Facts:

The main appeal (C.A. No. 364 of 2005) centers around the dispute over the intake capacity of a specific institution offering architectural education. The Council of Architecture (CoA), after an inspection in 2004, restored the intake capacity to 40 students per year, which was earlier reduced to 30. However, the Director of Technical Education fixed it at 30 students based on norms established by AICTE.

Issues:

The final authority in cases of contradiction between the Council of Architecture (CoA) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regarding the grant of approval to institutions for conducting architectural courses and monitoring their operations.

Held:

Recognition of Degrees: The judgment affirms that, concerning recognition of degrees and diplomas in architecture education, the Architects Act, 1972, shall prevail. AICTE is not entitled to impose regulatory measures in connection with degrees and diplomas in architecture.

Implementation of Recognition Process: In an appeal arising from SLP(C) No.5400 of 2011, the court directs the implementation of the recognition process under the 1972 Act for the subject institution before any further admission takes place. However, admissions undertaken based on interim orders are not to be disturbed.

Dismissal of Appeals: The appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.8443 of 2011 is dismissed. In the appeal arising from SLP(C) No.20460 of 2011, the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is set aside, but no independent directions are issued.

Disposal of Appeals: Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.17005 and 17006 of 2016 are disposed of in terms of the decision in the main appeal (C.A. No.364 of 2005).

Setting Aside Decision: In the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.28121 of 2018, the decision of the Kerala High Court is set aside, and the institution involved is entitled to operate with recognition obtained under the 1972 Act. All interim orders passed in these appeals are dissolved.

FACTS:

Appellant and Respondent No. 1 married without parental consent.

They sought police protection due to problems from the bride's parents.

High Court initially granted protection but later recalled it, directing the filing of an FIR against the Appellant under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

The basis for the recall was the discrepancy in the Appellant's age, as per school records.

ISSUES:

Legality of recalling a protection order under Section 482 of CrPC.

Applicability of Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, based on the Appellant's age.

HELD:

The High Court erred in recalling the protection order under Section 482, as there is no provision for such recall in criminal matters.

Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, was misapplied. Even if the Appellant was over 18, the legislative intent suggests that only male adults marrying child brides are punishable.

The Court clarified that Section 9 should be read as "male adult above eighteen years of age marries a child," and not as "contracts a child marriage."

The Court quashed the directions to lodge an FIR, stating that Section 9 did not apply to the case.

Police protection was deemed unnecessary as the couple was reported to be living happily without threats from family members.

Facts:

The appellant, Union of India and others, challenged the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal regarding the entitlement of the respondent, V.R. Nanukuttan Nair, to the service element of disability pension from the date of discharge. The respondent was discharged on June 30, 1978, after 10 years and 169 days of service, having been in a low medical category since 1970.

Issues:

The denial of the service element of disability pension to the respondent, who was granted disability pension but was denied the service element.

Held:

The Court examined Regulations 78, 105B, and 107 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. The argument of the appellant, stating that the service element is admissible only after completing 15 years of qualifying service, was rejected. The Court held that the purpose of Regulation 105B is to prevent dual payment of the service element of disability pension when an individual is entitled to service pension as well. It emphasized that the absence of the expression 'on completion of qualifying service' in Regulation 105B supports the interpretation that completion of 15 years is not a prerequisite for the service element.

The Court concluded that a harmonious reading of the regulations, considering the object of granting disability pension, supports an interpretation that advances the purpose of the grant of disability. Therefore, the service element should be payable to an individual who has completed the period of engagement in the low medical category, even if not completing the qualifying service of 15 years.

Facts:

An agreement was made on 30.08.2001 between the respondent-Central Warehousing Corporation and the appellant for handling and transportation work. The contract was terminated due to poor performance, and a dispute arose. The arbitrator awarded in favor of the respondent, upholding the termination and justifying the forfeiture of the security deposit and detention of equipment. The appellant filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Issues:

Validity of termination and forfeiture of security deposit.

Detention of equipment.

Counterclaims raised by the appellant.

Held:

The Arbitrator and the Courts upheld the termination, justified the forfeiture of the security deposit and detention of equipment. The court noted the failure of the appellant to deliver the container, resulting in missed export schedules. The appellant received the full payment as per the arbitral award even before filing objections under Section 34. The court found no reason to interfere with the Arbitrator's decision.

FACTS:

The appellant terminated the dealership of the respondent for adulteration of High-Speed Diesel.

The samples drawn from the dealer's outlet failed quality tests, leading to the termination.

ISSUES:

Whether the Guidelines' time limit for sample testing is mandatory.

Whether the procedure under the Control Order, including Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is applicable.

Validity of the termination of the dealership based on stock variation and sample failure.

HELD:

The Court held that the time limit mentioned in the Guidelines is a preferred time frame and not mandatory. The language and purpose of the Guidelines do not support a strict adherence interpretation.( Paragraph 14)

The Court dismissed the argument regarding the umpire sample's delayed testing, emphasizing the lack of objections raised by the dealer earlier. The authenticity of the samples was upheld.( Paragraph 15)

The Court affirmed the termination of the dealership for adulteration, citing deficient test reports and compliance with Guidelines.( Paragraph 16)

The Court analyzed stock variation and sample failure under Clauses 5.1.11, 8.2, and 8.3 of the Guidelines, supporting the termination as per contractual obligations.( Paragraph 17)

The High Court's order was deemed illegal and unsustainable. The termination was held valid and legal, and the writ petition was dismissed.( Paragraph 18)

REFERRED CASES:

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Jagannath And Company & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 278

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. vs. Super Highway Services & Ann (2010) 3 SCC 321

Facts:

The co-accused, now deceased, abducted a 10-year old girl and her 7-year old brother using a borrowed school van. The accused-petitioner joined them later. The girl was raped and sodomized, and both children were administered poison. Failing in their attempt to poison the victims, they were thrown into a canal, resulting in their drowning. The trial court and the High Court convicted the accused-petitioner under various sections, including murder and rape, and imposed the death sentence.

Issues:

The review petition challenged the conviction and death sentence. The main issues included the voluntariness of the petitioner's confession, the validity of the death penalty, and the adequacy of legal representation.

Held:

Scope of Review: The scope of review in death penalty cases is narrow, allowing intervention only for errors apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence causing manifest injustice. The Court reaffirmed restrictive principles applied in previous decisions on the scope of review.

Voluntariness of Confession & Effect of Retraction: The Court emphasized that the validity of a confession in India hinges on compliance with statutory provisions ensuring voluntariness. Even in the absence of a provision for retracting a confession, the Court reduces its probative value when retracted. In this case, the Magistrate complied with all procedural requirements, affirmatively ensuring voluntariness.

Independent Re-appreciation of Evidence: The Court rejected the contention that the appeal was decided without independently re-appreciating evidence, asserting a critical analysis during the proceedings leading to a unanimous finding of guilt.

Plea of Inadequacy of Legal Representation: While acknowledging refusals by counsel, the trial court ensured legal aid representation, eliminating prejudice. The High Court and this Court provided due legal representation, dismissing claims of deficient assistance.

Allegations of Discrepancies in Arrest & Recovery of Evidence: Disputes over the date of arrest were deemed immaterial. Analysis of depositions proved the integrity of evidence recovery, dismissing doubts over identification by the victim's father.

Plea of Erroneous Conviction under Section 376 IPC: Considering medical evidence and circumstances, the Court affirmed the accused-petitioner's conviction under Section 376 IPC.

Plea of Erroneous Reliance on POCSO: The Court clarified that the accused-petitioner was not convicted under the POCSO Act, and the passing reference to it was for assessing the gravity of the crime.

Sentencing: The Court rejected contentions against death penalty, emphasizing the gravity of the offenses, lack of remorse, and absence of mitigating factors. Dissenting views were deemed to have little precedential value.

FACTS:

The appellant, husband of the deceased, was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of his wife. The case relied on circumstantial evidence, with both the trial court and the High Court concluding that it was a homicidal death.

ISSUES:

Whether the prosecution successfully established a prima facie case of a homicidal death.

Whether the appellant, under Section 313 of CrPC, provided a sufficient explanation for the circumstances leading to the unnatural death of the deceased.

HELD:

The judgment states: "In view of our conclusion that the prosecution has clearly established a prima facie case, the precedents cited on behalf of the appellant are not considered relevant in the facts of the present case. Once the prosecution established a prima facie case, the appellant was obliged to furnish some explanation under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with regard to the circumstances under which the deceased met an unnatural death inside the house. His failure to offer any explanation whatsoever therefore leaves no doubt for the conclusion of his being the assailant of the deceased."( Paragraph 15)

REFERRED CASES:

Hanumant and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343

Sawal Das vs. State of Bihar, (1974) 4 SCC 193

Shambu Nath Mehra vs. The State of Ajmer, 1956 SCR 199

Jose vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors., (2016) 10 SCC 519

Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (10) SCC 681

Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 10 SCC 373

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked the deceased and his relatives who were traveling on a tractor. The accused, armed with weapons, reportedly ambushed the tractor, resulting in the death of the deceased. The Trial Court convicted the accused under various sections, but the High Court acquitted them based on inconsistencies in the evidence.

Issues:

Discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses PW-1 and PW-2.

Contradictions in the accounts of who wrote the police report.

Varied statements regarding the location of the dead body and the use of the tractor.

Delay in taking the deceased to the hospital after the alleged incident.

Inconsistencies in attributing specific acts to accused individuals.

Held:

The prosecution's claim that the deceased fell from the tractor raises doubts about the actual use of the tractor. The Investigating Officer's testimony differs from that of PW-1 regarding the location of the dead body.( Para 42)

Contradictions exist in the evidence regarding who wrote the police report, creating uncertainty about the accuracy of the accounts.( Para 43)

The delayed arrival of the deceased's body at the hospital and discrepancies in witness accounts cast doubts on the prosecution's narrative.( Para 45)

Contradictions in PW-1's statements about the position of the accused during the alleged attack raise questions about the reliability of the testimony.( Para 47)

Contradictions between PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the direction of the shot and unexplained gunshot injuries further undermine the prosecution's case.( Para 49)

Omissions in the FIR and conflicting statements about the use of the tractor contribute to the doubt surrounding the events.( Para 50 and 51)

Failure of PW5 to elicit information about the deceased falling down in the 161 statement adds to the inconsistency in the evidence.( Para 52)

Considering the overall inconsistencies and limitations of the Court's jurisdiction, the appellant fails to make a compelling case to overturn the High Court's judgment.( Para 57)

FACTS:

The appellant challenged the denial of financial approval for his service by the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar.

The appellant's appointment against a substantive vacancy was contested, alleging non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

ISSUES:

Whether the Management followed the correct procedure for the appointment against a substantive vacancy.

Adherence to the guidelines in the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981.

HELD:

The Management has a limited scope to make appointments to substantive vacancies, and the Division Bench observed non-compliance with paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order in the present impugned order.( Paragraph 12)

The appellant's appointment by the Management was not in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, and the decision in Radha Raizada was correctly applied to the present facts.( Paragraph 13)

The State coffer should not be burdened with salary obligation for an appointment not made by them. The decision repudiating the salary claim for the appellant is found to be in order since the Management failed to adhere to the due process in filling up the substantive vacancy. The State had imposed a ban on appointment during the relevant period. Therefore, the appellant cannot enforce a claim for salary against the State. The appeal is found devoid of merit and dismissed.( Paragraph 14)

REFERRED CASES:

Prabhat Kumar Sharma and Others vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (1996) 10 SCC 62

Radha Raizada vs. Committee of Management Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Ors, 1994 All.L.J. 1077