Facts:

The case involves the validity of amendments made to the Telangana (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, following the formation of the state of Telangana. These amendments reduced the number of members in the Agricultural Market Committee and shortened their term of office.

Issues:

The constitutionality of the retrospective amendments and their impact on the rights of existing and future members of the Market Committee.

Held:

The Court affirmed the competence of the state legislature to enact laws retrospectively or prospectively within constitutional parameters. [Para 23]

Retroactive amendments made by the legislature do not constitute an encroachment upon judicial power, as long as they rectify defects in the law highlighted by court decisions. [Para 29]

The doctrine of colorable legislation does not question the motives behind legislative actions but rather focuses on the competence of the legislature to enact laws. [Para 30]

The retrospective amendment substituting 'appointed' with 'nominated' effectively removed the distinction between existing and future members of the Market Committee. Thus, the amendment did not violate constitutional provisions or democratic norms. [Para 31]

The Court noted that the characteristics of Market Committee and Special Market Committee are different, and therefore, Article 14 is not attracted. [Para 33]

Facts:

Saroj Agarwalla filed a petition for the grant of probate of a will purportedly executed by Jagdish Prasad Tulshan, claiming to be his only surviving sister.

Two respondents, Yasheel Jain and Malati Tulshan, lodged caveats opposing the grant of probate, asserting their respective interests in the estate of the deceased.

The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the appellant's petition and upheld the caveats filed by the respondents.

Issues:

Whether the respondents had caveatable interest in the probate proceedings.

Whether the caveats filed by the respondents should be discharged.

Held:

The Division Bench held that both respondents had caveatable interest in the probate proceedings and upheld their caveats. The court clarified the limited scope of the probate court's inquiry and emphasized that it is only concerned with the execution of the will and the testator's mental capacity at the time of execution. The court's decision was based on the totality of facts and circumstances presented. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The case involved a challenge to the process of promotion from Class IV to Class III posts in the District Court of Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

Initially, a written examination and interview were conducted, but due to discrepancies in marks allocation, a fresh examination was ordered.

The High Court intervened and reinstated the original order of appointment.

The appellants participated in the fresh selection process but later challenged the result.

Issues:

Whether the appellants, having participated in the fresh selection process, could challenge the result.

Interpretation of the rules governing the selection process.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, citing the principle of estoppel. Once candidates participate in a selection process without objection, they cannot later challenge the process merely because they were unsuccessful. The Court also noted some vagueness in the interpretation of the rules but found no glaring illegality. In the interest of justice, the Court directed that the appellant, if still in service, could continue to work provisionally in the Class III post until the next selection process. The appellant could participate in future selections and claim consideration for seniority based on the period spent in the Class III post if successful. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Division Bench and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

Facts:

The Court had issued directions based on a status report submitted by a Committee consisting of Justice R M Lodha, Justice Ashok Bhan, and Justice RV Raveendran regarding the implementation of reforms recommended for BCCI.

The Committee observed that BCCI had violated the Court's directions and undermined the Committee's authority.

BCCI's President had reportedly sought clarification from the ICC Chairman regarding the appointment of a nominee of the CAG, suggesting it might constitute governmental interference.

Issues:

Whether BCCI had complied with the Court's directions and recommendations.

Whether the President of BCCI's actions regarding seeking clarification from the ICC Chairman constituted defiance of the Court's judgment.

Held:

The Court found BCCI in violation of its directions and expressed serious concerns about its conduct. Despite initial denial, it was established that the President of BCCI had indeed sought clarification from the ICC Chairman regarding the appointment of a nominee of the CAG. The Court issued additional directions to ensure compliance with its previous orders, including ceasing funds disbursement to state associations until they commit to implementing reforms, appointing an independent auditor to scrutinize BCCI's finances, and requiring BCCI to file compliance statements. The next hearing was scheduled to review BCCI's compliance.

Facts:

A circular issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir's Education Department prohibited government employees, especially those in the Education Department, from engaging in private tutoring or coaching activities without prior permission.

The respondents challenged this circular through a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.

The High Court quashed the circular and issued directions prohibiting private tutoring by government teachers and private practice by government doctors.

The State Government appealed this decision before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the circular issued by the Education Department could regulate private practice by government doctors.

Whether the High Court's directions regarding private practice by government doctors were justified.

Whether there was a need for scrutiny of conditions in public-government hospitals in Jammu and Kashmir.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision regarding the regulation of private practice by government doctors was erroneous. It emphasized that the circular in question pertained specifically to officials in the Education Department and did not extend to government doctors. The regulation of private practice by government doctors is governed by separate rules framed by the State Government. Additionally, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for proper scrutiny of the conditions in public-government hospitals in Jammu and Kashmir. It directed the High Court to constitute a Committee of Experts for this purpose. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment regarding private practice by government doctors and remanded the proceedings back to the High Court for fresh consideration in light of its observations.

Facts:

The case revolved around the validity of a notification issued by the Central Government under Paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995.

The notification prescribed norms for conversion cost, packing charges, and process loss of raw materials, excluding packing materials in conversion, as well as packing and process loss of packing materials in packaging.

Issues:

Whether the notification was issued mechanically, lacking any application of mind.

Whether the notification was valid in law.

Held:

In addressing the first issue, the court emphasized the importance of being circumspect in granting interim relief, as the consequences of such actions could have serious ramifications for society, consumers, and public interest in the long term.

Regarding the second issue, the court stressed the need for caution when interfering with the functioning of the drug industry. It noted that such interference could have wide-ranging implications, not only commercially but also for the people of the country.

Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned judgments and orders, indicating that the notification in question was deemed valid under the law.

Facts:

The appellant, Harbeer Singh, challenged the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, wherein the accused respondents were acquitted.

The case revolved around the murder of Balbir Singh, the brother of the complainant, allegedly perpetrated by Sheeshpal and others.

The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimonies and other evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.

The Trial Court convicted the accused, but the High Court acquitted them, citing doubts about the reliability of the witnesses and other lapses in the investigation.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's acquittal of the accused respondents was justified.

Whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere with the judgment of the High Court unless it was unreasonable, perverse, or illegal. The Court emphasized the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While analyzing the evidence, the Court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of eyewitnesses and noted lapses in the investigation. It concurred with the High Court's assessment that the evidence of eyewitnesses was not reliable and trustworthy. The presence of chance witnesses and other factors further weakened the prosecution's case. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the acquittal of the accused by the High Court.

Facts:

The case involves the murder of an individual, witnessed by the daughter and father of the deceased. The trial court convicted six individuals, but the High Court later acquitted them. The son of the deceased filed an appeal against the acquittal.

Issues:

The evaluation of evidence presented in the case, the reliability of witnesses (including a child witness), the significance of minor contradictions, the impact of delay in proceedings, and the relevance of motive in the absence of direct evidence.

Held:

The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, but the burden on the prosecution is to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and not all doubts .

When two views are possible based on the evidence, the one favorable to the accused should be adopted, but this doesn't warrant acquittal based on surmises or fanciful considerations .

The testimony of a child witness must be carefully evaluated and corroborated, but reliable evidence from a child witness should not be summarily rejected .

Evidence from closely related witnesses should be scrutinized, but relation to the deceased doesn't inherently discredit their testimony if found credible .

Minor contradictions or embellishments in prosecution evidence do not necessarily affect its core and should not be grounds for rejection unless they seriously affect credibility.

Delay in examination of witnesses or dispatch of FIR doesn't necessarily render the prosecution unreliable unless it prejudicially affects the accused.

Motive loses significance if there is direct and trustworthy evidence of the crime, and absence of motive doesn't invalidate such evidence.

Decision: The trial court's analysis of the evidence was correct, and the order of conviction passed by the trial court is restored. The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The assessing authority initially allowed exemption from sales tax on polished granite stones but later re-opened the assessment and disallowed the exemption based on the argument that polished and unpolished granite stones are covered under separate entries in the Second Schedule of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Issues:

Whether there is a distinction between polished granite stones or slabs and tiles for the purpose of sales tax exemption?

Whether the assessing authority properly considered the relevant entries in the Second Schedule of the Act?

Held:

The Court held that there is indeed a distinction between polished granite stones or slabs and tiles. Polished granite stones used in a building fall under one entry of the schedule, while tiles, which are produced by a different process, constitute a separate commodity with a different commercial identity.

The process involved in the production of tiles is crucial for determining their classification and eligibility for exemption. The assessing officer failed to adequately consider this aspect and did not properly elaborate on the relevant entries in the schedule.

The assessing officer must conduct a thorough inquiry into the production process of tiles and consider the appropriate entry in the schedule before making a final determination on the exemption from sales tax.

Decision: The Court allowed the appeals and remitted the matter back to the assessing officer for re-adjudication in light of the principles elucidated in the judgment.