Facts:

The dispute revolved around agricultural land claimed by the plaintiff based on inheritance rights and by the defendants based on a purported Will.

The Trial Court granted the suit partially in favor of the plaintiff, awarding symbolic possession due to a tenant's occupation.

Both parties appealed to the District Judge, who affirmed the Trial Court's decision.

Subsequently, second appeals were filed before the High Court by both parties.

Issues:

Whether the High Court properly framed substantial questions of law before hearing the second appeals.

Whether the High Court's failure to do so rendered its judgment legally unsustainable.

Held:

The Supreme Court found fault with the High Court's judgment for not properly framing substantial questions of law. It emphasized the necessity of doing so under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Referring to the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs., the Court reiterated that the existence of substantial questions of law is a prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction in second appeals.

Since the High Court did not fulfill this requirement, the Supreme Court set aside its judgment and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to formulate substantial questions of law and decide the appeals accordingly, in accordance with the law laid down in Santosh Hazari case.

Facts:

The case originated from actions taken by the Bar Council of India to identify fake lawyers within its members or those not associated with any Bar Association.

The Court directed the transfer of all related matters pending in different High Courts to the Supreme Court for hearing.

Issues:

The petitioners sought immediate elections for State Bar Councils due to the expiration of terms, while the Bar Council of India emphasized the importance of verifying candidates to eliminate fake lawyers.

Held:

The Court provided a final opportunity for advocates to rectify defective applications and submit complete forms for degree verification within 15 days.

A timeline was outlined for verification of applications by State Bar Councils and the declaration of election schedules by the Bar Council of India.

All State Bar Councils were directed to conclude proceedings by December 31, 2017, and submit replies to the Bar Council of India for a status report.

A retired Supreme Court Judge was requested to supervise the verification process, with all parties directed to provide full assistance and cooperation.

Facts:

FIR No.9/2015 was registered against 27 individuals by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and Economic Offences Wing.

Chargesheet was filed against 16 persons, including senior officers of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation.

Three of the accused, Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv, and Jeet Ram Yadav, were cited as witnesses in the chargesheet.

Some accused applied to summon these three individuals as accused, which was initially rejected by the trial court but allowed by the High Court.

The appellants argued that Section 306 Cr.P.C. was not applicable and that the decision to summon them as accused was unjustified.

Issues:

Whether the decision to summon the appellants as accused was justified.

Whether the procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C. was the only option available.

Whether the decision to cite the appellants as witnesses binds the court.

Held:

The decision of the High Court was based solely on the existence of material against the appellants, without considering the larger interest of justice.

The decision erroneously assumed that Section 306 Cr.P.C. was the only procedure available to cite an accomplice as a witness.

The court has discretion to decide whether to take cognizance, considering all relevant considerations, including the utility of the appellants as witnesses.

The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration, instructing not to consider statements made by the appellants as proposed witnesses.

The High Court was directed to consider the stage of the trial and expedite proceedings.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 939-940 of 2017 were disposed of in the same terms as Criminal Appeal Nos. 941-942 of 2017.

SLP(Crl.)No.5563 of 2017 was dismissed as withdrawn, and T.P.(Crl.)No.241 of 2017 was dismissed for lack of merit.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal against a judgment passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital concerning the admissibility of a demarcation report created during conciliation proceedings between the parties.

Issues:

Whether the demarcation report made during conciliation proceedings is admissible as evidence in judicial proceedings.

Held:

The court emphasized the broad scope of confidentiality under Section 75 and applied the "relating to" test from previous judgments to establish that the demarcation report falls within the realm of conciliation proceedings (Para 5).

It further clarified that the demarcation report, having its genesis in conciliation proceedings, cannot be admitted as evidence, as doing so would compromise the confidentiality essential for achieving the objectives of conciliation (Para 7).

The court distinguished a Canadian Supreme Court judgment cited by the respondent, highlighting that the facts of the present case are different, and the demarcation report is inseparable from conciliation proceedings (Para 8).

The appeal was allowed, overturning the judgment of the High Court, with the provision that the respondent may introduce a separate demarcation report obtained from authorities as evidence (Para 9).

The appeal is disposed of accordingly (Para 10).

Facts:

The respondents filed a civil suit seeking partition of certain properties.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the first Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and decreed the suit.

The appellants then filed a second appeal before the High Court, which summarily dismissed the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 of the CPC.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's summary dismissal of the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 of the CPC was justified.

Whether the High Court's judgment lacked reasoning and compliance with legal requirements.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's summary dismissal of the appeal without providing reasons and without addressing the submissions made by the appellants was not justified. The Court emphasized the importance of providing reasoned judgments, as mandated by legal provisions such as Section 100 and Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC.

The Court further highlighted the necessity of addressing substantial questions of law in appellate proceedings. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh hearing in accordance with the law.

Facts:

The case concerns the fixation of seniority under the Madhya Pradesh Class III (Non-Ministerial) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967.

The issue arose from the promotion of Foresters to the positions of Deputy Rangers and Forest Rangers, with concerns raised about postings in different circles affecting seniority.

Issues:

The promotion process to the post of Deputy Ranger and how postings in various circles influence seniority within the service.

There is also ambiguity regarding the rules governing selection and seniority fixation.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized that members of the same service should not gain accelerated promotions solely due to fortuitous postings, as this would unfairly disadvantage their seniors in higher positions within the same service.

However, due to the lack of clarity regarding the rules and the absence of assistance from the parties, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration. The High Court was urged to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the matter within six months. The appeals were disposed of without imposing any costs.

Facts:

The appellant (Buyer) and respondent no. 2 (Seller) entered into an agreement of sale in 1986 for a property.

The agreement stipulated a sale consideration, a time period for completion of sale, and conditions regarding survey and boundaries.

The buyer filed a suit for specific performance after the seller failed to fulfill obligations under the agreement.

Issues:

Whether the High Court exceeded its appellate jurisdiction in reversing findings of fact?

Whether time was of the essence in the contract?

Whether the buyer adequately proved readiness and willingness for specific performance?

Whether granting specific performance would be inequitable?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with factual findings of the lower courts in the second appeal. (Para 9, 13, 16)

It was established that time was not the essence of the contract, and the buyer was ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. (Para 18, 20)

The Court emphasized the importance of proving readiness and willingness for specific performance, which was adequately done in this case. (Para 21)

The Court rejected the seller's contention that granting specific performance would be inequitable due to price escalation, stating that escalation of prices cannot be a ground for denying relief. (Para 23)

Facts:

The case revolves around the telecasting and broadcasting of live feed signals of cricket matches or other sporting events of national importance. The respondent no.3 and 4 shared these signals with Prasar Bharati, which raised questions regarding the retransmission of these signals by cable operators.

Issues:

Whether the live feed signals shared by the respondents with Prasar Bharati could be retransmitted by cable operators, considering the provisions of the relevant legislation.

Held:

The court interpreted Section 12(3)(c) of the Prasar Bharati Act, 1990, which enables Prasar Bharati to negotiate for the acquisition of programs and rights for broadcasting, and found that it pertains to broadcasting on its own terrestrial and DTH networks.

Regarding the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, the court discussed its enactment to regulate cable television networks and ensure the dissemination of national issues through channels like Doordarshan.

Analyzing the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, the court emphasized its objective to provide free-to-air access to sporting events of national importance and the obligation to share broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati.

The court clarified that the obligation under the Sports Act, 2007, is limited to transmission on Prasar Bharati's terrestrial and DTH networks, excluding cable operators.

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the live feed signals shared with Prasar Bharati were not meant for retransmission by cable operators but for Prasar Bharati's own networks.

Facts:

The appellant, a public Trust, leased out two shops to the respondents.

Disputes arose regarding non-payment of rent and termination of tenancy.

Appellant filed suits for eviction and recovery of rent against the respondents.

The Trial Court decreed the suits in favor of the appellant, but the Appellate Court dismissed them due to the appellant Trust not being registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

The issue revolved around the interpretation and applicability of Section 29 of the Act, which prohibits unregistered trusts from filing suits to enforce their rights.

Issues:

Whether the suits filed by the unregistered public Trust were competent under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

The jurisdiction of the Trial Court and the validity of its decree in light of the Trust's registration during the pendency of the appeal.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the suits filed by the unregistered public Trust were not competent under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

Once the Trust obtained registration during the pendency of the appeal, the bar under Section 29 no longer applied, and the Trial Court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the suits on merits.

The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the suits were remanded to the Trial Court for hearing and deciding them on merits.

The parties were given the liberty to amend their pleadings and submit additional documents, including the certificate of registration of the Trust.

The Trial Court was directed to decide the suits within six months, and the parties were instructed to appear before the Trial Court on a specified date.