Facts:

The parties got married in 1989 and had a son in 1990. They lived together until 1999, after which they shifted to their own residence.

Marital discord arose, leading to the husband filing for divorce in March 2000.

The wife made serious allegations against the husband, including domestic violence and dowry harassment, through various complaints to authorities.

Investigations revealed these allegations to be false, and criminal proceedings were initiated against the wife under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code for filing false complaints.

Issues:

Whether the false accusations made by the wife against the husband constituted cruelty justifying divorce.

What relief should be granted to the parties considering the circumstances of the case.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the wife's reckless, defamatory, and false accusations against the husband amounted to cruelty justifying divorce. The Court emphasized that while cruelty in matrimonial cases cannot be precisely defined, making unfounded defamatory allegations against the spouse can constitute cruelty.

The Court noted that the investigations confirmed the falsity of the wife's allegations, which had a detrimental effect on the husband's reputation. Therefore, the divorce petition filed by the husband was decreed, and the marriage was dissolved.

The Court directed the husband to pay the wife a one-time permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) and provide her with a residential flat valued at up to Rs. 1,00,00,000 (Rupees One Crore). This decision aims to ensure fairness and justice in matrimonial disputes while also addressing the needs of the parties involved.

Facts:

The case revolves around an incident where twelve accused persons attacked the complainant, resulting in injuries to several individuals, including the death of Abdul Rahman. The incident occurred on 12.11.1993, and the accused were armed with various weapons. The initial FIR mentioned only five accused but stated that seven others were involved. The charge sheet was subsequently filed against all twelve accused.

Issues:

Validity of charges against all accused despite only five being mentioned in the FIR.

Consistency of witness testimonies and their credibility.

Determination of the accused's common intention and role in the assault.

Held:

The Court held that the charges against all twelve accused were valid, despite only five being mentioned in the FIR, as the informant had informed the police about all twelve but was illiterate and could only provide five names in the written report.

The Court found the witness testimonies to be consistent, despite minor discrepancies between statements recorded by the police and those made in court. These discrepancies did not affect the credibility of the witnesses.

The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with the common intention to assault the victims. They not only inflicted injuries but also prevented the injured from receiving timely medical treatment, leading to the death of Abdul Rahman. Therefore, the conviction under Section 302 read with 149 IPC was upheld.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the trial court and the High Court were upheld.

Facts:

Respondent No.2 (Industrial Village Razhuphe, Dimapur) filed a writ petition against various respondents including the Dimapur Municipal Council and the State of Nagaland, seeking cancellation of census records collected by the council.

The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, leading to an appeal by appellants who were not originally parties to the case.

The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal, prompting the appellants to file a special leave appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the appellants, who were not parties to the original writ petition, should have been granted an opportunity to present their case before the writ Court.

Whether the matter should be remanded to the writ Court for fresh consideration in light of the subsequent events and the interests of all parties concerned.

Held:

Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties at length and having perused the record of the case as also the written submissions filed by the learned counsel as directed, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and while setting aside of the impugned order as also of the order passed by the learned Single Judge restore the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, to its file and request the writ Court to decide the writ petition afresh on merits in accordance with law.

In substance, the issue involved in the writ petition and carried to this Court in the appeal arises out of Census Act as also certain State laws applicable to the State of Nagaland. The challenge inter alia therein is to orders issued by the State Authorities in relation to census.

In view of foregoing discussion and the directions, the appeal is allowed in part. Impugned judgment is set aside.

Facts:

The case involved the appellant, Kanakarajan @ Kanakan, who was convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to murder and wrongful restraint. The incident occurred at a temple compound during an ox procession, where the deceased sustained fatal injuries and the appellant was implicated based on the testimony of witnesses, including the complainant and eyewitnesses. However, the prosecution's case was marked by flaws and inconsistencies.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant?

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

Held:

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the prosecution's case was filled with infirmities and lacunae. The failure to examine credible independent witnesses, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, suspicious circumstances surrounding another individual's death, and the lack of motive and evidence undermined the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court held that the benefit of reasonable doubt should be granted to the appellant. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Therefore we find that the prosecution case is filled with infirmities and lacunas, therefore the only possible and probable course left open is to grant benefit of reasonable doubt to the appellant herein. Resultantly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed."

Facts:

The appellant, Municipal Board of Sumerpur, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Collector, Pali. The Single Judge of the High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition, and the Division Bench upheld this decision without adequately addressing the issues raised.

Issues:

Whether the lower courts adequately considered the factual and legal issues raised in the case.

Whether the dismissal of the writ petition without proper consideration was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of both the High Court and the Single Judge. They restored the appellant's writ petition to its file for a decision on merits in accordance with the law.

The Court emphasized that both lower courts failed to adequately address the issues raised and provide sufficient reasons for their decisions. The case is remanded to the writ Court for proper consideration and a reasoned order.

The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to be decided by the writ Court.

Facts:

The case revolved around the interpretation of the requirements for obtaining a Provisional Certificate of Registry (PCOR) under Section 40 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The issue arose regarding the conditions precedent for granting registration and provisional registration, specifically focusing on the significance of ship ownership and completion status. The matter also involved the interpretation of the six-month validity period for PCOR and its effect after expiry.

Issues:

What are the prerequisites for obtaining a Provisional Certificate of Registry (PCOR) under Section 40 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958?

How does the six-month validity period for PCOR affect its interpretation and application?

Held:

The court, per Justice Dipak Misra, elucidated that the requirement for granting registration and provisional registration remains the same. The ownership of the ship and the surveyor's report play a crucial role in the issuance of PCOR.

The ship must be completely built and ready for sea-going before applying for PCOR. The six-month validity period for PCOR is mandatory, and once it expires or upon the ship's arrival at a port with a registrar, the PCOR ceases to have effect.

The legislative intent is to ensure that ships abroad becoming Indian ships can travel to India for final registration within a reasonable timeframe.

Justice R. Banumathi, concurring with Justice Dipak Misra, emphasized the importance of ship ownership for registration under the Merchant Shipping Act. The ownership of the ship must be satisfactorily established before applying for PCOR.

The six-month validity period for PCOR is designed to enable ships abroad to travel to India for final registration and complete necessary formalities. There is no provision for renewing or extending the validity of PCOR beyond six months, as it would defeat the purpose of temporary registration.

Decision: The court held that PCOR cannot be renewed or extended beyond the initial six-month period. Any attempt to do so would contravene the legislative intent and defeat the purpose of temporary registration under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.

Facts:

The dispute arose between the Appellant and the Respondent concerning development agreements for a property in Kolkata. The agreements included an arbitration clause, and an arbitrator was appointed. Despite objections raised by the Appellants regarding the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal and jurisdictional issues, the arbitrator proceeded with the proceedings and rendered an award in favor of the Respondent. Subsequently, the Appellants filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the arbitral award on various grounds, including lack of reasoning.

Issues:

Whether the Division Bench's directive to send the award back to the Arbitral Tribunal was within the scope of Section 34(4) of the Act?

Whether the Court can exercise its power under Section 34(4) suo moto, or it requires a written application from a party to the arbitration proceedings?

Whether the absence of a formal written application by the Respondent before the Division Bench rendered the directive erroneous?

Held:

The Supreme Court clarified that the power under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can only be exercised upon a written application by a party to the arbitration proceedings.

The Court cannot exercise this power suo moto. Since no formal written application was made by the Respondent before the Division Bench for deferring the proceedings and sending the award back to the Arbitral Tribunal, the Division Bench's directive was deemed erroneous.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Division Bench's directive, affirming the decision to set aside the award by the learned Single Judge. The parties were left free to pursue their remedies in accordance with law, without the need for further directions to the Arbitral Tribunal.

Facts:

The petitioner, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, sought the transfer of proceedings in a criminal case filed against him.

The case involved allegations under Section 295A of the IPC regarding deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.

The petitioner contended that the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 295A.

Issues:

Whether the allegations in the complaint constitute an offense under Section 295A of the IPC.

Whether the trial should be transferred to another court or the complaint should be quashed.

Held:

The court held that the allegations in the complaint did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 295A of the IPC. Quoting previous judgments and the Constitution, the court emphasized that Section 295A penalizes only deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and not every act of insult to religion. Therefore, the court quashed the complaint proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

Additionally, the court extended the benefit of quashing the complaint proceedings to the co-accused, the editor of the magazine in question. This decision was based on principles of fairness and justice, as established in previous judgments.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of magistrates scrutinizing complaints before issuing summons, ensuring adherence to legal standards and territorial jurisdiction. The court cautioned against the abuse of legal processes and affirmed that such scrutiny is a primary judicial responsibility.

In conclusion, the transfer petition and the criminal miscellaneous petition were disposed of accordingly, with the complaint proceedings being quashed.

Facts:

The case involved the granting of conditional bail by the High Court to the respondent accused, Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai, who was alleged to be the mastermind behind the Bihar Toppers Scam. The scam involved tampering with answer sheets and manipulating the examination system to secure top ranks for students, including the respondent's daughter.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent was justified given the gravity of the offences and the potential impact on the education system.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the granting of bail to the respondent at that stage was not advisable. The Court noted the seriousness of the offences, which included economic crimes of significant magnitude and tampering with the education system. The respondent was alleged to be the kingpin of the scam, and the allegations against him were serious enough to jeopardize the credibility of the education system in Bihar.

The Court emphasized that socio-economic offences require a different approach to bail considerations due to their impact on society and the need to prevent irreparable harm. It also considered the possibility of further investigation and the complexity of the case involving multiple accused and a sophisticated modus operandi.

The Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent, ruling that his release at that stage was not advisable. It was held that while bail is the rule and jail is the exception, competing factors must be carefully considered in each case before deciding on bail.