Facts:

The state acquired land, including the suit land (survey no. 50), and transferred it to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

The landowners contested the acquisition through multiple legal proceedings, initially unsuccessful at the High Court level.

Subsequently, the landowners made a representation to the State Government, leading to the issuance of a notification dated April 12, 2001, withdrawing the suit land from acquisition.

However, this withdrawal notification was later revoked by another notification dated March 22, 2005.

Issues:

Whether the judgments of the High Court dismissing earlier writ petitions operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings?

Whether the Single Judge and Division Bench erred in their interpretation and application of the law regarding the withdrawal of land acquisition?

Held:

The Court held that the Single Judge erred in quashing the notification dated March 22, 2005, as it contradicted previous findings regarding possession and the finality of acquisition proceedings. The dismissal of earlier writ petitions, as found in the judgment dated March 16, 1998, operates as res judicata in subsequent proceedings. [Para 54-61]

The Court criticized the Single Judge for disregarding earlier findings that possession was taken in 1984 and that acquisition proceedings had become final. The validity of the judgment dated March 16, 1998, based on Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, was affirmed. [Para 57]

The Court emphasized that the withdrawal notification issued on April 12, 2001, came after 16 years of possession by the state, during which development activities had been carried out by the BDA. [Para 60]

The Court ruled that the landowners' actions in seeking withdrawal from acquisition after the dismissal of their previous writ petitions were unjustified and impermissible. The failure to disclose relevant facts to the State Government further undermined their case. [Para 62-70]

Decision: The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Bangalore Development Authority, holding that the High Court's judgments were unsustainable due to errors in judgment and the principle of res judicata. The landowners' actions in seeking withdrawal from acquisition were deemed unjustified and impermissible given the prior rejections of similar petitions.

Facts:

The petitioner sought the transfer of two cases, one for dissolution of marriage and another for custody of a minor child, from the Family Court in Alappuzha, Kerala, to the Family Court in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The respondent's counsel referred to a decision by a coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court in Krishna Veni Nagam vs. Harish Nagam, proposing the use of video conferencing instead of transferring the cases.

Issues:

The Court had to consider whether the directions issued in the Krishna Veni Nagam case, advocating the use of video conferencing in matrimonial and custody matters, adequately considered the mandatory procedures outlined in relevant statutes such as the Family Courts Act, 1984, and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

It also needed to address concerns regarding confidentiality and effectiveness of reconciliation efforts through video conferencing in family disputes.

Held:

The Court recognized the importance of reconciliation efforts in family matters and raised concerns about the adequacy of video conferencing in maintaining confidentiality and ensuring effective reconciliation. It emphasized the significance of physical presence in reconciliatory efforts and suggested that the issue of using video conferencing in matrimonial disputes required reconsideration.

Accordingly, the Court decided that the matter needed to be reviewed by a larger bench. It directed the Registry to place the case before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate bench to reconsider the use of video conferencing in matrimonial disputes, taking into account the urgency of the matter.

Facts:

The appellant, Vasant Rao Guhe, was a Sub-Engineer in the Irrigation Department, accused of acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The prosecution alleged that between 1970 to 1992, the appellant acquired assets valued at Rs. 7,94,033/- which were disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The trial court convicted the appellant based on its own calculations of the appellant's income and expenditure, deviating from the figures presented by the prosecution.

Issues:

Whether the charge against the appellant underwent a metamorphosis during the trial, violating the appellant's right to prior notice of the accusations against him?

Whether the trial court's speculative calculations of the appellant's income and expenditure, without concrete evidence, violated the principles of criminal jurisprudence?

Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in possession of disproportionate assets as per Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

Held:

The charge against the appellant underwent a metamorphosis during the trial, as the final conviction was based on different figures than those originally framed in the charge sheet. This violated the appellant's right to prior notice of the accusations against him (Para. 17).

The trial court's speculative calculations of the appellant's income and expenditure, without concrete evidence, violated the principles of criminal jurisprudence (Para. 18).

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in possession of disproportionate assets. As per Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the burden of proof lay with the prosecution, and the appellant was not required to offer an explanation in the absence of such proof (Para. 20).

Consequently, the appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside, granting him the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges (Para. 22).

Facts:

The appellants filed a suit for redemption of mortgage, which was initially decreed by two lower courts but reversed in second appeal by the High Court.

The main issue revolved around determining the nature of the deed dated 21.04.1953 (Exhibit 62) – whether it was a mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with an option to repurchase.

Issues:

Whether the deed in question constituted a mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with an option to repurchase.

Held:

The agreement, despite being styled as a sale deed, was deemed to be a mortgage by conditional sale due to the presence of a clause for reconveyance and other relevant factors.( Paragraph 15)

The High Court's finding that there was no debtor and creditor relationship between the parties and that the agreement was a sale deed with an option to repurchase was deemed unsustainable.( Paragraph 17)

The Supreme Court held that the agreement in question was a mortgage by conditional sale and set aside the High Court's decision. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant.( Paragraph 18)

Facts:

The appellant was accused of offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The victim, a minor girl, voluntarily left her school due to harassment by her mother and eloped with the accused, with whom she was in a consensual relationship.

The trial court initially sentenced the appellant to two years and nine months of imprisonment, which was reduced due to the nature of the relationship and the absence of coercion or force.

The High Court enhanced the sentence to seven years of imprisonment, arguing that there were no adequate reasons for the trial court's leniency.

Issues:

Whether the trial court's decision to impose a lesser sentence was valid.

Whether the High Court's enhancement of the sentence was justified.

Held:

In considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and in light of the appellant's age, the consensual nature of the relationship, and the absence of force or coercion, the trial court's decision to impose a lesser sentence was deemed valid.

The Supreme Court observed that the case was distinguishable from precedents cited by the State, as those cases involved forcible rape and threats, unlike the present case. Moreover, the Court noted that the incident occurred before the amendment of the IPC in 2013, which mandated a minimum sentence of seven years for certain offences related to sexual assault. As such, special reasons were required to impose a lesser sentence, which the trial court had appropriately considered.

Given these considerations and the fact that the appellant had already served more than three years of imprisonment, including the initial sentence and the period after the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the appellant's immediate release, unless he was required in any other case.

Facts:

The petitioners, Monica Kumar & Anr., alleged harassment by police officials purportedly acting under the influence of the Chairman of a medical college. The incident led to the filing of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Following court orders, the petitioners attempted to serve notice to the Station House Officer (SHO) but were assaulted by police officials. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, who refused to accept it. This led to an application being filed in the pending writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (SLP), which directed an inquiry into the matter.

Issues:

The police misconduct, the rights of citizens, and the appropriate actions to be taken against erring police officials.

Additionally, the Court had to assess the credibility of the petitioners' version of events and determine the appropriate course of action regarding the FIR filed against them.

Held:

The Court emphasized the need for police sensitization regarding citizens' rights and the civilized maintenance of law and order.

Training programs, such as the one proposed by IGNOU in collaboration with NHRC, were deemed essential to sensitize police personnel.

Stern measures were advocated for dealing with police officials whose actions amount to misconduct or criminality.

The Court found the response of the Disciplinary Authority to be inadequate in addressing police misconduct and stressed the need for more serious consequences.

While quashing the proceedings arising from the FIR against the petitioners, the Court noted the exaggeration in their version of events but directed adequate protection for them.

Decision: The Court accepted the petitioners' plea to quash the proceedings arising from the FIR, while refraining from directing the suspension of the concerned police officials due to the exaggerated nature of the petitioners' claims. Instead, it directed authorities to provide sufficient protection to the petitioners and ensure they are not subjected to harassment or threats by police officials.

Facts:

P.D. Goel, a judicial officer, challenged his retirement at the age of 58, which was contrary to the rules that mandated retirement at 60. The High Court initially upheld his retirement as a recommendation to the Governor for removal, a decision affirmed by a Division Bench.

Issues:

Whether the retrospective retirement of the appellant at the age of 58 was justified in law, considering the authority vested in the High Court and the Governor under the Constitution and the relevant rules.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court, despite its control over disciplinary matters concerning judicial officers, could not itself pass orders for dismissal, removal, or termination. Such actions could only be recommended to the Governor, who holds the authority to make the final decision. The appellant had not been retired by the Governor, rendering the retirement at 58 invalid.

The Division Bench's decision treating the retirement notification as a recommendation to the Governor was set aside. Consequently, the Governor's order retrospectively retiring the appellant at 58 was also invalidated.

The appellant was entitled to his salary, allowances, and all other consequential benefits until his actual retirement age of 60, in accordance with the rules.

Facts:

The appellant, The Citizen Co-operative Society Limited, claimed a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for its income. However, the Assessing Officer denied the deduction, stating that it was not applicable to the appellant as it engaged in banking business for the public at large rather than solely providing credit facilities to its members.

Issues:

Whether the appellant qualifies as a cooperative society entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Whether the appellant's activities fall within the definition of a cooperative bank, thus excluding it from the deduction under Section 80P(4).

Whether the appellant's activities comply with the Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 (MACSA).

Held:

The provision of Section 80P is intended to promote the growth of the cooperative sector and should be interpreted liberally in favor of the assessee .

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) recognizes two types of cooperative societies: those engaged in banking business and those providing credit facilities to their members .

The appellant does not meet the definition of a cooperative bank and is not excluded from the deduction under Section 80P(4) .

The appellant's activities, including engaging with nominal members who were not true members and conducting finance business without proper approvals, were found to be in violation of the Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 (MACSA) .

Consequently, the appellant cannot be considered a cooperative society solely serving its members and providing credit facilities exclusively to them, rendering it ineligible for the deduction under Section 80P .

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities.

Facts:

The appellant, U. Manjunath Rao, contested a decision of the trial court directing him to execute a rectification deed in a partition deed and granting permanent injunction restraining interference with the possession of the respondent, U. Chandrashekar, in certain property.

The appellant argued that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without proper appreciation of the evidence and legal issues raised.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without proper appreciation of the evidence and legal issues raised.

Whether the trial court's decision regarding the rectification deed and permanent injunction was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of reasoned judgments, stating that reason is the life of law, and the absence of analysis demonstrates a lack of application of mind. Quoting from previous judgments, the Court reiterated that appellate courts, especially in first appeals, have a duty to thoroughly examine the evidence and issues and provide reasoned judgments.

Referring to Order XLI Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court highlighted the requirement for appellate court judgments to state the reasons for the decision. It emphasized that while affirming or reversing trial court judgments, appellate courts must provide proper analysis and reasoning to support their conclusions.

Based on these principles, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, directing the High Court to dispose of the appeal within six months. No costs were awarded in the case.