No Confidence Motion and Membership Validity - Appellant No. 1, Sudhir Vilas Kalel's membership in the Jambulani Gram Panchayat and the validity of a No Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch, Appellant No. 2, Sushila Sitaram Kalel, under scrutiny - Issue centered around the validity of Sudhir's caste certificate and subsequent eligibility as a Panchayat member - Reliance on Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 [Paras 2, 3, 20, 29-44]

Caste Certificate and Validity for Election Candidacy - Importance of Validity Certificate under Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 for contesting elections on reserved seats - Rules governing issuance and verification of caste certificates detailed [Paras 4-7]

Appellant No. 1's Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements - Sudhir Vilas Kalel's non-compliance with the necessary procedures for obtaining a Validity Certificate within prescribed time - Impact on his membership in the Panchayat and the No Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch [Paras 8-19, 32-41]

Application of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 - Analysis of the act's provisions and their applicability to Appellant No. 1's case - Conclusion that Sudhir Vilas Kalel was not entitled to the act's protective measures due to non-compliance and resultant disqualification from Panchayat membership [Paras 29-31, 38-41]

Decision – Appeal dismissed - High Court's decision upheld, affirming the validity of the No Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch and calling for fresh elections - Non-compliance by Appellant No. 1 leading to automatic disqualification as a Panchayat member [Paras 42-44]

Pre-emption Right Challenge - Appellants contested lower court findings on pre-emption right over property sold in 1983, claimed by respondents as tenants since 1949 - [Paras 2-4].

Notification and Pre-emption - Appellants argued notification dated 08.10.1985 under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 exempted property within municipal limits from pre-emption - Issue of notification's applicability to the case [Para 5].

Limitation and Custom in Pre-emption - Debate on whether suit was time-barred; contention over custom of pre-emption in extended municipal area of Jagadhri [Para 6].

Definition of 'Urban Immovable Property' - Court examined 'urban immovable property' under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 and 'land' under Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900 - Distinction between land and immovable property assessed [Paras 7-9, 12, 15-17].

Notification's Scope on Pre-emption Rights - Court concluded 08.10.1985 notification pertained only to 'land', not 'immovable property' - Property in dispute not exempted from pre-emption [Paras 13-17].

Dismissal of Limitation Argument - Court found limitation argument not applicable, having not been pursued in lower courts [Para 18].

Appeal Dismissal - Upheld respondents' pre-emption rights, dismissing appeal [Para 19].

Murder and Assault in Political Animosity - Conviction of A1, A2, A4 for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and modification of A3’s conviction to Section 304 Part II for 10 years imprisonment - Political rivalry leading to the murder of a villager - Assault by family members with weapons like an axe, sword, stone, and knife [Paras 1-3, 14, 17, 24, 32].

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Reliance on testimonies of multiple eyewitnesses (PW1, PW3, PW4, PW6, PW7, PW8) and corroborative evidence including the post-mortem report - PW6's testimony pivotal - Minor variations in testimonies deemed inconsequential [Paras 13-16, 18-22].

Role of Accused No. 3 (A3) – A3’s conviction modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II - Insufficient evidence to deduce A3's shared intent to commit murder – A3's use of a stone in the assault deemed without common intention to murder [Paras 23-31, 32].

Legal Principles on Common Intention – Analysis of common intention among accused - Distinction between actions of A1, A2, A4, and A3 - A3 not found to share common intent to murder as per evidence and post-mortem report [Paras 23-27, 32].

Final Decision – Supreme Court upholds convictions of A1, A2, and A4 under Section 302 read with Section 34, but modifies conviction of A3 to Section 304 Part II with a 10-year sentence - A3 acquitted of murder charge [Paras 32-33].

Deemed Export Benefit – Delay in Refund of Duty Drawback – Entitlement of Interest – M/S. B. T. Patil and Sons’ claim for duty drawback under the ‘deemed export’ scheme was eventually accepted by the DGFT, but there was a considerable delay in the refund – The respondent sought interest on the delayed refund. [Paras 2.4-2.11, 28-29]

High Court Judgment – Awarded interest on delayed refund – The High Court ordered the Union of India to pay interest on the delayed refund, based on the clarificatory circulars dated 20.08.1998 and 05.12.2000, and Sections 27A and 75A of the Customs Act, 1962. [Para 4, 30]

Supreme Court Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, confirming that the respondent was entitled to refund of duty drawback and, consequently, to interest on its delayed payment – Interest rate fixed at fifteen percent per annum as per the rate fixed under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. [Paras 38-39]

Conviction and Commutation of Sentence - Petitioner convicted under Section 376 AB IPC and POCSO Act for raping a 7-year-old - High Court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment - Supreme Court considered alternative sentence of rigorous imprisonment for not less than 20 years with fine [Paras 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 20]

Evidence and Guilt Establishment - Medical evidence and witness testimonies confirming rape by petitioner - No other physical injuries reported on the victim - Crime committed in a temple - Petitioner aged 40 years at the time of the offense [Paras 5, 10]

Consideration for Sentence Modification - Supreme Court noted the heinous nature of the crime, particularly the age of the victim and the location of the crime - Acknowledged the need for a deterrent punishment - Modified sentence to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment including time already served - Fine of Rupees One Lakh imposed for the victim's rehabilitation [Paras 10, 15-16, 20]

Legal Principles on Sentence Modification - Reference to 'Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka' and 'Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan' regarding the scope of modified punishment by Constitutional Courts - Emphasis on the distinction between 'barbaric' and 'brutal' in the context of the crime [Paras 10, 12-13]

Concurrent Sentences and Fine - Conviction under Section 363 IPC confirmed - Sentences to run concurrently - Total fine amount to be paid to the victim [Paras 17, 20-21]

Decision - Special Leave Petition partly allowed - Conviction upheld with modified sentence of 30 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees One Lakh.

Electricity Act - Electricity Dues – Applicability of Limitation Period under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Retrospective Application Rejected – The Court held that Section 56(2) of the 2003 Act, prescribing a limitation period of two years for recovery of dues, does not apply to liabilities incurred before the Act’s enforcement – Based on precedents, including Kusumam Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Kerala SEB and K.C. Ninan v. Kerala SEB, the Court reaffirmed that dues under the previous enactment (1910 Act) survive beyond the two-year limitation under the 2003 Act [Paras 10-13].

Electricity Dues – Principle of Issue Estoppel – Bar on Re-litigation of Determined Liability – The Court found that the respondent’s liability to pay minimum guarantee charges was judicially determined by the High Court's previous orders dated 04/05/2000 and 14/02/2001, which went unchallenged – The doctrine of issue estoppel prevents the respondent from re-litigating this issue in subsequent proceedings – Held: The respondent is estopped from challenging the demand for minimum guarantee charges, having acquiesced in prior orders [Paras 33-37].

Demand for Minimum Guarantee Charges – Impact of Delay in Issuing Show Cause Notices – The Court examined whether the appellants' demand was barred due to delay – It held that Section 24 of the 1910 Act does not prescribe a limitation period for recovering dues, though the appellants would have needed to institute a suit within three years to enforce such charges – However, since the liability was upheld in prior orders, the delay in demand was not fatal in this context [Paras 15-21].

Scope of Section 24 of the 1910 Act – Right to Disconnection – The Court clarified that Section 24 of the 1910 Act permits disconnection for non-payment of dues after a seven-day notice, irrespective of the timeline for instituting a suit – Therefore, the appellants’ right to disconnect supply was independent of any delay in demanding payment [Paras 15-17].

Finality of Judicial Determinations – Impact of Withdrawal of Writ Petition – The Court noted that by withdrawing the writ petition and allowing prior orders to attain finality, the respondent effectively accepted the liability for minimum guarantee charges – The subsequent challenge was barred due to the finality of the prior judicial determination, which had already upheld the demand [Paras 39-40].

Decision – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order allowing the intra-court appeal, thereby upholding the demand for minimum guarantee charges. The appeal was allowed, but the parties were directed to bear their own costs [Para 40].
 

Cooperative Societies and Right to Information – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that cooperative societies themselves are not ‘public authorities’ under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but their Assistant Registrars are considered public authorities - Consequently, societies under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act are required to provide information through their Assistant Registrars - Importance given to the public's right to access information held by public authorities

Application of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act – The Court emphasized the Assistant Registrar's role under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act in accessing information from cooperative societies - Information that can be statutorily accessed by the Registrar under the Act must be supplied to applicants under the Right to Information Act, 2005, subject to restrictions under Section 8(1) of the Act

Jurisdiction of Public Authority – Assistant Registrar identified as the appropriate public authority for requesting information from cooperative societies - Emphasized that information of public importance must be accessible to the general public.

Decision – The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, agreeing with the High Court's reasoning and decision - No merit found in the petitioner's arguments - All pending applications were disposed of

Conviction for Murder and Unlawful Assembly - Accused convicted in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2000 for offences under Sections 302 in aid with Section 149 IPC - Seven accused sentenced to life imprisonment, two acquitted - High Court upheld convictions - Accused Nos. A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7 appealed to the Supreme Court. [Paras 2-4]

Murder Plot Arising from Property Dispute - Dispute between deceased Shivanna and brother Ramanna (A-9) over property leading to civil litigation - Motive for murder rooted in this dispute. [Para 5, 9]

Assault and Death of Shivanna - Accused unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons, trespassed into Shivanna's house, and assaulted him and his family, leading to Shivanna's death and grievous injuries to his wife and daughter. [Para 6, 13, 14, 17]

Eyewitness Testimony - Conviction based on testimony of two injured eyewitnesses (wife and daughter of deceased) and corroboration by another daughter - Eyewitness accounts deemed reliable despite family relation. [Paras 11, 15, 16]

Application of Section 149 IPC - Accused held guilty under Section 302 IPC aided by Section 149 IPC due to their participation in an unlawful assembly with a common object to eliminate Shivanna and his family. [Paras 12, 18, 20]

Concurrent Findings of Courts - No perversity in concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court - Supreme Court finds no reason to interfere with lower courts' judgments. [Paras 22, 23]

Dismissal of Appeals - Appeals of accused Nos. A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7 dismissed - Convictions upheld - Appellants directed to surrender and serve remaining sentence. [Para 24]

Criminal Procedure – Examination of Witness – Prosecution Witness not examined – Examination as Defence Witness – Permissibility – The Supreme Court considered whether a witness listed by the prosecution but not examined can be permitted to testify as a defence witness. The Court held that if the prosecution chooses not to examine a witness, the defence may be allowed to call the witness to testify. The Trial Court has discretion to evaluate the evidentiary value of such testimony in reaching its conclusion. [Para 2-6]

Allowance of Appeal – High Court Order Set Aside – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order, affirming the Trial Court's decision, which had denied the appellant's request to examine the witness. [Para 5]

Direction for Examination – The Court allowed the appellant to examine the prosecution witness as a defence witness, with the prosecution retaining the right to cross-examine. [Para 6]