Facts:

On 04.07.2009, at about 3:00 a.m., the deceased Rameshbhai Prajapati, who was the Taluka President of Shivsena, was assaulted in his sleep with a large knife by the accused persons. The motive for the assault was allegedly due to the marriage of the deceased's younger brother with a woman from the community of the accused. The deceased died on the spot, and his wife witnessed the incident. The accused fled the scene after the attack.

Issues:

Whether the accused are guilty of various offences under the IPC based on the evidence presented.

Held:

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Supreme Court held as follows:

The Court noted that although the murder was proved, the ingredients of the unlawful assembly were not established as the minimum requirement of five persons was not met. However, the common object of the accused was proved by the prosecution.

The Court also noted discrepancies in the evidence and acquitted accused No. 4 due to reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the High Court, and upholding the conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 1 to 3 for their involvement in the murder with a common object.

Facts:

The Central Government, through Rule 7 of the SCST Rules, vested investigative authority for offenses committed under the SCST Act with an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). However, the appellant-State issued a notification allowing the investigative process to be carried out by officers three ranks below the rank of DSP. The validity of this notification was challenged.

Issues:

Whether the notification issued by the State Government, relaxing the provision of Rule 7, is valid.

Whether the power vested with the State Government under Section 9 of the SCST Act allows it to override Rule 7 of the SCST Rules.

Held:

The power vested with the Central Government to require the investigative process to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of DSP, as per Rule 7 of the SCST Rules, is upheld.

Section 9 of the SCST Act grants expansive powers to the State Government, allowing it to delegate investigation authority to any officer it deems necessary, irrespective of whether they belong to the police department or not.

The non-obstante clause in Section 9 empowers the State Government to exercise its authority irrespective of the provisions of the SCST Act or SCST Rules, thus allowing it to relax the provisions of Rule 7.

The notification issued by the State Government, relaxing the requirement of investigation by officers not below the rank of DSP, is upheld.

Decision: The court upholds the validity of the notification issued by the State Government, allowing investigation by officers below the rank of DSP, and affirms the expansive powers granted to the State Government under Section 9 of the SCST Act.

Facts:

The appeal stemmed from a dispute over a lease agreement entered into by Parsi Lying-in Hospital (PLIH) with Krimson Health Ventures Private Limited (KHPL) to renovate a hospital.

Some trustees of Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) challenged the legality of the agreement, leading to litigation.

During the litigation, KHPL terminated the agreement.

The Supreme Court was called upon to decide the validity of the agreement and subsequent termination.

Issues:

The legality and validity of the lease agreement between PLIH and KHPL.

The effect of KHPL's termination of the agreement on the ongoing litigation.

Held:

The Supreme Court declined to examine the legality of the agreement due to its termination. The Court directed that the terminated agreement would not be given effect to. PLIH/BPP were given the liberty to enter into any other arrangement in the interest of the Trusts/beneficiaries, subject to necessary approvals.

The Court emphasized the duty of trustees to fulfill the object and purpose of the Trust and to act in the interest of the Trust and its beneficiaries. No costs were imposed on any party due to the Court's decision not to examine the issues on merits.

Facts:

The incident occurred on 30th January 1990, stemming from a dispute related to a Panchayat election. This resulted in violence, leading to the death of Ismail Khan. The trial court acquitted all seventeen accused, citing difficulties in identification due to darkness, a hostile witness, presence of injuries on both sides, and doubts regarding the presence of a key figure, the Sarpanch. The High Court, however, reversed the trial court's decision, convicting all accused of murder.

Issues:

The correctness of the trial court's decision to acquit all accused versus the High Court's decision to convict them.

Held:

The Supreme Court analyzed the trial court's reasoning and found it to be a "possible view" rather than erroneous. It emphasized the reasonableness of the trial court's conclusions given the circumstances. Criticizing the High Court for substituting its view, the Supreme Court set aside its judgment and acquitted all accused.

The Court stressed the importance of considering all evidence and circumstances before reaching a verdict, and highlighted the principle that a trial court's decision, if based on a reasonable view, should not be overturned lightly by higher courts.

Facts:

The Collector, Lakes and Waterways Development Authority (LAWDA), Srinagar, issued a notification for the acquisition of land for the construction of a housing colony for Dal dwellers.

The appellants' land was among those acquired, and they sought reference to the Reference Court for enhanced compensation.

The Reference Court initially awarded compensation at Rs. 2,50,000/- per Kanal, which the appellants contested, seeking enhancement to Rs. 4,00,000/- per Kanal.

The High Court dismissed both the State's appeal and the appellants' cross-appeal, affirming the compensation at Rs. 2,50,000/- per Kanal.

Issues:

Whether the appellants were entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,00,000/- per Kanal, similar to neighboring landowners in other references.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- per Kanal, along with other statutory benefits. The court emphasized the principle of non-discrimination when lands are acquired for the same purpose and are similar in nature.

The court found that the Reference Court had erred in discriminating against the appellants by awarding them lesser compensation compared to neighboring landowners. The judgment highlighted that when lands are acquired for the same purpose and are similar, discrimination in compensation is unjustified.

The court cited precedents to support its decision, emphasizing the importance of fair compensation for acquired lands. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, the judgments of the High Court were set aside, and the appellants were awarded enhanced compensation.

Facts:

The appellants filed an application before the Single Judge alleging that the respondents violated a court order by not depositing the entire compensation money received from NHAI with the High Court.

The respondents received a refund from the Income-Tax Department, part of which was originally deducted as TDS from the NHAI payment, and utilized it without court permission.

The Single Judge issued a Rule against the respondents and restrained them from operating bank accounts without securing the TDS amount.

Issues:

Whether the respondents' utilization of the income tax refund without court permission constitutes a violation of the court order.

Whether the Single Judge's order restraining the respondents from operating bank accounts without securing the TDS amount is justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the importance of respecting court orders and ensuring compliance, particularly regarding the protection of compensation amounts in legal proceedings. It found that the respondents' appropriation of the income tax refund without court permission was indeed a violation of the court order to secure the entire compensation amount.

The Court emphasized the need to protect the compensation amount and held that the respondents should not have utilized the refund without court permission.

However, it modified the Single Judge's order to allow the respondents to operate their bank accounts after securing a specific amount determined by the court. The Court clarified that any observations made in the judgment were specific to the order and should not influence the consideration of the contempt proceedings by the Single Judge.

Facts:

Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) filed a civil suit against P.R. Selvam Alagappan (the respondent) for recovery of dues arising from business transactions.

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant due to the respondent's failure to contest effectively.

The appellant initiated execution proceedings, which were contested by the respondent through objections and an application under Section 47 of the CPC.

Issues:

Whether the objections raised by the respondent to the execution petition were valid under Section 47 of the CPC.

Whether the Executing Court had the authority to question the validity of the decree.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the objections raised by the respondent were not valid under Section 47 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree or question its validity unless there are jurisdictional errors or the decree is a nullity. The objections raised by the respondent did not demonstrate any substantial defense to the decree or establish jurisdictional infirmity. Therefore, the objections were rejected.

The Court further clarified that Section 47 of the CPC limits the scope of scrutiny to objections related to the executability of the decree, based on jurisdictional infirmity or voidness. It reiterated that a decree of a court of law is sacrosanct in nature, and execution should not be thwarted on frivolous grounds.

The judgment directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution proceedings expeditiously. No costs were awarded in the matter.

Facts:

The respondent-assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the sale of ship materials, was dissolved due to the death of one partner. The issue arose regarding the valuation of closing stock for income tax assessment. The Assessing Officer initially accepted the method of valuation adopted by the assessee. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directing the valuation of closing stock at market price.

Issues:

Whether the valuation of closing stock at cost price was permissible in the case of a dissolved firm, or if it should be valued at market rate as per precedent.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court. It was ruled that when a business continues after the dissolution of a firm, it may not be necessary to follow market rates for valuing closing stock. As the business continued with the surviving partner after dissolution, the Assessing Officer's acceptance of the book value of the stock-in-trade was deemed a plausible and permissible view. Consequently, the CIT could not validly exercise powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

The Court referred to various legal precedents, including the case of A.L.A. Firm v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which discusses the valuation of closing stock upon dissolution of a firm.

The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the judgment of the High Court.

Facts:

The respondent Company borrowed a significant sum from a consortium of Banks, including the State Bank of Travancore. Subsequently, recovery proceedings were initiated, leading to a partial decree. The State Bank of Travancore assigned the debts due from the respondent Company to Kotak Mahindra Bank, resulting in legal disputes. The respondent Company filed a complaint alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, and conspiracy against the appellants, who were officers of the State Bank of Travancore.

Issues:

Whether the complaint against the appellants, who were officers of the State Bank of Travancore, was valid and whether there was sufficient ground to prosecute them for the alleged fraudulent activities.

Held:

The Court emphasized that the decision to issue process in a criminal case requires sufficient grounds and evidence. It was found that the State Bank of Travancore had failed to inform the respondent Company about the assignment of debts to Kotak Mahindra Bank, which was a crucial omission. The complainant withdrew the complaint against other accused individuals from Kotak Mahindra Bank, but the complaint against the appellants persisted.

The Court concluded that there was no valid reason to prosecute the appellants, as they were not directly involved in the fraudulent activities, and the complaint against them lacked substance.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the complaint against the appellants was quashed.