Facts:

The case involved a matrimonial dispute between Jitender Arora & Ors. (appellants) and Sukriti Arora & Ors. (respondents). The wife obtained an ex parte divorce from a U.K. court, while the husband obtained a divorce from an Indian court. Subsequently, the husband shifted to India along with their daughter. The wife filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking directions for the husband to hand over the custody of the daughter to her.

Issues:

The court was to determine the custody of the daughter in the context of the matrimonial dispute between the parents.

Held:

The paramount consideration in custody disputes is the welfare of the child. The daughter in this case, being 15 years old, is deemed mature enough to understand what is in her best interest (para 10, 12).

The daughter unequivocally expressed her desire to be with her father and stated her reluctance to go to the U.K. The court cannot risk sending her to a foreign country against her wishes, which may prove to be detrimental to her well-being (para 14).

Despite giving the mother ample chances, including temporary custody, she was unable to win over the confidence of the daughter. Therefore, the welfare of the daughter lies in the continued company of her father (para 15).

The High Court's decision to grant custody to the mother was based on abstract notions without considering the specific circumstances of the case. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is set aside (para 16).

Considering the age of the child and the circumstances of the case, the court concluded that custody should be with the father. It is noted that within three years, the child would reach the age of majority and would have the freedom to decide her own course of action (para 17).

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. Custody of the child is granted to the father.

Facts:

Black Pearl Hotels (Pvt) Ltd. filed an appeal against M/S Planet M Retail Ltd.

Dispute arose from a conducting agreement between the parties.

The agreement included an arbitration clause.

Black Pearl Hotels sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issues:

Whether the conducting agreement constituted a lease or a license.

Whether the determination of the nature and character of the document can be delegated to the Registrar of the Court.

Held:

The Court clarified that the determination of the nature and character of a document, especially when contested, falls within the judicial function and cannot be delegated to an officer of the Court. It further held that while an officer may examine documents for stamp duty purposes, the determination of the document's nature remains with the Judge.

The Court set aside previous orders and remanded the matter to the High Court for the learned Single Judge to determine the nature and character of the document and proceed with the case accordingly.

Facts:

The appellant, T.A. Kathiru Kunju, was engaged by the respondent, Jacob Mathai, to handle a matrimonial dispute and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Instead of filing a complaint under the N.I. Act, the appellant filed a complaint under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The respondent filed a complaint with the Bar Council alleging that the appellant failed to return a cheque that was to be used as evidence in the complaint.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India found the appellant guilty of gross negligence and imposed disciplinary action.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's actions constituted gross negligence or mere negligence in discharging his professional duties.

Whether the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Committee was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the conclusion of gross negligence was not justified. The Court emphasized the distinction between negligence and gross negligence in legal practice, citing precedents.

The failure to obtain an acknowledgment for the returned cheque did not amount to gross negligence, especially considering the explanation provided by the appellant that the cheque was handed over to the investigating agency.

Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Disciplinary Committee. The Court also directed the refund of the amount deposited with the Bar Council of India.

Facts:

Lal Singh Marabi, the appellant, suffered severe injuries in a motor accident, leading to the amputation of his left leg. He filed a claim seeking compensation for permanent disability.

Issues:

The assessment of compensation for the appellant's permanent disability, considering factors like loss of livelihood and medical expenses.

Held:

The Supreme Court found that the lower courts erred in reducing the permanent disability factor from 90% to 60%. The Court considered the appellant's inability to pursue his livelihood as a driver or daily wage laborer due to the amputation. Based on medical certificates and the appellant's circumstances, the Court determined the permanent disability to be 90%.

The Court recalculated compensation based on the appellant's annual income and the multiplier method, awarding Rs. 5,20,200 instead of the Rs. 3,57,800 awarded by the High Court. Additionally, the Court increased the compensation for the cost of an artificial limb from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 1,00,000.

The Court ordered the insurer to pay the enhanced compensation amount along with interest accrued, and allowed them to recover it from other responsible parties.

Facts:

The petitioner, Asha Ranjan, sought the transfer of the third respondent, a notorious criminal-cum-politician, from Siwan Jail, Bihar, to Tihar Jail, Delhi. The petitioner's husband, a senior reporter, was brutally murdered by a group of persons, including the third respondent. The third respondent has a history of criminal activities, being declared a history-sheeter type 'A' and facing multiple cases, including murder and attempted murder.

Issues:

Whether the court has the authority to order the transfer of an accused from one state to another.

Whether such a transfer is necessary to ensure a fair trial and protect the interests of the victims and society.

The applicability of Section 3 of the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950, in the context of court-ordered transfers.

Balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of victims and society in cases involving potential witness intimidation and compromised justice.

Held:

The right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the interests of the accused, prosecution, victims, and society. The court must weigh these factors to ensure the Rule of Law.

In cases where there is a conflict between the rights of the accused and the interests of victims or society, the court must prioritize the collective interest in ensuring a fair trial. Fair trial cannot be compromised to accommodate the preferences of the accused.

While Section 3 of the Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950, empowers the executive to transfer prisoners, it does not restrict the court's authority to order transfers in the interest of justice and fair trial.

The court, under Article 142 of the Constitution, has the power to issue appropriate directions to ensure a fair trial, including ordering the transfer of accused individuals.

Public interest and the need for a fair trial override equitable considerations. The court must actively intervene to prevent witness intimidation and uphold the sanctity of the justice system .

Decision: The State of Bihar is directed to transfer the third respondent from Siwan Jail to Tihar Jail in Delhi within a week. The transfer should be conducted in accordance with applicable rules, and pending trials are to be conducted via video conferencing to ensure a fair trial.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute over the allotment of land by the Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation to M/S. MESCO KALINGA STEEL LTD. and others for establishing a steel plant. The Corporation requested the State Government's approval, which was granted subject to certain terms and conditions, including the execution of a lease deed. Despite receiving advance possession, the proposed allottee failed to execute the lease deed. The Corporation eventually cancelled the possession and resumed the land.

Issues:

The non-execution of the lease deed, the Corporation's authority to cancel possession, forfeiture of amounts deposited by the proposed allottee, and the applicability of promissory estoppel.

Held:

The court held that the execution of the lease deed was a condition precedent for the allotment of land. As the lease deed was never executed, the relationship of lessor-lessee never came into being. Thus, certain clauses, such as Clause 18 regarding notice before resumption of land, did not come into force. (Para 12-13)

It was found that the proposed allottee failed to remedy the breach despite receiving advance possession and ample time. The transaction became void due to the proposed allottee's own lapse and negligence, justifying the cancellation of possession. (Para 14)

Forfeiture of the amount deposited by the proposed allottee was deemed appropriate under Section 70 of the Contract Act for the use and occupation of the land. (Para 16)

The court rejected the proposed allottee's claim of promissory estoppel as no assurance was given by the Corporation. The Corporation acted as per the prescribed mode, informing the proposed allottee of the lease deed requirement. (Para 21)

The High Court's direction to lease out the balance land was deemed misdirected due to the proposed allottee's failure to fulfill obligations and intervening events. The Corporation's action of resuming the land was deemed lawful. The appeals are allowed. (Para 23-24)

Facts:

The case involved the appellants appealing against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Ayodhya Prasad @ Rahasu. The incident occurred when the deceased and his laborers were cutting a tree on his land. The appellants, according to the prosecution, stopped them, leading to a quarrel during which the deceased was fatally assaulted.

Issues:

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable considering the circumstances of the case, particularly whether the incident fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.

Held:

The court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence. Despite some witnesses turning hostile, their testimonies regarding the presence and involvement of the appellants were considered credible to a certain extent.

The court also considered whether the incident fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which pertains to sudden fights without premeditation and without taking undue advantage or acting cruelly. After a meticulous analysis, the court found that the incident indeed arose from a sudden fight without premeditation and that the injuries sustained by the deceased suggested no undue advantage or cruelty by the appellants.

Consequently, the court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), considering the intention and knowledge of the appellants in causing the injuries. The appellants were sentenced to the period already undergone, taking into account the time spent in jail.

The appeal thus succeeds and is accordingly allowed.

Facts:

The incident occurred on 19th November 2006 when the deceased, Ayodhya Prasad @ Rahasu, along with other laborers, went to cut trees on his land. The appellants confronted them, leading to a quarrel during which the deceased was attacked and subsequently died due to his injuries.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC or 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed this decision.

Issues:

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC was sustainable.

Held:

The court analyzed the evidence and applied legal principles regarding the conviction. It noted that the incident arose from a sudden fight without premeditation, falling under exception (4) of Section 300 IPC.

Therefore, the court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the conviction and reducing the sentence to the period already served. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Facts:

The case involves allegations of manipulation and fraud in the entrance examination for admissions into medical colleges conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board under the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board Act, 2007.

The appellants were found to have obtained admission to the MBBS course through deceitful means, which included breaching the computer system, procuring assistance from others to answer exam questions, and manipulating seating arrangements and exam centers.

Issues:

The fraudulent practices employed by the appellants to secure admission to the MBBS course and the invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution to determine the appropriate course of action.

Held:

The court observed that the appellants' admission was based on a well-orchestrated plan of fraud and deception, commonly referred to as a scam. Despite the appellants' arguments that they were young and immature and should not be held accountable for their actions, the court rejected this defense, emphasizing that even juveniles face consequences for wrongdoing.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution must consider the larger interest of the administration of justice and prevent manifest injustice. In this case, the court found that upholding the cancellation of the appellants' admissions was not unjust, as their admissions were improper due to fraud.

The court emphasized that nothing obtained by fraud can be sustained, and it cannot allow fraudulent acts to prevail over the principles of fairness and legitimacy. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeals and upheld the cancellation of the appellants' admissions to the MBBS course, emphasizing the importance of truth, honesty, and fairness in the administration of justice.

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the cancellation of the appellants' admissions to the MBBS course was upheld.