Facts:

Manyata Devi applied for a character/enlistment certificate necessary for contractor registration under the Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh.

Despite meeting other requirements, her application was refused by the District Magistrate citing her husband's criminal cases.

The High Court upheld the District Magistrate's decision, leading to Manyata Devi's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the refusal of a character certificate based on the criminal record of the applicant's spouse is justified.

Whether the District Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by considering factors beyond the applicant's moral character.

Whether the denial of the character certificate was intended to prevent the applicant's husband from carrying out works through her registration.

Held:

The court held that The District Magistrate should have simply certified her character because that was the only question which the former was called upon to examine while dealing with the request made by the Appellant.

The court further stated: "The District Magistrate did not have any authority under the rules stipulating registration of contractors to consider such requests for registration or to grant or refuse the same.

The court concluded: The Court ruled that character certificates should be based solely on the applicant's moral character and not influenced by irrelevant factors such as family members' actions. Additionally, decisions regarding contractor registration should be made by the competent authority in the relevant department, not by district magistrates.

Facts:

Satendra Kumar Jain, a 30-year-old bachelor who was self-employed as a Pandit, died in a motor accident. His parents filed a claim seeking compensation. The claim amount sought was Rs. 95,50,000. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 6,59,000, which was later enhanced to Rs. 12,61,800 by the High Court.

Issues:

The appeal focused on the correct computation of compensation, particularly concerning the deduction for personal and living expenses and the multiplier to be used.

Held:

The Court upheld the standard deduction of 50% for bachelors for personal and living expenses. It clarified that for self-employed individuals below 40 years, a 50% addition to actual income should be made while computing future prospects. The multiplier is to be determined with reference to the age of the deceased, not the dependents. In this case, with the deceased being between 26 to 30 years old, a multiplier of 17 was applied. As a result, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 18,36,000 for loss of dependency. The appeal was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.

Facts:

Prem Ram, the appellant, had been engaged in a legal dispute over the termination of his services as a daily-wager. Despite the termination being deemed illegal, there were delays in regularizing his service while his junior colleagues were regularized.

Issues:

Whether Prem Ram's service should be regularized given the circumstances of his termination and the subsequent regularization of his junior colleagues.

Held:

The Court held that Prem Ram's service should indeed be regularized on par with his junior colleagues, considering the unjust delays he faced despite his lengthy tenure of service. The Court directed the regularization of his service from the date his juniors were regularized until his superannuation. However, it was clarified that this regularization wouldn't entitle Prem Ram to claim arrears of salary. The Court set aside the orders of the High Court and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

Facts:

Incident occurred on July 2, 1998, involving a confrontation between two parties in a field in Haryana, resulting in injuries and death.

Ten accused initially convicted by the trial court under various sections of the IPC, including murder (Section 302) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly), sentenced to life imprisonment.

Appeals filed in the High Court challenging the convictions, which were upheld.

Appeals by special leave to the Supreme Court, contesting the convictions and sentences.

Issues:

Whether the charge of unlawful assembly and conviction under Section 149 of the IPC should fail due to the acquittal of some accused.

Whether the incident falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, dealing with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Held:

The Court partly allowed the appeals, concluding that with the reduction in the number of convicted persons to four, Section 149 of the IPC could not be invoked.

The Court accepted the defense's argument regarding the nature of the offense, ruling that it fell under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the life sentences were set aside.

Appellant Har Chand was convicted under Section 304 Part-I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentenced to eight years of rigorous imprisonment.

The convictions and sentences of the other appellants under Sections 325 and 323 of the IPC were affirmed, and they were set free as they had already served their sentences.

Facts:

The appellant, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing paper, filed its income tax return for the Assessment Year 1991-92, declaring its income as 'Nil'. The Assessing Officer adjusted unabsorbed depreciation instead of allowing the carry forward of unabsorbed investment allowance claimed by the appellant.

The appellant contested the treatment of its income tax return through various levels of appeal but was unsuccessful. The issue revolved around the priority between unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance in computing the appellant's income.

Issues:

Whether unabsorbed depreciation or unabsorbed investment allowance should be allowed first in computing the appellant's income.

Held:

The Court held that unabsorbed depreciation should take precedence over unabsorbed investment allowance in computing the appellant's income. This decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Section 32(2), which states that unabsorbed depreciation becomes part of the depreciation of the current year by legal fiction. The Court emphasized that once depreciation is claimed, both current and unabsorbed carried forward depreciation should be considered together, as the latter partakes the character of the former. Therefore, the appellant cannot selectively claim depreciation of the current year while refusing to set off unabsorbed carried forward depreciation. The Court dismissed the appeals and favored the revenue.

Facts:

The appellant accused was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of seven members of her own family, including a ten-month-old child.

Issues:

Whether the imposition of the death penalty was justified in this case.

Held:

The court emphasized the principles governing the imposition of the death penalty, emphasizing that it should be reserved for the "rarest of rare cases" and imposed only when life imprisonment is deemed inadequate. Life imprisonment is the norm, and death penalty is an exception.

The court outlined the criteria for determining whether a case falls under the "rarest of rare" category, including considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and assessing the method and manner of the crime.

It stressed the need for an independent evaluation of each case, considering all relevant circumstances and their cumulative effect. The court also highlighted the importance of maintaining a link between contemporary community values and the penal system in sentencing decisions.

The aggravating circumstances in this case, including the extreme brutality, calculated nature, and lack of remorse of the appellant accused, outweighed the mitigating circumstances such as their young age and pregnancy at the time of the crime. The court found the crime to be committed in the most cruel and inhuman manner, justifying the imposition of the death penalty.

Decision: Dismissing the appeals, the court upheld the death penalty imposed on the appellant accused.

Facts:

The case pertains to the extension of telecom licenses in India. The licensees sought renewal or extension of their licenses as their original tenure was coming to an end. The Government of India, along with the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), rejected the applications for extension. The licensees challenged these decisions.

Issues:

Whether the licensees have an automatic right of renewal or extension upon the expiry of their original license term.

What are the obligations of the licensor (Union of India) in extending licenses?

Is the government's decision to conduct auctions for spectrum allocation in compliance with constitutional requirements?

What role does market dynamics play in determining tariffs and spectrum allocation?

Whether the government is bound by the recommendations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in renewing or extending existing licenses.

Held:

The court held that licensees do not have an automatic right of renewal or extension. The extension is at the discretion of the licensor, subject to specified conditions.

The obligations of the licensor extend beyond contractual terms and include obligations flowing from the Constitution and laws of the land. Constitutional obligations take precedence over contractual obligations.

The government's decision to conduct auctions for spectrum allocation was upheld as compliant with constitutional requirements. The court lacks expertise in economic policy decisions, making auctions the most suitable method for disposal of natural resources.

Market forces determine the price for spectrum allocation, and licensees, being corporate entities with economic power, can make informed investment decisions.

The government is not bound by TRAI's recommendations in renewing or extending existing licenses. The obligation to consult TRAI arises primarily in the case of new licenses.

Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, upholding the government's discretion in extending telecom licenses and its decision to conduct auctions for spectrum allocation. It emphasized the importance of considering constitutional obligations and market dynamics in such matters.

Facts:

The case revolves around the classification of Ketoconazole Shampoo and Nizral Shampoo under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The essential question is whether these products should be categorized as pharmaceutical products or preparations for use on hair.

Issues:

The classification of Ketoconazole Shampoo and Nizral Shampoo: whether they should be classified under CHS 3003.10 as pharmaceutical products or under CHS 3305.99 as preparations for use on hair.

Held:

The tribunal's view that 'Nizral Shampoo' is classifiable under CHS 3003.10 as pharmaceutical products and not CHS 3305.99 as preparations for use on hair is concurred with.

The essential properties of the products are medicinal in nature, supporting their classification as pharmaceutical products. Despite being labeled as shampoo, clear warnings and precautions for medicinal use were provided by the manufacturer.

Usage of the shampoo was recommended only under the advice of a doctor, indicating its medicinal use. Literature provided by the manufacturer emphasized its use as a medicament for treating dandruff.

Evidence presented showed the use of Ketoconazole Shampoo for treating various disorders and diseases, further supporting its classification as a pharmaceutical product.

The tribunal's judgment does not call for any interference, and the differential duty demands are quashed.

Facts:

The application filed by Common Cause sought directions against Mr. Ranjit Sinha, the former Director of the CBI, to refrain from interfering in coal block allocation case investigations.

Mr. Ranjit Sinha filed a counter-application requesting an FIR against Mr. Prashant Bhushan and others for allegedly making false statements.

Issues:

Whether Mr. Ranjit Sinha's meetings with accused persons, as alleged, without the presence of investigating officers, raised concerns about the fairness of the investigations.

Whether the disclosure of information by Mr. Prashant Bhushan and others constituted perjury or a violation of the Official Secrets Act.

Held:

The Court held that the meetings between Mr. Ranjit Sinha and accused persons, without the presence of investigating officers, raised serious concerns about the fairness of the investigations. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining fairness and impartiality in investigations, as mandated by the Constitution and established legal principles.

The Court dismissed Mr. Ranjit Sinha's application seeking an FIR against Mr. Prashant Bhushan and others, finding no evidence of perjury or violation of the Official Secrets Act. The Court noted that the disclosures made were in the public interest and did not amount to misleading the court or disclosing official secrets.