Facts:

The writ petitioners challenged orders related to the cancellation of a plot allotted to Milkhi Ram in Sector 40, Chandigarh.

The petitioners offered to file an application under Rule 21-A of the Chandigarh Lease-hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973, during the High Court hearing.

The High Court, considering the offer, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to reconsider the case in light of Jasbir Singh Bakshi's case.

Issues:

Validity of successive orders for cancellation of the allotted plot.

Consideration of the petitioners' request for time for re-payment.

Applicability of Jasbir Singh Bakshi's case to the present situation.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the background of the litigation, disagreed with the High Court's direction to reconsider the case in the light of Jasbir Singh Bakshi's case. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remitted the writ petition to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

Referred Cases:

Jasbir Singh Bakshi Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (2004) 10 SCC 440

Facts:

The appellants were accused of offenses under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 397 IPC.

The witnesses' statements were recorded with a delay, casting doubt on their status as eyewitnesses.

Lack of corroboration of evidence from an independent source.

Allegations of the Investigating Officer deliberately delaying the case.

Issues:

Whether the delay in recording witness statements impacts their credibility.

Whether there is sufficient corroboration of evidence.

Whether the Investigating Officer's actions affect the reliability of the case.

Held:

The court held that the delay in recording witness statements cast serious doubt about their status as eyewitnesses.

Lack of corroboration from an independent source raised concerns about the reliability of the evidence.

Allegations of the Investigating Officer deliberately delaying the case were noted.

The court concluded that the case against the appellants was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

Referred Cases:

Decided on : 02-03-2016

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Section 110

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 302, Section 397

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302/149 and 148 — Murder — Common object of unlawful assembly — Appeal against conviction — Delay in recording statements casts serious doubt about their being eye-witnesses to occurrence — There is no corroboration of their evidence from any other independent source — Investigating Officer was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about shape to be given to case and eye-witnesses to be introduced — Case against appellants has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt — Conviction and sentence set aside.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Sushil Kr. Jain, Sr. Adv., Vikramjit Banerjee, Rishi Maheshwari, Bharat Sood, Bishwanath Chatterji, Advocates for Shally Bhasin, Advocate, Abhinav Gupta, Apurv Taran, Advocate for Pratibha Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant; Puneet Parihar, Saurabh Rajpal, Advocates for Milind Kumar and Ruchi Kohli, Advocates, for the Respondent

Final Result : Allowed

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.