector to decide the objections filed by the appellants within three months, adhering to the requirements of Section 15(2) of the Act.

The Court's decision underscores the importance of following due process in land acquisition matters under the Act, ensuring that affected parties are afforded the opportunity to be heard and that proper procedures are followed by the authorities involved.

Facts:

The accused appellants were charged with attacking Tej Singh on 26.05.1998, causing injuries including abrasion, contusion, and a lacerated wound.

The appellants were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, but the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them.

Suresh (A-2) was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC due to advanced stage lung cancer.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting the appellants.

Whether the involvement of the appellants in the commission of the offenses is established beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:

The Supreme Court modified the sentences of Naresh (A-1), Ashish@Shesh Raj (A-3), and Rajendra (A-4), reducing their jail sentences to the time already served, and increased the fine amount from Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 75,000/- each, to be paid to the legal representatives of Tej Singh within three months.

Failure to pay the fine would result in the revival of the original judgment, and the defaulting appellants would be taken into custody to serve the remaining jail sentences.

Suresh (A-2) had his conviction set aside and was released, with his bail bonds being canceled.

Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2018 was disposed of in view of the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2018.

Facts:

The case pertains to Criminal Appeal No. 1375 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2013. The appellants are Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P Ltd and another, while the respondent is the Central Bureau of Investigation. The appeals were heard by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Rohinton Fali Nariman.

Issues:

Whether there were sufficient grounds to interfere with the order framing charges.

Held:

The Court, after considering the arguments from both parties and reviewing the material on record, held that there were no grounds to interfere with the order framing charges. Therefore, the trial court was directed to proceed with the matter pending before it, leaving all contentions of the parties open for consideration by the trial court. The parties were instructed to appear before the trial court on 14th May 2018.

The Court also issued directives regarding the handling of original trial court records by appellate/revisional courts. It ordered that whenever the original record is summoned, a photocopy/scanned copy should be retained for reference, and the original returned to the trial court immediately. Furthermore, in cases where the trial court record is summoned in the future, photocopies/scanned copies should be sent, and the original retained by the trial courts to prevent delays. Only in cases where the original record is specifically required, should it be summoned for perusal, with a photocopy/scanned copy retained.

Finally, the Court directed that a copy of its order be sent to all High Courts and disposed of the appeals accordingly.

Facts:

The case involved Cheran Properties Limited (Appellant) v. Kasturi and Sons Limited and Ors., where disputes arose between the parties regarding a business transaction. An agreement was entered into between various entities, including Kasturi and Sons Limited (KSL), Cheran Properties Limited (appellant), and others. The transaction involved the allotment of shares and subsequent disputes led to arbitral proceedings. An arbitral award was passed, directing certain actions, including the transmission of shares.

Issues:

Whether the appellant, who was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, could be bound by the arbitral award?

Whether the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had jurisdiction to order rectification of the register under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956?

Held:

The Court interpreted Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides that an arbitral award is final and binding not only on the parties directly involved but also on persons claiming under them. The doctrine of 'claiming under' extends the scope of those who can be bound by the award to include entities deriving their capacity or position from a party to the proceedings.

In this case, the appellant, though not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, was found to claim under a party to the agreement. It was aware of the terms of the agreement and had sought to purchase shares in accordance with it. Therefore, the appellant could be bound by the arbitral award.

The Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the NCLT to order rectification of the register under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, to effectuate the transmission of shares as mandated by the arbitral award.

The enforcement of the arbitral award was found to be equivalent to the enforcement of a decree of a civil court under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, the award could be enforced in the same manner as a court decree.

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the enforcement of the arbitral award against the appellant and the jurisdiction of the NCLT to order rectification of the register under the Companies Act, 1956.

Facts:

B.L. Passi filed an income tax return claiming a deduction under Section 80-O for income received from Sumitomo Corporation, Japan, for providing specialized industrial and commercial knowledge about the Indian automobile industry.

The Income Tax Department disallowed the deduction, leading Passi to appeal through various levels of adjudication, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether Passi was entitled to the deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act.

Held:

The court analyzed the nature of the services provided by Passi and the relevant provisions of Section 80-O. It noted that Passi claimed to have provided blueprints and information about the Indian automobile industry to Sumitomo Corporation, but failed to produce evidence such as the blueprints to substantiate his claim before the lower authorities.

The court emphasized that technical services, as per Section 80-O, involve the use of tools and machinery, which may not include managerial services. Since Passi couldn't prove the technical nature of the services provided or the basis for the alleged payment by Sumitomo Corporation, the court dismissed his appeal.

Additionally, the court affirmed the High Court's finding of a principal-agent relationship between Passi and Sumitomo Corporation, further supporting the denial of the deduction under Section 80-O.