Facts:

Accused attacked the deceased with country-made bombs and weapons, resulting in multiple injuries.

Deceased succumbed to excessive hemorrhage from a knee injury.

Trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

High Court partially allowed the appeal, altering the conviction to Section 304-I IPC, reducing the sentence to 10 years.

Issues:

Whether the injuries inflicted by the accused, though not individually fatal, were cumulatively sufficient to constitute murder under Section 300 IPC.

Whether the High Court erred in altering the conviction based on the interpretation of medical evidence.

Held:

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning, emphasizing that the intentional and cumulative nature of the injuries falls within the scope of Section 300 IPC. The Court held that the High Court was in error in altering the conviction and restored the trial court's judgment, convicting the accused for the offense of murder with a sentence of life imprisonment. Accordingly, we allow this appeal.

Referred Cases:

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382

Facts:

The Plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming a 1/8th share in ancestral property, contending that as a coparcener, he had a right by birth under the Mitakshara Law. The Defendants, including the Plaintiff's father, asserted that an earlier partition had taken place. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first Appellate Court and the High Court, relying on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, dismissed the appeal, stating that the joint family property had ceased to exist.

Issues:

Whether, on the death of the coparcener in 1973, the joint family property ceased to be joint family property?

Whether the Plaintiff, born in 1977, has the right to claim a share in the ancestral property?

Held:

The Court observed that the proviso to Section 6 applied, and a partition was deemed to have taken place by operation of law immediately before the coparcener's death in 1973.

It was clarified that on applying Section 8, the joint family property ceased to be joint family property, and the heirs held it as tenants in common.

The Court emphasized that the Plaintiff, born after the devolution of the property in 1973, had no right to claim a share in the ancestral property.

The appeal was dismissed based on the understanding that the joint family property had lost its character, and the Plaintiff's claim was not maintainable.

Facts:

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against a judgment dated 14.12.2011 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 92/2002 and 106/2002.

The High Court partially allowed the criminal appeals by Rajaram, Udaibhan, and Hakim Singh, modifying their convictions and reducing the sentences.

Issues:

Whether the High Court, in altering the convictions and sentencing, had ignored relevant considerations and adopted an erroneous approach.

The Court examined the quantum of sentence imposed by the High Court and assessed whether it was appropriate given the nature of the offenses.

Held:

The High Court converted convictions but maintained a lenient sentence, considering a lesser offense.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to adequately consider relevant factors in determining the quantum of sentence.

Six injuries on the complainant, including a grievous one, were noted, emphasizing the severity of the incident.

The Court found the High Court's punishment over-lenient without sufficient mitigating circumstances.

In the interest of justice, the Supreme Court modified the sentences, imposing a three-year rigorous imprisonment on all three accused for offenses under Section 326 and Section 326/34 of the IPC.

Other sentences maintained by the High Court were left intact, with a clarification that sentences for different offenses would run concurrently.

Facts:

The Respondent filed a suit (Suit No. 608 of 1992) on 09.11.1992.

Defendants 3 and 4 (including the Appellant) filed written statements on 11.11.1992.

Issues were framed on 18.10.1993.

The Appellant filed a counter-claim on 17.06.1996, after the framing of issues.

Issues:

Whether the counter-claim filed by the Appellant was legally acceptable, considering the timing of its filing.

Held:

The Court clarified that a counter-claim must accrue before the defendant delivers their defense (files a written statement).

The judgment in Rohit Singh's case, cited by the High Court, was deemed not applicable to the present case.

Despite the delay in filing the counter-claim, the Court found that the cause of action had arisen before the written statement was filed.

The delay in filing the counter-claim did not justify rejecting it.

The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's decision to accept the counter-claim.

The Respondent-Plaintiff was allowed to raise all necessary pleas through the written statement in response to the counter-claim.

Referred Cases:

Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh, (2006) 6 SCC 498

Bollepanda P. Poonacha Vs. K.M. Madapa, (2008) 13 SCC 179

Himmat Singh Vs. I.C.I. India Ltd., (2008) 2 SCALE 152

Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, (2003) 7 SCC 350

Rohit Singh Vs. State of Bihar Now State of Jharkhand, (2006) 12 SCC 734

State of A.P Vs. M/s. Pioneer Builders, A.P., (2006) 9 SCALE 520

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCALE 597

Facts:

The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking relief.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the appellants the liberty to file a representation before the NTPC.

Simultaneously, the High Court issued an order restricting the appellants from moving the court again for the same cause of action.

Issues:

The High Court's restriction on the appellants, limiting their ability to approach the court again concerning the same cause of action.

Held:

The court acknowledges the grievance raised by the appellants and agrees that they should have the right to pursue legal remedies depending on the outcome of their representation to the NTPC.

The court partially allows the appeal and sets aside the part of the High Court's order that denied the appellants the liberty to move the court again.

The appellants are granted further liberty to take recourse to all legal remedies, approaching the appropriate court if necessary, in relation to the dispute for which they were granted liberty by the High Court to file the representation.

Facts:

The case involves the Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. and its dispute with the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESI Corporation) regarding the coverage of casual workers under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

Issues:

Whether casual workers are covered under the definition of an "employee" as defined in Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948?

Pertaining to the period for which Turf Club is liable to pay contributions – from 1978-79 or from 1987.

Held:

The Court held that casual workers are covered within the definition of an "employee" under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The definition is interpreted broadly, and the Act is considered a welfare legislation intended to extend benefits to employees.

The Court rejected the argument based on consent terms filed earlier by the Turf Club, emphasizing that the terms related to an earlier period and the 1978 notification clearly included the departments in question.

The ESI Corporation's appeal for contributions from 1978 onwards was allowed. The Turf Club was directed to make contributions as per the 1978 notification, along with interest, within three months.

Referred Cases:

Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad, (1977) 1 LabLJ 54

Employees' State Insurance Corpn. Vs. Premier Clay Products, (1995) Sup 3 SCC 567

Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Gnanambikai Mills Ltd., (1974) 2 Lab. Law Journal 530 Mad

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Hyderabad Race Club, (2004) 6 SCC 191

Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh. Vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., (1980) LabIC 1064

Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras Vs. South India Flour Mills P Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 1686

Regional Director, ESIC, Bangalore Vs. Davangere Cotton Mills, (1977) 2 LabLJ 404

Facts:

A public notice was issued for the auction of Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat for the year 2008-2009.

The highest bid was Rs. 16,00,100/- by Sushil Kumar.

The Appellant-society accepted the settlement under protest and deposited one third of the total bid amount.

The Appellant-society filed a writ petition challenging the open bid process.

Issues:

Whether the auction process was justifiable for the settlement of Sand Ghats.

Whether the bid amount was arbitrary and too high.

Whether the Appellant-society, having participated and emerged as a successful bidder for other Ghats, can challenge the auction process.

Held:

The court held that the decision to go through the open auction process was justifiable to augment state revenue. The Appellant-society, having participated and emerged as the successful bidder for other Ghats, was not justified in challenging the auction inviting open bids for Ghurandera Kilagarai Ghat. The court rejected the contention that the bid amount was arbitrary and too high. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

The appellant, Electro Optics (P) Ltd., engaged in the sale of electronic goods, faced a dispute on the classification of goods for tax purposes.

Appellant argued for classification under Entry 50, Part B of Schedule I, attracting a 3% tax rate.

Authorities contended that survey instruments, whether electronic or otherwise, fell under Entry 14, Part F of Schedule I, chargeable at 16%.

Issues:

Dispute centered around the correct classification of goods for tax assessment.

The assessing authority imposed a penalty under Section 12 for the alleged failure to submit a correct return.

Held:

The court observed that the dispute arose due to amendments in the Schedule in 1993 and was limited to the immediate two assessment years.

Considering the appellant's good arguable case and the stay on penalty orders during the legal dispute, the court found that the appellant submitted the return based on a bona fide belief in the correctness of their stand.

The court set aside the balance dues of the penalty but specified that the penalty already paid by the appellant would not be refunded and would be retained by the authorities as a cost of the litigation.

Referred Cases:

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sanjiv Fabrics, (2010) 9 SCC 630

M/s BPL Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 2 SCC 139

M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, (1969) 2 SCC 627

Facts:

The case involved the murder of Dashrath, the father of the appellant, Gajanan Dashrath Kharate.

Gajanan was accused of frequently demanding money from his father, engaging in altercations, and assaulting him.

On the night of April 7, 2002, Gajanan allegedly demanded money from his father, abused him, and assaulted him, leading to Dashrath's death.

Witnesses, including Nagorao Kharate (PW-1) and Madhukar Kharate (PW-4), provided an account of the events leading to the murder.

Issues:

The delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) was a point of contention.

The prosecution presented blood-stained clothes of the accused, matching the blood group of the deceased.

Held:

The court emphasized that delay in FIR registration is viewed with suspicion, but the prosecution satisfactorily explained the delay.

The recovery of blood-stained clothes and the absence of a plausible explanation from the accused strengthened the prosecution's case.

When a murder occurs inside a house, the initial burden is on the prosecution, but there is a corresponding burden on the accused to provide a plausible explanation.

The appellant's failure to offer a plausible explanation for the crime was considered a strong circumstance indicating guilt.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court, in its decision on Criminal Appeal No. 2057 of 2010, affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment sentence for Gajanan Dashrath Kharate. The court dismissed the appeal, ordered the cancellation of the appellant's bail bonds, and directed the appellant to be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.

Referred Cases:

Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681

Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106

Nika Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1972) 2 SCC 80

State of Rajasthan Vs. Parthu, (2007) 12 SCC 754

State of T.N. Vs. Rajendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679

State of U.P. Vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300