Facts:

The appellant, Mahavir Singh, was convicted for the offense under Section 302 IPC by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The case stemmed from an incident where Mahavir Singh allegedly shot and killed Jagannath Singh. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence to secure the conviction.

Issues:

The credibility of the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, as well as the adequacy of the investigation conducted by the police.

Held:

The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence presented in the case, highlighting inconsistencies and deficiencies in the prosecution's case.

The Court criticized the Investigating Officer for a lackluster investigation, noting that proper procedures were not followed.

Contradictions between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence raised doubts about the guilt of the appellant.

The Court emphasized the importance of a fair and diligent investigation, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court, and ordered the appellant's release from custody.

Facts:

The case concerned the selection criteria for the appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers and B.T. Assistants in Tamil Nadu. The State Government provided a relaxation of 5% marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for candidates belonging to socially backward classes, as per the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Guidelines.

Issues:

Whether the State Government has the competence to grant relaxation of 5% marks in TET, and if the relaxation provided is legally justified.

Whether the State Government is estopped from granting relaxation.

Whether providing relaxation of 5% marks in TET amounts to changing the criteria of selection after the selection process commenced.

Challenge to Government Orders regarding the introduction of new grading systems and weightage of marks for academic performance.

Held:

The Court held that the State Government's decision to grant relaxation in TET marks was legally justified, citing the enabling provisions in the NCTE Guidelines and the constitutional obligation to uplift socially and economically backward communities (Para 21, 23, 24, 25, 27).

The Court ruled that there can be no question of estoppel against the Government in exercising its powers, and policy decisions taken in public interest to further the advancement of reserved categories cannot be interfered with by courts (Para 28, 29, 30).

The Court determined that the relaxation in TET marks did not change the selection criteria mid-process and was a prerogative of the State Government to address socio-economic conditions prevalent in the State (Para 33, 35, 37).

Regarding the challenge to Government Orders, the Court upheld them, stating that the government had the authority to formulate grading systems and weightage of marks, especially based on expert recommendations (Para 38, 39, 41, 43).

Facts:

The respondent sought eviction of the appellant from the suit premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming bona fide requirement for her son's business of sanitary and hardware products.

Issues:

The bona fide requirement of the respondent and the availability of alternative accommodations for the appellant.

Held:

The concurrent findings of the lower courts, which upheld the eviction petition, were based on evidence and materials on record. The appellant's contention that alternative accommodations were available was dismissed, and the courts held that the respondent had the right to choose a more suitable premises for her son's business. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted time until March 31, 2017, to vacate the premises.

Facts:

The case involved the levy of purchase tax on the State Bank of India (SBI) and its branches concerning their acceptance of Exim Scrips (Export Import License) as directed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Issues:

Whether the transaction of accepting Exim Scrips by the SBI attracted purchase tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Held:

The Court concurred with the High Court's view that the SBI was not liable to the levy of purchase tax under the Act, considering the distinctive features of the case. (Para 35)

Replenishment licenses or Exim Scrips were considered "goods" and attracted sales tax when transferred or assigned for consideration. However, when returned for cancellation or extinction, they ceased to be marketable instruments and lost their value. The SBI, as an agent of the RBI, did not purchase any goods but acted to nullify them in compliance with RBI's directions. (Para 33)

The initial issue or grant of scrips did not constitute a transfer of title or ownership in the goods. Therefore, when the RBI sought the return of these scrips for cancellation, they were not treated as marketable commodities purchased by the grantor. As the SBI acted as an agent of the RBI, the ownership in the goods was never transferred to the bank. The purpose was to extinguish the rights granted by the issuance of these scrips rather than acquiring them as goods. (Para 34)

Facts:

M/s Welspun Projects Ltd. (formerly known as M/s MSK Projects India Ltd.) entered into a concession agreement with the Government of Punjab to design, finance, construct, operate, and maintain Bus Terminal Projects at Jalandhar and Ludhiana on a Build, Operate, and Transfer (B.O.T) basis.

Lease deeds were executed between the parties, with the appellant-Company required to pay only an annual rent of Re. 1 as lease rental.

The Municipal Corporation of Jalandhar and Ludhiana issued notices for the recovery of house tax, claiming that the appellant-Company was liable to pay.

The appellant-Company argued that it was not liable to pay house tax as it was operating on a BOT basis and the actual owner was the State Transport Authorities. They also pointed to clauses in the lease deeds exempting them from paying any fees, rent, tax, or other charges apart from the lease rental.

Issues:

Whether the appellant-Company is liable to pay house tax under the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, considering the terms of the concession agreements and lease deeds.

Held:

The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant clauses of the concession agreements and lease deeds and concluded that the appellant-Company was not liable to pay house tax under the Act. They highlighted the specific exemption given under the lease deeds regarding the payment of any taxes on the demised premises. The Court also noted that the Department continued to pay the house tax for several years even after the signing of the agreement, suggesting that if the intention was to pass this burden onto the appellant-Company, it would have been explicitly mentioned in the agreement. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeals, ruling in favor of the appellant-Company and directing the refund of the house tax paid along with interest.

FACTS:

The case involved the murder of Nathiya's husband, with Suresh alleged to be her paramour.

The prosecution contended that Nathiya and Suresh conspired to murder the deceased due to an illicit relationship.

The evidence relied upon by the prosecution was primarily circumstantial, including allegations of an extramarital affair, previous attempts to harm the deceased, and statements from witnesses.

ISSUES:

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the allegations of an illicit relationship between Nathiya and Suresh are substantial enough to implicate them in the murder.

HELD:

The court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution was incomplete and incoherent. While there were suspicions surrounding the appellants, the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Decision: The appeals were allowed, leading to the discharge of Nathiya's bail bonds and the immediate release of Suresh from jail, if not required in any other case.

Facts:

The State Bank of Patiala initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against Mukesh Jain for default in loan repayment.

Mukesh Jain challenged these proceedings by filing a civil suit.

The trial court rejected the bank's application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, leading to further appeals.

Issues:

Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain matters falling under the SARFAESI Act.

The applicability of the DRT Act's jurisdictional threshold in cases involving the SARFAESI Act.

The availability of remedy for debtors facing actions under the SARFAESI Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain matters covered by the SARFAESI Act. It clarified the applicability of the DRT Act's jurisdictional threshold, emphasizing the DRT's appellate jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act. The Court affirmed that debtors have remedies available even when facing actions under the SARFAESI Act. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order were set aside.

Facts:

The case involves a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking proper implementation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, and its associated rules. The Supreme Court had issued directions previously and requested status reports from the states. Despite efforts, the dropping sex ratio remains a social affliction. The Indian Medical Association alleged misuse and misinterpretation of provisions of the Act.

Issues:

The proper implementation of the Act, the misuse and misinterpretation of its provisions, and the persistent problem of female foeticide leading to a decline in the sex ratio.

Held:

The court affirms that a female child is entitled to equal rights as a male child. The constitutional identity of a female child cannot be compromised, and affirmative steps must be taken to uphold their rights (Para 28).

Any perception or action treating a woman with inequality or discrimination is constitutionally impermissible. Female foeticide is a societal issue stemming from unethical perceptions and nonchalant attitudes towards the law (Para 34).

Destroying a female foetus is legally impermissible and violates the dignity of life. Legislative measures are in place to address this issue (Para 29).

Despite legislative efforts, the dropping sex ratio persists as a social affliction (Para 32).

The court issues several directives to enhance the implementation of the Act, including maintaining centralized databases, constituting statutory bodies, adherence to provisions, training of authorities, fast-tracking courts, and conducting awareness campaigns (Para 33).

The court emphasizes that legal remedies are available in cases of abuse of the law but does not entertain requests that do not challenge the validity of the Act or its rules directly (Para 36).

Facts:

The case involved the withdrawal of a public offer for a hostile takeover of shares. The Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) was found to have caused undue delay in dealing with the draft letter of offer (DLO). The appellant sought withdrawal of the offer on the ground that due to SEBI's delay, the target company siphoned off its coffers, depleted valuable fixed assets, and eroded its net worth substantially.

Issues:

Whether the delay by SEBI justifies withdrawal of the public offer.

Whether the case falls under Regulation 27 of the Securities Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997.

Held:

The Court acknowledged the undue delay on the part of SEBI but emphasized that withdrawal from a public offer requires meeting specific criteria under Regulation 27. Mere delay alone is not sufficient grounds for withdrawal unless clear prejudice to the acquirer is demonstrated (Para 26).

Under the scheme of the Regulations, the target company has the authority to take decisions about its assets, provided statutory procedures are followed and the decisions are valid. There is no absolute bar on the target company's actions. The Court found no justification for automatic withdrawal from a public offer without clear prejudice to the acquirer to the extent of rendering the carrying out of public offer impossible (Para 27).

Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of SEBI and the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) that the request for withdrawal from the public offer was not justified.