Facts:

The issue arose due to conflicting opinions in different Benches of the Karnataka High Court regarding the classification of licensed surveyors as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Supreme Court considered relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, along with rules governing the qualifications and duties of licensed surveyors.

Issues:

Whether licensed surveyors appointed under Section 18A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 should be categorized as "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Held:

The Court concludes that licensed surveyors are to be treated as public servants. The Court emphasizes that licensed surveyors perform statutory duties assigned by the government, relieving the burden on government surveyors. This conclusion is supported by the reasoning laid out in paragraphs 8 to 11, where the Court analyzes the duties and qualifications of licensed surveyors as outlined in the relevant rules and acts. The Court determines that licensed surveyors fulfill the criteria of being public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on their performance of statutory duties controlled by the government. Therefore, the Court dismisses certain appeals and allows others, affirming the status of licensed surveyors as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Facts:

The victim's testimony, although initially lacking in specific naming of the appellant, was detailed and consistent throughout his statements under different sections of the Criminal Procedure Code. The victim's father corroborated key aspects of the events.

The negotiations for a land deal initiated by one of the accused revealed a concerted effort to entrap the victim, gradually gaining his trust before the abduction.

The victim's testimony, supported by his father, provided clarity and conviction, remaining unshaken even under cross-examination. The victim had sufficient opportunity to observe and identify his abductors during the captivity period.

Evidence of the stage-wise recovery of items and currency notes, as well as witnesses' testimonies, authenticated the seizures and supported the prosecution's case.

The admissibility of call details was questioned due to non-compliance with Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. Despite this, the charges against the accused were considered proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues:

Whether the victim's testimony and identification of the appellant are reliable.

Whether the evidence supports the charges of conspiracy and abduction for ransom.

The admissibility of call details and its impact on the case.

Held:

The victim's testimony, despite initial omissions, remained consistent and credible throughout various statements. His identification of the appellant during trial strengthens the prosecution's case.

The evidence, including the victim's testimony and the recovery of items, supports the charges of conspiracy and abduction for ransom. The omissions and deficiencies in certain procedures do not detract from the overall veracity of the prosecution's case.

The failure to produce a certificate under Section 65B(4) regarding call details renders it inadmissible as evidence. However, this does not affect the proof of charges against the accused.

Decision: The appeals are dismissed, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellants. The prosecution's case is upheld based on the evidence presented.

Facts:

The appellant challenged the legality of the Vidhayak Nidhi Scheme in Uttar Pradesh, providing budgetary grants to Members of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council for development work in their constituencies.

The appellant contended that the scheme encroached upon the domain of development plans governed by Article 243ZD and the Uttar Pradesh District Planning Committee Act, 1999.

Issues:

Whether the Vidhayak Nidhi Scheme violates constitutional provisions and legislative acts.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that while elected representatives have a legitimate role in meeting the development needs of their constituencies, it is imperative to ensure accountability and compliance with constitutional provisions. The Court directed the State Government to revise the scheme guidelines to align with constitutional principles and provide necessary safeguards. The Court's decision emphasized limiting the role of elected representatives to recommending developmental work, ensuring independent assessment and implementation by state authorities, and enhancing transparency and accountability.

The appeal shall accordingly stand disposed of.

Facts:

The dispute arose concerning the demand for the employment of certain workers, including Shri Arjun Paswan and 87 others, who were engaged as 'Tyndals' at the Kenduadih Colliery. Legal proceedings ensued, including a Reference to the Industrial Tribunal in 1993 and subsequent challenges in the High Court.

Issues:

The entitlement of the workers to reinstatement or compensation based on previous judgments and the circumstances of the case.

Held:

The court noted the previous judgments and the finality of the High Court's decision in this case. Despite the unequal treatment of workers, reinstatement was not deemed practicable, given the passage of time and other factors (para. 6).

Considering the skilled nature of the work and the lack of vacancies, the court ordered the respondent to deposit an amount of Rupees four lakhs each per workman before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in full settlement of all claims (para. 8).

The Civil Appeal is allowed. (para. 9)

Facts:

The case involved a review of the deficiencies within the adjudicatory fora responsible for consumer protection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A committee chaired by Justice Arijit Pasayat submitted an interim report highlighting issues such as poor organizational setup, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of trained manpower, hindering the effective functioning of consumer fora.

Issues:

Inadequacies in infrastructure within consumer adjudicatory bodies.

Lack of response from the Central and State Governments to address the deficiencies highlighted in the interim report.

Need for systemic overhaul to prevent the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 from becoming ineffective.

Held:

The interim report of the Committee reveals significant deficiencies in the functioning of consumer fora, necessitating immediate intervention to prevent the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 from becoming ineffective.

The absence of clarity in administrative and disciplinary control contributes to the problems faced by district fora and State Commissions.

The delegation of rule-making power to State Governments may lead to inconsistencies and subjectivity, requiring the Union Government to frame model rules for adoption by State Governments.

The National Commission is empowered to frame regulations to ensure effective administrative control over State Commissions and district fora.

The proposed expansion of pecuniary limits of district fora necessitates strengthening the quality of adjudication and ensuring accountability among members.

Directions are issued for the appointment of President and Members of State Commissions, as well as disciplinary action against non-judicial members for unauthorized absence.

State Governments are directed to implement the recommendations of the Committee within three months.

The Union Government is tasked with framing model rules and regulations to standardize the functioning of consumer adjudicatory bodies across the country.

Decision: The court issued several directions to address deficiencies in infrastructure and ensure effective implementation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Facts:

The case involved the appeal by the in-laws of the deceased, who were initially acquitted by the Trial Court but convicted by the High Court under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with the death of the deceased, Saroj Bai. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws, including demands for dowry, ultimately leading to her death.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were responsible for the deceased's death through cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands.

Held:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial component of cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry demands. The demand for a motorcycle, which was the focal point of the allegations, was not adequately supported by evidence. Given the lack of conclusive evidence and the failure to establish the cause of death definitively, the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, the conviction by the High Court was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to prove cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands to invoke statutory presumptions. The Trial Court's assessment of evidence was deemed valid, while the High Court's reliance on presumptive inferences divorced from factual evidence was criticized and deemed unsustainable.

The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The case involves allegations of willful absence from official duty and disobedience of orders against Maresh Dahiya, an employee of H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. Following these allegations, Dahiya was compulsorily retired from service, prompting him to file a writ petition.

Issues:

Whether there was a violation of the principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings against Maresh Dahiya.

Held:

The court observed that the delinquent employee has the right to receive a copy of the inquiry officer's report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at conclusions regarding the guilt or innocence of the employee. This right is essential for the employee to defend himself properly (Para 26).

It was noted that the Disciplinary Authority had formed an opinion to punish the respondent without forwarding the inquiry report to him or obtaining his comments on the report, which constituted a violation of the principle of natural justice (Para 26).

While setting aside the punishment order, the court directed that the Disciplinary Authority should be permitted to proceed with the inquiry from the stage where the fault was noticed, which is under Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Para 27).

A time frame should be fixed for completing the proceedings from the stage of Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As there was a violation of natural justice after the submission of the inquiry report, all proceedings taken by the Disciplinary Authority afterward were to be set aside (Para 28).

Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the order of the High Court setting aside the punishment order. However, it directed the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the inquiry from the stage where the fault was noticed and to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

Facts:

The debtor defaulted on loan repayment to the bank, leading to recovery proceedings. An award was passed for the recovery of the money owed. Despite multiple opportunities, the debtor failed to pay the awarded amount. The mortgaged property was auctioned, and the appellant emerged as the highest bidder. The competent authority confirmed the auction sale in favor of the appellant, and a sale certificate was issued.

Issues:

Whether the debtor followed the proper procedure for setting aside the auction sale?

Whether the appeal by the debtor to the Deputy Registrar was maintainable under Section 106 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act?

Whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to set aside the auction sale?

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the auction purchaser?

Held:

The debtor did not follow the proper procedure for setting aside the auction sale under Section 89A of the Act and Rule 38 of the Rules (para 23).

The appeal by the debtor to the Deputy Registrar was not maintainable under Section 106, as it did not pertain to a provision referenced in that section (para 24).

The Deputy Registrar's order to set aside the auction sale was without jurisdiction (para 29).

The High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the auction purchaser, as the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal (para 36).

Decision: The court allowed the appeals by the auction purchaser and dismissed the appeals by the debtor, affirming the validity of the auction sale and emphasizing adherence to proper legal procedures.

Facts:

The case involves a review petition concerning the conflict between the Jallikattu Act, 2009, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The petitioners argued that the 2009 Act, being associated with Entries 14 and 15 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, cannot be repugnant to the 1960 Act. Additionally, they contended that Jallikattu, being a socio-cultural event associated with religion, is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Issues:

Whether the Jallikattu Act, 2009, is repugnant to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and if Jallikattu can be considered as falling within the ambit of religious freedom under Article 25.

Held:

The Court analyzed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, and observed that while the event may include taming of bulls, cruelty to the bulls cannot be ruled out during Jallikattu events (Para 17).

Upon juxtaposing the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Jallikattu Act, 2009, the Court noted a fundamental inconsistency. Taming bulls for entertainment purposes contradicts the welfare of animals, the very foundation of the 1960 Act (Para 25).

The Court concluded that neither Entry 14 nor Entry 15 of List II of the Seventh Schedule covers the Jallikattu Act, 2009. Jallikattu squarely falls under Entry 17 of List III, making it subject to the test of repugnancy (Para 31).

Jallikattu cannot be associated with the right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25, as it lacks a religious flavor and is not protected under this provision (Para 32).

Decision: The Court dismissed the review petitions, affirming its previous decision that the Jallikattu Act, 2009, is repugnant to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and does not enjoy protection under Article 25 of the Constitution.