Facts:

Vivek Batra, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS), was accused of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

An FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against him.

After a lengthy investigation, the CBI sought sanction for prosecution, which was eventually granted by the competent authority.

Issues:

Whether the sanction for prosecution granted against Vivek Batra was valid.

Whether the various opinions expressed by different authorities during the sanction process affected the validity of the sanction.

Held:

The Court held:

The sanction for prosecution granted against Vivek Batra was valid, and the various opinions expressed by different authorities did not affect its validity.

The Finance Minister, as the competent authority, had the power to grant the sanction.

The opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was relevant and prevailed in according the sanction.

The sanction process followed proper procedures, and there was no indication of any decision not to grant sanction at any point.

The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, with no expressed opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute between the appellants (Gupta Group) and the respondents (Sanwalka Group) under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondents filed a company petition alleging oppression by the appellants and questioning certain actions taken by them.

Issues:

The maintainability of the company petition.

Allegations of oppression and mismanagement against the appellants.

Issues concerning the issue of bonus shares and ordinary equity shares.

Conversion of preference shares into equity shares.

Held:

Maintainability of Company Petition: The court found that the share certificates indicated fresh and independent allotment to the Sanwalka Group without any connection to forfeited shares held by the appellants. Compliance with the call notice was not proved by the appellants. Therefore, the company petition was held maintainable.

Oppression and Mismanagement: The court found a series of unacceptable decisions and actions by the Gupta Group, indicating oppression. Satisfaction of oppression was found based on the facts of the case.

Issue of Bonus Shares: The resolution of issuing bonus shares was deemed impermissible as it was not empowered by the Articles of Association of the company. The purpose indicated for issuing bonus shares was found to be a sham, indicating self-serving interest by the Gupta Group.

Issue of Ordinary Equity Shares: The court upheld the direction to allot shares proportionate to the share holdings of both groups, emphasizing the principle of fair play.

Conversion of Preference Shares: The resolution regarding the conversion of preference shares into equity shares was found unreliable, and the conversion was struck down. The preference shares were reverted to their earlier status.

Decision: The court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 589 of 2010 and disposed of Civil Appeal No. 599 of 2010 with directions.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Rule 7 of the Customs Tariffs (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, concerning the confidentiality of information provided to the Designated Authority (DA) in anti-dumping investigations. The Union of India and the Designated Authority contended that the decision in the Reliance Industries case had affected the rule of confidentiality under Rule 7.

Issues:

Whether the observations made in the Reliance Industries case regarding confidentiality diminished the scope of Rule 7 as provided in the Customs Tariffs Rules, 1995.

Held:

The court held that the ordinary meaning of the words used in Rule 7 is clear, and there is no need to depart from the rule of Literal Construction. Rule 7 permits an exception to the principles of natural justice, allowing certain information to be treated as confidential. Even if there were ambiguities requiring interpretation, the court would adopt a construction least restrictive of individual rights. (Paragraph 22)

The court clarified that Rule 7 does not empower the Designated Authority to claim confidentiality regarding the reasons for its findings against a party. Reasons or findings cannot be equated with information supplied by a party claiming confidentiality. The Designated Authority must not disclose information already held to be confidential without the consent of the party providing it. If a party disagrees with the disclosure of information claimed to be confidential, and the Designated Authority determines that the information is not genuinely confidential, it should ignore the information rather than disclosing it to the public. (Paragraph 25)

Decision: The court answered the question referred by affirming the law regarding the rule of confidentiality as established in previous cases and clarifying the scope and limitations of Rule 7 in the context of anti-dumping investigations.

Facts:

The case concerns the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Issues:

Whether the definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) of the Act, which includes the term 'adult male person', is constitutionally valid.

Held:

The Court acknowledged the prevalence of domestic violence against women and recognized the need for innovative remedies to address this issue (Para 14).

It noted the broad scope of the Act to protect women from various forms of violence within the family, as indicated in the preamble (Para 16).

The definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) was found to be problematic as it lacked an intelligible differentia and rational relation to the Act's objective (Para 36).

Anomalies arising from the restricted definition were highlighted, including the exclusion of female relatives who may perpetrate violence (Para 18, 20, 21).

The court emphasized the gender-neutral nature of domestic violence and the need for the law to reflect this reality (Para 19).

Applying the doctrine of severability, the court struck down the expression 'adult male' from the definition of 'respondent' while leaving the rest of the section intact (Para 40).

The proviso to the definition, which made an exception for cases where the respondent is not an adult male, was deemed irrelevant and deleted (Para 40).

The court observed that other legislations also define 'respondent' without the prefix 'adult male', indicating a broader scope consistent with the protection of women (Para 41, 42).

Decision: The court held that the restrictive definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was unconstitutional. The court struck down the discriminatory terms and applied the doctrine of severability to ensure the Act's effectiveness in achieving its goals.

Facts:

The Appellant husband sought divorce from the Respondent wife citing cruelty.

Allegations of cruelty included baseless accusations of extramarital affair, threats of suicide, and insistence on separation from the husband's family.

The trial court granted the divorce decree, but it was set aside by the High Court on appeal by the Respondent wife.

Issues:

Whether the actions of the Respondent wife constituted cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Whether the trial court's decision granting divorce was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after thorough consideration of the evidence and arguments, held that the trial court's decision to grant divorce on the grounds of cruelty was justified. The Court found multiple instances of cruelty perpetrated by the Respondent wife, including her attempt to commit suicide, insistence on separation from the husband's family for monetary reasons, and baseless allegations of an extramarital affair. These actions were deemed as forms of mental cruelty, warranting the dissolution of the marriage. The Court referenced previous judgments to support its findings on mental cruelty.

The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's judgment, and restored the divorce decree granted by the trial court. No costs were awarded in the matter.

Facts:

The case involved a criminal appeal by special leave, originally filed by eight accused.

Allegations included assault within a shop premises resulting in the death of the deceased, Laxman.

Five appellants were accused of preventing individuals from entering the shop and moving on the street in front of the shop.

Eyewitness accounts were the primary evidence, with discrepancies noted in their statements.

Issues:

Whether the five appellants were directly involved in the assault.

Whether the inclusion of certain individuals prevented from entering the shop premises was an afterthought.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:

The court found discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts and noted that the five appellants were not directly involved in the assault within the shop premises.

The inclusion of additional individuals prevented from entering the shop premises appeared to be an afterthought, lacking in initial documentation.

Given the lack of concrete evidence and the possibility of enmity leading to innocent family members being implicated, the court concluded that it was difficult to establish the appellants' involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the appellants were acquitted of the charges leveled against them, and their bail bonds were discharged.

Facts:

The appellant questioned the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the parties had agreed to settle the dispute through arbitration.

The application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed, asserting that the suit was maintainable due to serious allegations of fraud and malpractices.

The High Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

Issues:

Whether the allegations of fraud in the present case were serious and complex enough to render the dispute non-arbitrable.

Whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Held:

The court emphasized that while the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 doesn't explicitly exclude any category of disputes from arbitration, certain disputes like those involving serious allegations of fraud may be considered non-arbitrable (Para 9).

Fraud was defined as a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to their detriment. The court highlighted that mere allegations of fraud may not be sufficient to nullify the effect of an arbitration agreement (Para 10).

The court differentiated between serious allegations of fraud, which may constitute a criminal offense or require extensive evidence, and simple allegations of fraud, which may not render the dispute non-arbitrable (Para 13).

It was emphasized that the focus of the court should be on whether the nature of the dispute is such that it cannot be referred to arbitration, even if there's an arbitration agreement between the parties (Para 20).

In the present case, the court found that the allegations of fraud were not so serious or complex as to render the dispute non-arbitrable. Therefore, the rejection of the application under Section 8 of the Act was deemed incorrect, and the matter should have been referred to arbitration (Para 21).

Facts:

The case involved the murder of one individual and injuries to six others. The trial court acquitted all accused individuals, citing various reasons such as contradictions in witness statements, improvements in the version of events, and inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the manner of assault and the weapon used.

Issues:

The credibility of witness statements, the application of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and the appropriate role of appellate authorities in reviewing trial court decisions.

Held:

The trial court adopted a perverse approach in rejecting the evidence of injured eyewitnesses. Despite some contradictions, the consistent testimony of eyewitnesses PWs 10, 11, 15, 12, and 18 provided a credible account of the events. Rejecting their evidence solely based on minor discrepancies was unwarranted .

Vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC was upheld, affirming that members of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object are liable for offences committed in furtherance of that object. The common object must be ascertained from the acts and language of the assembly members and surrounding circumstances .

The appellate court has the authority to review trial court decisions but should do so cautiously. If two reasonable conclusions can be reached, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court's finding. However, if the trial court's decision is unreasonable or perverse, the appellate court may reverse it .

Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of accused individuals A-1 to A-7 were upheld, as they were consistently named by eyewitnesses and assigned specific roles in the assault. However, accused individuals A-10 and A-11 were acquitted due to the absence of their names in the eyewitness accounts and the attribution of specific roles only to A-1 to A-7 .

Facts:

The prosecutrix alleged gang rape by the appellants. Inconsistencies were noted between the FIR and the prosecutrix's deposition. The trial court acquitted the appellants, which was reversed by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the view taken by the trial court or the High Court is more plausible regarding the prosecution's case.

The reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony and the evidence presented.

Held:

Inconsistencies in Prosecutrix's Testimony: The Supreme Court found discrepancies in the prosecutrix's behavior and statements. Her actions post-incident and the testimony of witnesses indicated a possible motive for false implication. The medical evidence raised doubts about the allegation of gang rape. The testimony of a hostile witness supported the defense's plea of false implication.

Judicial Scrutiny of Prosecutrix's Testimony: While the testimony of a victim should generally be accepted as true, it must undergo judicial scrutiny to prevent wrongful convictions.

Scope of Interference with Acquittal: The appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's judgment of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so, such as perverse findings or irrational conclusions.

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the appellants. The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the inconsistencies and anomalies in the case. The view taken by the trial court was more plausible, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.