Facts:

The suit involved a dispute over the title and possession of a property originally owned by Hardayal and passed through various successors.

The Plaintiff-Appellants claimed title to the property based on a Will allegedly executed in their favor by Ajuddhibai, a former owner of the property.

The trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellants, which was upheld by the District Court, but later overturned by the High Court.

The matter reached the Supreme Court on appeal.

Issues:

Validity of the Will executed by Ajuddhibai.

Interpretation of legal provisions governing inheritance rights, specifically Section 164 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code.

Whether the amendment of the plaint to include additional parties should be allowed.

Held:

The Court affirmed the High Court's findings on the validity of the Will and the limitation of the suit.

However, it disagreed with the High Court's interpretation of Section 164 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code.

The Court held that the amendment of the plaint should have been allowed by the High Court, as rules of procedure should serve the interests of justice.

Therefore, the Court partly allowed the appeal, affirming some aspects of the High Court's decision but directing a reconsideration of the issue of inheritance in light of the proposed amendment to the plaint.

Facts:

M/S Tata Chemicals Ltd. imported coking coal under specific exemptions based on ash content.

The coal was tested by an independent agency, CASCO, which certified an ash content below the threshold.

Customs Inspector drew samples of the coal, contrary to established standards (IS 436), leading to a finding of ash content above the threshold.

The appellant contested the sampling procedure and the validity of subsequent test reports.

Issues:

Whether the sampling procedure followed by the Customs Inspector adhered to legal standards.

Whether the subsequent test reports, based on the flawed sampling procedure, are valid.

Held:

The court examined Section 18 of the Customs Act, which allows for testing of imported goods if deemed necessary by the proper officer. It emphasized that such power should be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily, based on established legal principles.

The court found that the samples were not drawn in accordance with IS 436 and, therefore, the subsequent test reports were invalid.

The notion of estoppel against the appellant was rejected, as there was no representative present during sampling, and even if there were, estoppel cannot override legal requirements.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside, ruling in favor of the appellant, and the appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The case involves a prosecution for defamation initiated against Rajdeep Sardesai and others by the Additional Commissioner of Police in Andhra Pradesh. The prosecution alleged that a news item published by the appellants implicated the second respondent in the Sohrabuddin encounter case, damaging his reputation. The appellants challenged the summoning orders issued by the Magistrate, contending that their names were not specifically mentioned in the sanction order for prosecution. They also argued that the acts attributed to the second respondent were not related to his public functions, thus not falling under Section 199 of the Cr.P.C.

Issues:

Whether the sanction for prosecution against the appellants was valid, despite their names not being specifically mentioned in the sanction order?

Whether the acts attributed to the second respondent were related to his public functions, thereby falling under Section 199 of the Cr.P.C.?

Held:

The court held that it wasn't necessary for the State Government to issue separate sanction orders against each appellant. Since they were all responsible for telecasting and publishing the allegedly defamatory news item, one sanction covering all involved parties was deemed sufficient.

The power exercised by the State Government under Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. is administrative and ministerial. The satisfaction required for sanction is subjective and lies with the State Government.

The acts attributed to the second respondent, allegedly aiding the Gujarat Police, were deemed relevant to his public functions. Determination of whether these acts fell under his official discharge of public functions or not was to be made during trial after examining all relevant facts and evidence.

Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the previous sanction for prosecution against the appellants.

Facts:

Land was acquired by notification dated 12.03.2008, invoking urgency provisions and dispensing with the right of objection under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Some landowners also challenged notifications from 1979 or 1980.

Issues:

Whether the delay in challenging the acquisition by the landowners affected the maintainability of the cases.

Whether the High Court's discretion in entertaining the writ petitions on merits despite delay should be interfered with by the Supreme Court.

Whether the High Court's directions were applicable as a precedent for future cases.

Whether the appellants' claim regarding the acquisition of their abadi land had merit.

Held:

The appellants were not aggrieved by the acquisition per se but when they found the land was used for residential development instead of industrial purposes.

The High Court exercised discretion in entertaining the writ petitions on merits despite delay, and the Supreme Court did not find grounds to interfere with that discretion.

The High Court's directions were given in unique circumstances and would not form a precedent for future cases.

The Court upheld the High Court's decision considering the ground realities and balancing equities between landowners and authorities.

The claim regarding the acquisition of abadi land lacked merit as denied by the authorities, and the Court found no basis for the appellants' plea based on parity with other villages. The contempt petitions also stand disposed of.

Facts:

The respondent, Anil Kumar Sharma, was a clerk at ESI Hospital in Agra, Uttar Pradesh. He was transferred to KRB Hospital, Agra, where an FIR was lodged against him under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Sharma filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR.

Issues:

The appeal raises the question of the extent to which a High Court can exercise its powers in issuing directions on the procedural aspects of criminal trials.

Held:

The Court allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. It criticizes the High Court for issuing sweeping directions not in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While acknowledging the concern regarding delay in criminal trials, the Court emphasizes the principle of judicial restraint and the separation of powers. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions without sufficient data and material. The Court directs the state to ensure compliance with certain legal requirements but rejects the broader directions issued by the High Court.

Facts

The appellant, a Small Scale Industrial Unit, sought exemption from payment of excise duty for goods manufactured in its factory under various brand names, including 'Kalimark'. The Department denied the exemption, claiming that the brand name belonged to a third party. The dispute stemmed from a family settlement agreement, the Deed of Mutual Agreement dated 12.3.1993, which addressed the ownership of the 'Kalimark' trademark.

Issues:

Whether the appellant had legal ownership of the 'Kalimark' trademark within their marketing area.

Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from excise duty.

Held:

The Court held in favor of the appellant, stating that they had legal ownership of the 'Kalimark' trademark within their marketing area, as per the Deed of Mutual Agreement. The agreement clearly vested the trademark in all the parties, including the appellant, and permitted its use without payment of royalty. The Court cited the Commissioner's acknowledgment that the appellant had exclusive ownership rights over the brand name 'Kalimark' within their marketing area, which predated the impugned notification. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to exemption from excise duty. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

The case revolves around the challenge to the constitutional validity of regulations imposed by the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC). These regulations require captive power plants to purchase a minimum amount of energy from renewable sources.

Issues:

Whether the regulations framed by RERC are constitutionally valid.

Whether the regulatory jurisdiction extends to captive power plants.

Whether the penalties imposed for non-compliance with the regulations are justified.

Held:

The regulations are framed with the objective of protecting the environment and preventing pollution, aligning with the Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties enshrined in the Constitution.

The regulatory jurisdiction extends to captive power plants, as they are connected to the distribution network of distribution licensees.

Penalties for non-compliance are not considered taxes but surcharges aimed at ensuring compliance and achieving the objectives of the regulations.

Decision: The Court upheld the validity of the regulations, emphasizing their importance in promoting renewable energy and protecting the environment.

Facts:

Block assessment of the respondent-assessee for certain assessment years was sought to be initiated following a search conducted under the Income Tax Act.

The High Court interfered with the warrant of authorization issued under Section 132 of the Act, which authorized the search, based on the sufficiency and adequacy of the reasons recorded by the authorities.

Issues:

Scope of High Court's power to interfere with the warrant of authorization under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Compliance with procedural requirements and necessity of a reasonable belief justifying the search action under the Income Tax Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference with the warrant of authorization was not justified. It emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and the necessity of a reasonable belief justifying the search action under the Income Tax Act. The Court outlined the principles deduced from previous decisions, emphasizing the need for an honest and bona fide formation of opinion by the authorized official. It rejected the High Court's findings regarding manipulation of records and emphasized that suspicion should not be the basis of judicial orders.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the proceedings against the assessee to continue from the stage where they were interdicted.

Facts:

The case involved Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution to restrain the Union of India and all State Governments from using public funds on government advertisements aimed at projecting individual functionaries of the government or a political party.

Issues:

Whether the use of public funds for government advertisements that primarily aimed to project individual functionaries was constitutional.

Held:

The Court emphasized the need to avoid patronizing any particular media house or newspaper group when awarding advertisements, suggesting equal distribution among newspapers based on circulation. Furthermore, it ruled that the legitimate objectives of advertisements could be achieved without featuring the photograph of any particular functionary.

In departing from the views of the Committee, the Court suggested that only the President, Prime Minister, and Chief Justice of the country should have an exception regarding the publication of photographs, allowing them to decide the matter themselves. Advertisements commemorating the anniversaries of acknowledged personalities, such as the father of the nation, were deemed an exception, carrying the photograph of the departed leader.

Decision: The Court granted the writ sought by the appellants, restraining the Union of India and all State Governments from using public funds on government advertisements aimed at projecting individual functionaries of the government or a political party.