Thakur Kishan Singh Vs Arvind Kumar (1994) 6 SCC 591

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as
“5. As regards adverse possession, it was not disputed even by the trial court that the appellant entered into possession over the land in dispute under a licence from the respondent for purposes of brick-kiln. The possession thus initially being permissive, the burden was heavy on the appellant to establish that it became adverse. A possession of a co-owner or of a licensee or of an agent or a permissive possession to become adverse must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real owner. Mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissive possession into adverse possession. Apart from it, the appellate court has gone into detail and after considering the evidence on record found it as a fact that the possession of the appellant was not adverse. The learned counsel, despite strenuous argument, could not demolish the finding of adverse possession. Attempt was made to rely on the evidence led on behalf of the parties and the evidence of the Commissioner who prepared the map. We are afraid that such an exercise is not permissible even in second appeal, what to say of the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Further, we do not find that the appellant has suffered any injustice which requires to be remedied by this Court.”

Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana Vs State of West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220

Criminal law - theory - punishment -
15. In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime; the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state of the victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment.

Satyanarain Bajoria and another Vs Ramnarain Tibrewal and another AIR 1994 SC 1583

CPC - order 21 rule 54- execution-lower appellate court totally messed the points which were required to be determined and merely by assuming that even if notice under Order 21 Rule 54 of the Code is not served, by virtue of explanation to Rule 90 of Order 21 of the Code it is not a material irregularity or illegality to auction sale. The lower appellate court totally misunderstood the importance and efficacy of notices being served in execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 22; Order 21 Rule 54 (1A), notice for settlement of terms of proclamation in the presence of the judgment-debtor which leg to the finding recorded by it and the finding on fact in the circumstances, is totally vitiated.

S P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 853

"...The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be passed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not process of the Court is being abused. Property-grabbers, taxevaders, bank-loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation... A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage... A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him, which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party."

Tata Cellular Vs Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651]

In this regard, theHon'ble Supreme Court laid down the areas of scope of judicial review in tender process

"69. A tender is an offer. It is something which invites and is communicated to notify acceptance. Broadly stated, the following are the requisites of a valid tender :

1. It must be unconditional.

2. Must be made at the proper place.

3. Must conform to the terms of obligation.

4. Must be made at the proper time.

5. Must be made in the proper form.

6. The person by whom the tender is made must be able and willing to perform his obligations.

7. There must be reasonable opportunity for inspection.

8. Tender must be made to the proper person.

9. It must be of full amount." 

State of UP Vs Babul Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29 Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"To constitute the offence of rape neither Section 375 of IPC nor the Explanation attached thereto require that there should necessarily be complete penetration of the penis into the private part of the victim/prosecutrix. In other words to constitute the offence of rape it is not at all necessary that there should be complete penetration of the male organ with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Even partial or slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without any emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration into the private part of the victim would be quite enough for the purpose of Sections 375 and 376 of IPC. That being so it is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape even without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. But in the present case before us as noticed above there is more than enough evidence positively showing that there was sexual activity on the victim and she was subjected to sexual assault without which she would not have sustained injuries of the nature found on her private part by the doctor who examined her."

Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. Vs. General Electric Co. AIR 1994 SC 860

Supreme Court observed “7(1)(b)(ii) has been used in a narrower sense and in order to attract the bar of public policy the enforcement of award must invoke something more than the violation of the law of India….policy must necessarily be construed in the sense the doctrine of public policy is applied in the field of private international law. Applying the said criteria it must be held that the enforcement of a foreign award would be refused on the ground that it is contrary to public policy if such enforcement would be contrary to (i) fundamental policy of Indian law; or (ii) the interests of India; or (iii) justice or morality”

Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair (1994) 2 SCC

The decision in earlier case on the issue between the same parties or persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the same title, it operates as a res-judicata. A plea decided even in a suit for injunction touching title between the same parties, would operate as res-judicata.

Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta 1994 (1) SCC 243

In absence of any indication, expressed or implied there is no reason to hold that authorities created by the Statute are beyond purview of the Act.... The legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The test, therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it is service or even facility".

Appeal Raja Ram v. State of M.P., (1994 SCC(Crl.) 573) in the case of non-appealing accused identical to the case of the appellants, the benefit of altered conviction and sentence must also be made available to such non-appealing accused also. It must be noticed in this connection that it was only after the full trial that the benefit of the appellate judgment was extended to the non appealing accused.

Evidence- Sec 27 Sukhvinder Singh and Ors. Vs.State of Punjab 1994(2)SCALE877 only so much of the statement of an accused is admissible in evidence as distinctly leads to the discovery of a fact. Therefore, once the fact has been discovered. Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot again be made use of to 're-discover' the discovered fact. It would be a total misuse-even abuse-of the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

CPC- Sec 13 Foreign Judgment Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., AIR 1994 (SC) 860 With regard to enforcement of foreign judgments, the position at common law is that a foreign judgment which is final and conclusive cannot be impeached for any error either of fact or of law and is impeachable on limited grounds, namely, the court of the foreign country did not, in the circumstances of have jurisdiction to give that judgment in the view of English law; the judgment is vitiated by fraud on part of the party in whose favour the judgment is given or fraud on the part of the court which pronounced the judgment; the enforcement or recognition of the judgment would be contrary to public policy; the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained were opposed to natural justice. In the field of private international law, Courts refuse to apply a rule of foreign law or recognise a foreign judgment or a foreign arbitral award if it is found that the same is contrary to the public policy of the country in which it is sought to be invoked or enforced. Redfern and Hunter, "if a workable definition of "international public policy" could be found, it would be an effective way of preventing an award in an international arbitration from being set aside for purely domestic policy considerations".