Civil Appeal - Partition Suit - Interpretation of Will dated 18.11.1999 - Dispute regarding succession to a property owned by Late Sheila Kapila - Issue revolves around the interpretation of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of the said Will - Division Bench of High Court affirmed the Judgment declaring the parties' shares based on the interpretation of the Will - Civil Appeal filed challenging the said judgment. [Para 4-18]

Legal Interpretation - Examination of pleadings and admissions in a partition suit involving the alleged existence and interpretation of a will – Disagreement on whether the will grants absolute ownership to the children or only a beneficial life interest – Issue of whether the Suit Property devolves through testamentary succession or by devolution – Suit property to be partitioned among heirs in equal shares – Dispute arises over the share of late Dr. Rajendra Kapila – Judgment on admission is challenged as it assumes admissions that are disputed – Pleadings reveal a triable issue and the need for a full trial to determine the validity and interpretation of the will. [Para 19-32]

Civil Appeal - Partition Suit - Admission of Will - Dispute over the existence and validity of a Will - Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 propounding the existence of the Will dated 18.11.1999, while Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 and 2 denying it - No categorical admission found - Suit raises triable issues in facts and law. [Para 33-38]

Testamentary Succession - Intestate Succession - Validity of Will - Whether the suit property is divided among the parties on testamentary succession or intestate succession - Whether the Will propounded by Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 is valid, legal, and binding on the parties - Key issues for adjudication. [Para 37.1]

Sale of Property - Authorization for Sale - Majority of parties are septuagenarian or octogenarian - Need for speedy adjudication - Sale authorized without a Preliminary Decree under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893 - Directions for the sale process outlined. [Para 39-39.1]

Local Commissioner - Fees and Charges - Fees fixed at Rs. 5,00,000/- plus out-of-pocket expenses - Apportionment among the parties - Recovery from sale proceeds as a first charge - Parties to assist the Local Commissioner in carrying out tasks. [Para 39.1 IX-X]

Speedy Disposal - Remand to the Learned Single Judge - Request for expeditious disposal of the suit within four months from receipt of this Judgment, considering the age of contesting parties. [Para 40]

Error of Law - Impugned Judgments set aside - Matter remitted to the Learned Single Judge for framing issues and affording an opportunity for trial - Emphasis on comprehensive adjudication in partition suits. [Para 41-42]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC – Appeal by accused no. 2 – High Court's conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC substituted with Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Absence of appellant's advocate during High Court proceedings – Violation of principles of natural justice – Gross illegality – Conviction under Section 201 of IPC upheld. [Para 8-13]

Alteration of Charge – Power of Appellate Court to alter or add charges under Section 386 of Cr.PC – Requirement of notice to accused when altering charges – Absence of notice to appellant regarding alteration to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Prejudice caused to the appellant – Violation of natural justice – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside. [Para 12-15]

Common Intention – Lack of evidence for common intention among accused – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC not justified – Conviction for causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC) based on consistent eyewitness testimony upheld. [Para 18-19]

Electricity Act, 2003 - Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Act and Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 - Classification of a Captive Generating Plant (CGP) and captive user - The judgment provides an interpretation of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the relevant rules for the classification of a Captive Generating Plant and captive user. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the principles of law and applying them to specific cases. [Para 1-3]

Electricity Act, 2003 - Interpretation of Relevant Provisions - Classification of Captive Generating Plant (CGP) and Captive User - Three key issues addressed in the judgment:

I. Eligibility criteria for a CGP/captive user under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules.

II. Interpretation of the second proviso under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, particularly regarding the term "association of persons."

III. Determination of whether a company set up as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for generating electricity qualifies as an "association of persons" under the second proviso to Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules. [Para 21]

Eligibility criteria for a Captive Generating Plant (CGP) and captive user as specified under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules - primary criteria for a CGP are as follows:

1. The captive user should own not less than 26% of the CGP.

2. The captive user should consume not less than 51% of the electricity generated by the CGP.

3. In the case of an association of persons, the captive users' ownership and consumption should meet these criteria in proportion to their shares in the CGP, with a variation not exceeding +10%.

Issue I - Criteria are the minimum thresholds - no upper limit on ownership - captive user who owns 100% of the CGP and consumes 51% or more of the electricity generated would still qualify as a captive user.

Interpretation of "set up" - not necessarily mean the initial construction of the plant - Ownership can be transferred, and the CGP does not lose its captive status as long as the new owner meets the eligibility criteria - practical difficulties in applying the criteria throughout the financial year -  when there are changes in shareholding - ownership and consumption criteria must be maintained continuously throughout the year.

Issue II -  second proviso to Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, which applies when captive users are an "association of persons." - requires that the captive users hold not less than 26% of the ownership of the CGP and consume not less than 51% of the electricity generated in proportion to their ownership, with a variation not exceeding +10%. Where there are changes in ownership or shareholding within the CGP - importance of using a weighted average shareholding method to determine proportionate electricity consumption when there are fluctuations in ownership throughout the year.

Issue III - Electricity Generation – Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) - Whether a company set up as an SPV for generating electricity is an 'association of persons' which must meet the proportionality requirement specified in the second proviso to Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules – Interpretation of Rules and Act – SPVs owning, operating, and maintaining CGPs are considered an "association of persons" under the second proviso to Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules – Companies, body corporates, and other persons owning shares and being captive users of a CGP set up by an SPV are required to comply with Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules read with the second proviso to the Rules. [Para 49-67]

Land Ceiling Act - Interpretation of 'Vacant Land' - Challenge to calculation of 'excess vacant land' - Appellants' claim of exclusion of certain area from 'vacant land' rejected by Competent Authority - High Court upheld the decision - Appellants contend procedure for calculating 'excess vacant land' is contrary to Section 2(q)(i) and 2(q)(ii) read with Building Regulations - Status quo maintained pending litigation. [Para 1-13]

Ceiling Act - Interpretation of Section 2(q)(i) - Discrepancy between various decisions - Ceiling Act, an expropriatory legislation, to be strictly construed - Payment under Section 11 not based on fair market value - Importance of the words "in an area" in Section 2(g) and 2(q) - Need for authoritative determination of related issues by a Larger Bench - Case referred to Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate directions. [Para 34-37]

Civil Appeal - Dispute over recovery of deductions in monthly tariff under the Electricity Act, 2003 - Matter traveled from Regulatory Commission to Appellate Tribunal and to the Supreme Court - Judgment delivered in Nabha Power Limited v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited - Relief granted regarding washing cost of coal and Gross Calorific Value of coal. [Para 1-2]

Contempt Proceedings - Respondent's non-compliance with payment orders - Contempt petitions filed - Court compelled respondent to make payment in installments - Liberty granted to raise future disputes. [Para 5-15]

Fresh Dispute - Respondent filed a petition before the Regulatory Commission seeking approval for recovery of amounts paid to the appellant - Allegations of inflating coal costs and washing discrepancies - Appellant's objection to maintainability. [Para 12-19]

Impugned Order - Regulatory Commission maintains the petition - Appellant argues against reopening settled issues - Court finds respondent's actions as attempts to evade payment obligations under the 2017 judgment. [Para 20-23]

Costs Awarded - Appellants awarded costs for their legal expenses - Appellants' legal fees quantified. [Para 24-25]

Appeals Allowed - Impugned order set aside with awarded costs. [Para 26]

Criminal Appeal - Conviction based on the testimony of PW-9, recovery of motorcycles, and motive attributed by PW-9 - Examination of courts' judgments and rival contentions - Inconsistencies and defects in the prosecution's case raise doubts [Para 8]

Evidence - Motive attributed to accused for the killing - Discrepancies and defective investigation - Failure to record the statement of a key witness (Suraj) - First gap in the prosecution's story [Para 9]

Witness Testimony - Reliability of PW-9's testimony - Inconsistencies in his statements - Failure to name appellants in the FIR - Identification of appellants in court but not in the initial statement - Doubts about PW-9's presence at the scene of the incident [Para 9.1]

CCTV Footage - Reliance on CCTV footage as evidence - Doubts about the source and authenticity of the footage - Lack of clarity in evidence regarding the video recording - Inability to identify faces and registration numbers in the footage - Inadequate support for the prosecution's case [Para 9.4]

Confessional Statements - Recording of confessional statements when accused were in police custody - Provisions of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act - Inadmissibility of such statements - Citing relevant case law [Para 9.6]

Common Object and Vicarious Liability - Application of Section 149 IPC - Requirement to prove shared common object and awareness of likely offences - Lack of evidence connecting the appellants with the alleged unlawful assembly and motive - Absence of overt acts attributed to the appellants - Failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Miscarriage of justice [Para 10]

Acquittal - Appeals allowed, judgments of the Sessions Court and High Court set aside - Appellants acquitted of the alleged offences and ordered to be released [Para 11]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Challenge to concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court – Discharge of evidential burden by accused to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Court's examination of complainant's failure to prove cheque issuance in discharge of a debt/liability – Two-fold consideration of evidentiary issues. [Para 1-23]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Challenge to concurrent findings of the lower courts – Analysis of legal principles governing interference with concurrent findings – The court would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence unless there is an error of law, procedure, or record, or a violation of principles of natural justice or mandatory provisions of law resulting in prejudice to the accused. [Para 24]

Dishonour of Cheque – Essential ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act – Drawing of a cheque for payment of a debt or liability, presentation to the bank, return of the cheque unpaid, notice demanding payment, and failure to make payment within 15 days – Summary of the essential elements. [Para 26]

Burden of Proof – Legal burden and evidential burden – Legal burden remains constant and rests on the party making the claim, while the evidential burden may shift depending on the evidence presented during the trial – Distinction between the two burdens. [Para 29]

Presumptions – Presumptions of fact and law – Presumptions of fact are inferences drawn from one fact to establish other facts, while presumptions of law are legal rules applied by the court – Rebuttable and irrebuttable presumptions explained. [Para 32]

Section 139 of the NI Act – Presumption regarding the purpose of the cheque – The court shall presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of a debt or liability unless the contrary is proved – The accused may rebut this presumption. [Para 34]

Shifting of Onus – Once the complainant proves that the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or liability, the evidential burden shifts to the accused to prove otherwise – The accused may use direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or presumptions to rebut the presumption in Section 139. [Para 38]

Standard of Proof – The accused is not required to prove the non-existence of the presumed fact beyond a reasonable doubt – The standard of 'preponderance of probabilities' applies, similar to a civil proceeding – The accused may prove this by adducing evidence or raising a probable defense. [Para 40]

Options for the Accused – The accused may either conclusively prove the non-existence of the debt/liability or establish it by a preponderance of probabilities – The preponderance of probabilities can arise from various circumstances, including the complainant's version, the legal notice, and the accused's statements. [Para 42]

Court's Role – The court should correctly frame the issue and place the onus on the accused to rebut the presumption in Section 139 – The court should then assess whether the accused has discharged the evidential burden, and if not, proceed to convict. [Para 56]

Error in Lower Courts' Approach – Both the trial court and the high court erred in framing the issue and placing the onus on the complainant – The accused's defense was riddled with contradictions, and the lower courts failed to properly assess the evidence – Fundamental flaws in their approach. [Para 58-63]

Decision – Interference warranted due to errors in lower courts' approach – Conviction under Section 138 upheld, and the accused convicted with a fine of twice the cheque amount. [Para 64]the High Court, particularly in framing the issues and assessing the evidence. [Para 57-63]

Limitation Act - Condonation of delay in filing an appeal - Challenge to the High Court's order condoning a delay of approximately 479 days in presenting an appeal from the decision of the Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Central issue: whether sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the appeal. [Para 1-2]

Factual Background - The case originates from a land acquisition proceeding where the Reference Court enhanced compensation for landowners - First respondent (Union of India) filed an appeal with a delay of 479 days and sought condonation of the delay - High Court granted the condonation but imposed costs on the first respondent - Explanation for delay reveals institutional inefficiency and bureaucratic delays. [Para 3-6]

Precedents - The judgment references several past decisions of the court to establish the principles regarding the condonation of delay and the sufficiency of cause for such condonation. These decisions emphasize the importance of a liberal and justice-oriented approach when deciding applications for condonation of delay. [Para 15-27]

Analysis - The court notes that while condonation of delay is a discretionary power, it must depend on the sufficiency of the cause shown and the acceptability of the explanation, with the length of delay being immaterial. The court distinguishes between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse' and emphasizes the need to safeguard public interest from those seeking to prevent meritorious claims from reaching higher courts. [Para 28-30]

Exercise of Discretion - The court upholds the High Court's exercise of discretion in favor of condoning the delay, noting that it was not exercised arbitrarily. The High Court considered various reasons in support of its decision, including the elastic nature of "sufficient cause," the importance of substantial justice, and the distinction between explained and unexplained delay. The court finds that the High Court's order was not clearly wrong, and therefore, there is no ground for interference. [Para 31-37]

Decision - The court concludes that, given the special circumstances of the case and the reasons provided by the High Court, the delay in presenting the appeal by the first respondent was reasonably condoned. The appeal is dismissed, and pending applications are also disposed of. [Para 38-39]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction for Murder and Harassment – Poisoning as the cause of death – Appellant convicted of murder and harassment under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC – Evidence of poisoning found in viscera – Failure of the accused to prove alternative explanation for poisoning – Adverse inference drawn against the accused under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act – High Court affirmed the conviction – Appeal dismissed. [Para 13-27]

[Para 28-46]

Criminal Case - Poisoning and Murder - Conviction of the accused - Analysis of the evidence - Application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Burden of proof - Principles governing the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Burden of proving facts especially within knowledge - Illustrations and case law on Section 106 - Shift of evidential burden - Distinction between burden of proof and burden of going forward with evidence - Accused's failure to present evidence - Prima facie case - Presumption of fact - Court's duty to draw inferences - Application of Section 106 to cases with peculiarly known facts - Conclusion on the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence Act - Understanding "Prima Facie Case" - "Prima facie case" refers to a case established by prima facie evidence, which is sufficient in law to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question unless rebutted. In legal proceedings, it indicates that there is enough initial evidence to proceed to trial or judgment. [Para 47]

Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Application in Cases - Section 106 applies when the prosecution has proven facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding a certain fact. It involves inferring one fact's existence from the existence of other facts unless disproved. [Para 48-49]

Special Knowledge of the Accused - When Section 106 applies, it does not relieve the prosecution of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It comes into play when the prosecution has proven facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn about certain other facts, and the accused, with special knowledge of those facts, fails to offer any explanation that might lead the court to draw a different inference. [Para 50-56]

Failure to Explain Circumstances - Failure of the accused to provide any explanation for circumstances appearing in evidence against them in a prosecution based on circumstantial evidence can be considered by the court as an additional link completing the chain of evidence. [Para 56]

Section 103 and Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 106 does not impose a burden on the accused, but it allows the court to consider the accused's failure to provide an explanation when there are facts especially within their knowledge that could support a theory consistent with their innocence. [Para 59]

Role of Courts in Crime Against Women - Courts should deal with cases involving crimes against women realistically and sensitively, not allowing criminals to escape on procedural technicalities or insignificant evidence gaps, as it discourages victims and encourages criminals. [Para 62]

Disposition of Appeals - Both appeals are dismissed, but the sentence of the appellant Maheshwari Devi (mother-in-law) is reduced to the period already undergone, and she need not surrender. [Para 64]