Facts:

Initially, workers were appointed through contractors and later through a Co-operative Society.

A policy decision was made to entrust security work to CISF.

The Corporation issued memorandums of appointment to the workers on a term basis.

Issues:

Whether the workers' services should be regularized by the Corporation.

Whether the Corporation's policy decision supersedes the Certified Standing Orders.

Whether the Corporation's actions amounted to unfair labor practices.

Held:

The tribunal had the jurisdiction to direct regularization based on the facts and evidence.

The Corporation cannot deny workers' rights based on alleged irregularities in the appointment process. The policy decision does not override the Certified Standing Orders.

The Corporation failed to modify Standing Orders as required by law. The alleged policy decision does not have legal validity.

The workers' appointments, though irregular, cannot be termed illegal. The Corporation's actions amounted to unfair labor practices.

The judgments and orders in favor of the workers are upheld. The Corporation is directed to comply with the tribunal's award and regularize the workers' services, with back wages and other benefits.

Facts:

Shanti Roy, the deceased, was married to Sekhar Roy in 1994.

Prosecution alleged that Sekhar Roy, his mother, two sisters, and brother demanded Rs. 5000 as dowry from Shanti Roy.

Shanti Roy committed suicide by self-immolation in 1995, allegedly due to harassment for not fulfilling the dowry demand.

Several family members, including the appellants, were sent for trial.

The prosecution's case rested on witness testimonies alleging dowry harassment by all family members.

Issues:

Whether there was exaggeration in implicating all family members in dowry harassment.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellants under Sections 498A, 306, and 304B of the IPC.

Held:

The court acknowledged the possibility of exaggeration in implicating all family members and emphasized the need for specific evidence against each accused.

The prosecution failed to provide individual roles of each accused in the harassment.

The court granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt due to the lack of specific evidence and the possibility of exaggeration.

The conviction and sentence under Section 304B of the IPC were set aside, while the conviction and sentence under other charges remained unchanged.

The appellants were ordered to be released from custody unless required in any other case.

Facts:

The accused was convicted for the theft of opium and possession thereof, under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The appeal raised several legal arguments challenging the conviction.

Issues:

Whether the NDPS Act is applicable to the case, considering the timing of the offense and the enforcement of the Act.

Whether the conviction under the NDPS Act violates Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

How "possession" is defined in the context of the NDPS Act.

Whether the offense in question qualifies as a continuing offense.

Whether the seizure of contraband in a public place falls under Section 43 of the NDPS Act.

Whether there was substantial compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act.

The admissibility of evidence obtained under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The impact of delay in sending seized articles for chemical examination on the prosecution case.

Held:

The court held that the NDPS Act is applicable because the accused remained in possession of the contraband substance even after the Act came into force. Thus, the offense under Section 18 of the NDPS Act is established.

The court clarified that there is no retrospective effect in the application of the NDPS Act, and thus, there is no violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

The concept of possession was defined to include both physical control and the intent to exercise control over the substance, as required under the NDPS Act.

The offense was recognized as a continuing one, as the accused remained in possession of the contraband even after the NDPS Act came into force.

The court differentiated between Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act, stating that Section 43 applies to seizures made in public places, thus negating the requirement of compliance with Section 42(2).

It was held that substantial compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act is sufficient and does not vitiate the prosecution case.

The court clarified that evidence obtained under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is admissible, even if it is not directly related to the offense for which the person is arrested.

The delay in sending seized articles for chemical examination was deemed insufficient to affect the prosecution case, especially when the seal on the report was intact.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the accused under the NDPS Act was upheld.

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to murder the victim's wife and cause injuries to the victim's husband due to disapproval of their marriage by the victim's mother and maternal uncle. Seven out of eleven accused were initially convicted by the trial court, while the remaining four were acquitted. Subsequently, three more accused were acquitted by the High Court, but the convictions of appellants AS, AK, JS, and OS were upheld.

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented in the case sufficiently establishes the guilt of the accused.

Whether the principle of issue estoppel applies in this case.

Whether the convictions of the appellants are justified under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Held:

The evidence presented in the case, including witness testimony, medical evidence, corroborating material, and circumstantial evidence, strongly supports the guilt of the accused. The courts below were justified in finding AS and AK guilty of offenses under sections 364, 307, and 302 of the IPC.

The rule regarding issue estoppel does not apply in this case, as it pertains to the admissibility of evidence in subsequent proceedings and not to subsequent judgments upending earlier findings of fact.

The convictions of AS, AK, and JS are upheld based on the evidence presented, including telephonic conversations, extra-judicial confession, and other corroborating material. However, OS is acquitted due to insufficient evidence beyond telephonic conversations.

Decision: The criminal appeals filed by AS, AK, JS, and OS are dismissed, and their convictions are upheld, except for OS, who is acquitted.

Facts:

The case pertained to the constitutional validity of certain provisions under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, specifically Rule 9(2) and its proviso (ii). The proviso allowed authorities to add 1% of the Free on Board (F.O.B.) value of goods as loading, unloading, and handling charges.

Issues:

The constitutionality of the said proviso, particularly regarding its application even when actual charges were ascertainable.

Held:

The Court observed that a conjoint reading of Rules 3 and 4 elucidated that the value of imported goods should be the transaction value, which can be determined through various means outlined in Rules 5 to 8.

Once the transaction value is determined, adjustments are made in accordance with Rule 9, which deals with the inclusion of certain services' costs. However, the proviso in question mandates the addition of 1% of the F.O.B. value of goods for loading, unloading, and handling charges, regardless of whether actual costs are ascertainable. This was found to be contrary to the spirit of Section 14 of the Customs Act and was deemed arbitrary and irrational.

Decision: The court held that the provision should be read down to apply only in cases where actual charges are not ascertainable, thus aligning with the principles of fairness and reasonableness in customs valuation.

FACTS:

The case involved a land dispute leading to a violent altercation resulting in the death of one individual.

The appellants, along with others, were accused of assaulting individuals involved in the land dispute, resulting in the death of Ajit Nath.

The trial court convicted three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

ISSUES:

Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC was justified.

Whether the case warranted conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC instead.

HELD:

The Court affirmed that there was an assembly of more than five persons with a common object to use criminal force against the deceased. The acquittal of others did not negate the appellants' involvement in the crime.

The Court invoked precedents to support the conviction under Section 149 IPC despite the acquittal of some accused.

After considering the circumstances and the absence of premeditation, the Court held that the offense committed by the appellants fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

The Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC and reducing the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each.

REFERRED CASES:

Khem Karan and Others Vs. The State of U.P. and Another, AIR 1974 SC 1567

Dharam Pal and Others Vs. The State of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 1917

Dahari and Others Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2013 SC 308

Shaji and Others Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2011 SC 1825

Facts:

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Ashapura Mine-Chem Ltd. and Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation contained an arbitration clause.

Despite differences in interpreting various terms of the MoU, both parties had agreed to refer disputes to arbitration.

Attempts for amicable settlement at the bilateral level, as per Clause 26 of the MoU, were made but unsuccessful.

Ashapura Mine-Chem Ltd. invoked Clause 27 of the MoU for arbitration after suggesting a retired High Court Judge as an arbitrator, which was rejected by Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation.

Ashapura Mine-Chem Ltd. subsequently moved the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking arbitration.

Issues:

Whether the arbitration clause in the MoU remained valid and enforceable despite disputes regarding other terms of the contract.

Held:

The arbitration clause in the MoU remains enforceable independent of the main contract, as per Section 16(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Clause 27 of the MoU provided for arbitration in case of unresolved disputes, allowing either party to invoke Section 11 of the Act if consensus was not reached.

Both parties attempted amicable settlement as per Clause 26 of the MoU, but disagreements persisted, justifying arbitration.

Ashapura Mine-Chem Ltd. was entitled to invoke Clause 27 of the MoU and seek arbitration, as the respondent declined to agree to the appointment of an arbitrator.

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and a retired judge is appointed as the arbitrator to resolve the dispute between Ashapura Mine-Chem Ltd. and Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation.

Facts:

The appellants and the complainant were real brothers involved in a longstanding dispute. The incident occurred when the complainant and his associates attempted to remove belongings from their parental house, leading to a quarrel between the parties. The appellants attacked the complainant and his associates with weapons, causing injuries to both sides.

Issues:

Whether the appellants acted in self-defense or exceeded their right of private defense in the altercation with the complainant and his associates.

Held:

The court held that while the appellants may have acted in the heat of the moment, they exceeded the right of private defense. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. Additionally, the court invoked Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code to award compensation to the victims.

The appellants were required to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 each, in addition to the compensation awarded by the High Court. The compensation amount was determined based on the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims. The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

Jagbir Singh purchased a tractor with a loan from Central Bank of India. The vehicle was initially insured but not renewed after a specific date. An accident occurred later, resulting in a fatality, and the victim's family filed a claim petition.

The victim's family filed a complaint against Central Bank of India, seeking compensation. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held the bank liable. This decision was upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Central Bank of India filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which was dismissed due to a delay of 230 days.

Issues:

Whether the delay in filing the revision petition by Central Bank of India before the NCDRC should be condoned.

What is the liability of a creditor bank, like Central Bank of India, in terms of vehicle insurance obligations, particularly in the context of a motor vehicle accident?

Held:

The Supreme Court observed that the delay in filing the revision petition was adequately explained by Central Bank of India, considering the procedural requirements within the bank.

Referring to past precedents, the court reiterated that the liability of a creditor bank to insure the vehicle extends only until it comes out on the road. The bank isn't obligated to renew the insurance policy on behalf of the vehicle owner.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside previous orders and relieving Central Bank of India from liability for the accident compensation.