Facts:

The land in question was initially acquired by the State Government for an industrial area in 1946.

The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on oral patta granted by the former zamindar to their ancestor.

The defendant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, challenged this claim, arguing that the plaintiffs were declared encroachers by the Tehsildar in 1978.

The trial court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, but the first appellate court remanded the case for amendments to the plaint. Despite this, the suit was again dismissed by the trial court, and the first appellate court upheld this decision.

The plaintiffs then filed a second appeal before the High Court, which ruled in their favor, shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant.

Whether the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to establish adverse possession or ownership rights.

Held:

The High Court erred in shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant. The court observed that the settled principle of law dictates that the plaintiff must prove their case. The High Court's placement of the burden of proof on the defendant was deemed erroneous.

The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish adverse possession or ownership rights. The court found that the plaintiffs did not prove the requisites of adverse possession as pleaded in the amended plaint. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiffs did not adequately disclose when adverse possession started and when it was perfected.

Based on the above considerations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The court restored the judgment of the first appellate court, affirming the decision of the trial court in favor of the defendant, the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Facts:

The appellants filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging medical negligence in the treatment of the first appellant's husband. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 responded to the complaint, and the appellants filed a rejoinder. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, however, responded at a later stage, and the appellants were given several opportunities to file a rejoinder to their reply.

Issues:

The main issue pertains to the procedural irregularities in the handling of the complaint by the National Commission, specifically regarding the closure of the right to file a rejoinder and the subsequent dismissal of the complaint for want of evidence.

Held:

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the National Commission and restored the complaint to its original number. The appellants were given two weeks to file their affidavit in evidence. Failure to do so would result in forfeiting the opportunity. Additionally, the appellants were required to appear before the National Commission on a specified date, with dismissal of the complaint as a consequence of non-appearance.

Facts:

The appellant, Manmeet Singh, appealed against his conviction under Section 396 IPC for dacoity and murder. The incident involved the killing of Mohinder Singh, a cashier, during a robbery of money collected from a bank. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimony, primarily PW1, PW3, and PW4. However, their accounts were contradictory, and their identification of the appellant was inconsistent. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the other accused individuals, who were acquitted due to lack of evidence.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 396 IPC could be sustained, given the failure to prove the involvement of five or more individuals in the commission of the offense.

Held:

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence and participation of five or more persons, which is essential for an offense under Section 396 IPC. Since there was no specific charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant, his conviction for dacoity with murder could not be upheld. Therefore, the court allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside his conviction, and ordered his immediate release.

Facts:

Millenium Wires (P) Ltd. and the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. entered into an agreement for importing copper wire rods from companies in Singapore and Malaysia. Disputes arose, leading to a suit seeking injunctions against the companies in Singapore and Malaysia from claiming benefits under the Letters of Credit. They also sought injunctions against Malayan Bank to prevent release of funds under the Letters of Credit.

Issues:

Whether the allegations in the plaint justified injunctions against the negotiating banks regarding Letters of Credit, and whether the High Court's decision to dismiss the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to dismiss the plaint. The Court emphasized the need for caution in granting injunctions against banks concerning Letters of Credit, reiterating that interference should only occur in cases of clear fraud, with evidence of the bank's knowledge of such fraud.

Facts:

The case involved charges against Rakesh Mishra, Gyanendra Singh Jadon, and Sajid Dhanani related to alleged irregularities in granting building certificates and completion certificates to Sayaji Hotel in Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

The accused were charged with corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code.

The charges stemmed from allegations that the accused individuals illegally granted building and completion certificates, and received illegal gratification in return.

Issues:

Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused individuals.

Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order of framing charges against Rakesh Mishra and Gyanendra Singh Jadon.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the order of framing charges against Rakesh Mishra and Gyanendra Singh Jadon, stating that the High Court correctly assessed the material before it. (Para 7)

However, the Court found sufficient material to establish a prima facie case against the accused individuals based on significant discrepancies between the original and revised building plans. (Para 13)

The Court urged the Trial Court to expedite the trial proceedings to ensure timely justice and prevent the erosion of evidence. (Para 14)

Ultimately, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision and restoring the order of the Additional Sessions Judge to frame charges against the accused individuals. (Para 17)

Facts:

Taparia Tools Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessee') claimed deduction for upfront interest payments made to debenture holders, but the Assessing Officer (AO) spread the deduction over five years. The Assessee challenged this decision through appeals, leading to the current case.

Issues:

Whether the upfront interest payment should be allowed as a deduction in the first year or spread over five years.

Whether the Assessee's treatment of the expenditure in its books of accounts binds its tax assessment.

Held:

The court held that the Assessee was entitled to deduction of the entire upfront interest expenditure in the year in which it was actually paid, rejecting the AO's decision to spread it over five years. The court emphasized that the liability was genuinely incurred and quantified in the assessment year, making it eligible for full deduction. The court also clarified that the Assessee's accounting treatment did not bind its tax assessment, and it was entitled to claim the deduction as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Facts:

Plaintiff Annamma Thomas filed a suit for injunction against the Defendants, alleging trespass and attempted demolition of property boundaries.

The trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, confirming their ownership and granting an injunction against the Defendants.

The Defendants appealed the decision, and the first appellate court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the decree but affirming the Plaintiff's ownership and granting an injunction.

Dissatisfied with the first appellate court's decision, the Defendants filed a second appeal before the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in framing a question as a substantial question of law when it pertained to a question of fact.

Whether remanding the case to the trial court for re-appreciation of evidence and fresh decision was appropriate.

Held:

The Supreme Court observed that the question framed by the High Court was essentially a question of fact and not a substantial question of law. The Court criticized the High Court for merely re-appreciating the evidence and remanding the matter to the trial court, causing unnecessary delay and harassment to the litigants. Referring to relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the Supreme Court highlighted that remanding a case for re-appreciation of evidence and fresh decision should be avoided, especially when the suit was not disposed of on any preliminary issue by the trial court. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and decree, and affirming the judgment and decree modified by the first appellate court. There would be no order as to costs.

Facts:

The appellant, a resident of a building, filed a writ petition against the owners of a pathological lab and the concerned authorities due to the lab's adverse effects on the residents.

The lab had been issued a Regularization Certificate by the Municipal Corporation under Mixed Land Use regulations, even before the Master Plan Delhi 2021 came into force.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's petition constitutes public interest litigation.

Whether the lab's operations violated environmental regulations and building bye-laws.

Held:

The Division Bench of the High Court was incorrect in categorizing the proceedings initiated by the appellant as private interest litigation. The appellant's actions were in the public interest, as evidenced by various complaints made by affected neighbors. [Para 24]

The Municipal Corporation overlooked crucial aspects regarding the deviation from the relevant Delhi Master Plan and unauthorized usage of the building's floors. This act contradicted legal principles. [Para 27]

The contention that the mezzanine floor did not exist was made with mala fide intentions to conceal unauthorized construction. The issuance of the Regularization Certificate was in contravention of building bye-laws and the Master Plan Delhi 2021. [Para 29-30]

The Regularization Certificate was contradictory and impermissible in law, as it allowed the running of a pathological lab under the guise of a nursing home without seeking permission during the pendency of an earlier writ petition. [Para 38]

The lab's operations led to violations of environmental laws, including emitting hazardous substances and causing air and noise pollution. The installation of large diesel generator sets also contravened building byelaws. [Para 40-45]

The Municipal Corporation and the DPCC failed to take prompt action against the lab's unlawful activities despite persistent complaints. Their inaction amounted to a blatant violation of the rule of law. [Para 49-51]

The court directed the authorities to ensure the immediate cessation of the lab's operations and instructed the lab owners to close down the establishment and relocate it within four weeks. [Para 53]

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and directions were issued as mentioned above.

Facts:

The respondent, Stangen Immuno Diagnostics, claimed the benefit of exemption/concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 175/86-CE for its products bearing the brand name 'Stangen.' The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, issued a show cause notice alleging that the use of the brand name 'Stangen' belonged to Dr. K. Anji Reddy of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories (DRL), and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the exemption.

Issues:

Whether the respondent could claim the benefit of the notification if the goods bore a brand name or trade name belonging to another person, and if so, under what circumstances.

Held:

The court held that the benefit of the exemption would not be granted if the goods bore a brand name or trade name belonging to another person who was not eligible for the exemption, regardless of whether the brand name or trade name was registered. The key criterion was whether the mark established a connection between the specified goods and the person using the name or mark. The court clarified that if the manufacturer used the brand name or trade name in its own right, as the owner thereof, and not as belonging to another company, they would still be entitled to the exemption. The case was remitted back to the Commissioner, Central Excise, for fresh consideration in accordance with the court's clarifications and directions.