contempt petitions are before us, having been filed by Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. [“Ericsson”] against Reliance Communications Ltd. [“RCom”], Reliance Telecom Ltd. [“RTL”], and Reliance Infratel Ltd. [“RITL”] [hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “Reliance Companies” or “Companies”].=we are of the view that the contempt of this Court needs to be purged by payment of the sum of INR 550 crore together with interest till date. As stated by the letter dated 21.01.2019, subject to any calculation error, an amount of INR 453 crore must be paid to Ericsson in addition to the deposit of INR 118 crore made in the Registry of this Court. The Registry of this Court is directed to pay over the sum of INR 118 crore to Ericsson within a period of one week from today. The RCom group is directed to purge the contempt of this Court by payment to Ericsson of the sum of INR 41 453 crore within a period of four weeks from today. In default of such payment, the Chairmen who have given undertakings to this Court will suffer three months’ imprisonment. In addition to the aforesaid sum being paid, a fine amounting to INR 1 crore for each Company must also be paid to the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today. This sum will be paid over to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. In default of payment of such fine, the Chairmen of these Companies will suffer one month’s imprisonment

Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/INHERENT JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 845 OF 2018 RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED & ORS. …..PETITIONERS VERSUS…

The said doctor PW-1 specifically stated that the claimant did not tell him about any other injury except the one on the left hip; and that the claimant did not sustain any injury on his head. It appears from the testimony of the claimant-appellant that he allegedly 7 took treatment as regards scrotum in the months of November-December 1992, but there is no evidence on record to co-relate any such ailment or deformity concerning scrotum with the accident in question. Therefore, in our view, the High Court has been justified in rejecting the case of 95% permanent partial disablement and the suggestions about the injuries other than that on the left thigh bone of the appellant.- the question of just compensation, though it is noticed that the High Court has substantially reduced the amount of compensation awarded by 8 the Tribunal but then, such a reduction was the natural consequence of rejection of the case of 95% disablement. The High Court has, otherwise, examined the entire evidence on record and, in the ultimate analysis, the amount awarded by the High Court at Rs. 2,11,060/- cannot be said to be too low or grossly inadequate on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. In this view of the matter, some restriction by the High Court towards loss of earning or disallowance of expenses of medicines, do not make out a case for interference because, as observed, the ultimate award amount is not grossly inadequate in the given set of facts and circumstances. As regards interest, the Tribunal had been rather generous in awarding the same at an exorbitant rate of 15% p.a. that was liable to be reduced. In fact, the High Court has yet allowed a comparatively higher rate of interest at 9% p.a. We find absolutely no reason to consider any upward revision in the amount of compensation awarded in this case by the High Court.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari 

482 Cr.P.C = on resettlement of accounts, the parties obtained the consent decree from DRT and paid the entire sum, therefore, there is no live issue, which now survives. The High Court then examined the question as to whether the issue of criminality is involved so as to allow the Trial Court to continue on its merits. After examining this issue with reference to charges and documents, the High Court held that no 7 criminality issue is found involved notwithstanding the settlement of the case between the parties. 16. We are also of the view that there arises no occasion to prosecute the respondents as was rightly held by the High Court while quashing the criminal case against the respondents.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2107­2125 OF 2011 C.B.I. New Delhi ….Appellant(s) VERSUS B.B. Agarwal & Ors.…

No grounds to challenge the Majority Award =supplies of the Respondent’s copper rods made by the Appellant to Hindustan Transmission Products Ltd. (in short, “HTPL”) after April 1995. Payment for the same were not made by HTPL to the Appellant, who also subsequently failed to make payment for the supplied goods to the Respondent. Hence, the Respondent invoked the 3 arbitration clause under the agreement dated 14.12.1993 and the dispute was referred to a three­member arbitral tribunal.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1862 OF 2014 MMTC LTD. … APPELLANT Versus M/S VEDANTA LTD.…

S. 307 I.P.C= If the assailant acts with the intention or knowledge that such action might cause death, and hurt is caused, then the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C. would be applicable. There is no requirement for the injury to be on a “vital part” of the body, merely causing ‘hurt’ is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C. = In so far as the case against Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal is concerned; the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge under Section 307 r. w. Section 34 I.P.C. The High Court has rightly held that there is lack of consistency in the deposition of the Prosecution witnesses with respect to the role of the Accused /Respondent No. 2 – Ramji Lal. We affirm the judgment of the High Court qua Accused No. 2, and confirm the Order of acquittal passed in his favour on 03.01.2006.

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1190 OF 2009 State of Madhya Pradesh …Appellant Versus Harjeet Singh &…

prior meeting of minds – Section 34 IPC to convict accused = allegedly caught the right arm of Mohan and accused Bhav Singh held the left arm of Mohan. It is also brought in evidence that accused Bharat was giving lathi blows to Mohan even when he was running. If accused Nos.2 and 3 have shared the common intention, they would also have attacked the deceased; but they were only alleged to have caught hold of the deceased -The prosecution did not bring in evidence that there was prior meeting of minds and that accused Nos.2 and 3 were having knowledge that their brother accused Harnam Singh was armed with katta. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not convincing to hold that accused Nos.2 and 3 also shared the common intention with the accused Harnam Singh and other accused Bharat in committing the murder of Mohan. Conviction of 23 accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Conviction of accused No.2-Balvir Singh and accused No.3- Bhav Singh under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 341 IPC is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 341 IPC and their appeals Criminal Appeal No.1115 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.1116 of 2010 are allowed.

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1115 OF 2010 BALVIR SINGH …Appellant VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …Respondent WITH…

where the Court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the Court while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The Court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the Court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the Court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.” 13. In the instant matter, as already discussed above, we find the testimony of the eye­witnesses to be consistent and reliable, and therefore reject the contention of the appellants that the testimony of the eye­witnesses must be disbelieved because they are close relatives of the deceased and hence interested witnesses.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar  NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1839 OF 2010  Md. Rojali Ali & Ors. .....Appellants Versus The State of Assam ,        .....Respondent Ministry of Home Affairs through  the Secretary J U D G M E N T MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. In this most unfortunate and beastly incident, four persons fast asleep in their home in the early hours of the morning, oblivious to their imminent fate, were mercilessly murdered in a barbaric manner by the armed accused, without any instigation or provocation. 1 2. Against   the…

It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated by other evidence= It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction 12 unless it is corroborated by other evidence. A dying declaration, if found reliable, and if it is not an attempt by the deceased to cover the truth or to falsely implicate the accused, can be safely relied upon by the courts and can form the basis of conviction. More so, where the version given by the deceased as the dying declaration is supported and corroborated by other prosecution evidence, there is no reason for the courts to doubt the truthfulness of such dying declaration. The doctor PW­18, who recorded the statement of the deceased which was ultimately treated as his dying declaration, has fully supported the case of the prosecution by deposing about recording the dying declaration. He also deposed that the victim was in a fit state of mind while making the said declaration. We also do not find any material to show that the victim was tutored or prompted by anybody so as to create suspicion in the mind of the Court. Moreover, in this case the evidence of the eyewitnesses, which is fully reliable, is corroborated by the dying declaration in all material particulars. The High Court, on reappreciation of the entire evidence before it, has come to an independent and just conclusion by setting 13 aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.The High Court has found that there are substantial and compelling reasons to differ from the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. The High Court having found that the view taken by the Trial Court was not plausible in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, has on independent evaluation and by assigning reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. We concur with the judgment of the High Court, for the reasons mentioned supra.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar  NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2010 LALTU GHOSH …APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL…

licence could not be granted unless the distiller has participated in the tender process.= no one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor. But when the State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State cannot escape the rigour of Article 14. It cannot act arbitrarily or at its sweet will. It must comply with the equality clause while granting the exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing or selling liquor. The Appellant’s request for grant of a CS-1 license requires to be considered strictly in accordance with law.The Respondents are directed to consider the application of the Appellant for issuance of CS-1 licence in accordance with the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is needless to mention that the Respondents should not insist on the condition that the Appellant should have participated in a tender and should have been allotted an area of operation.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao  Non -Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 1701 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.…