Facts:

The challenges posed by the increasing number of vehicles, leading to a severe shortage of parking spaces in residential areas.

The court notes the failure of the government to provide sufficient public transport and highlights the need for comprehensive parking policies.

Issues:

Inadequate parking space in residential areas and the resulting impact on the social fabric and neighborhood harmony.

Lack of proper planning and infrastructure to accommodate the growing number of vehicles.

The need for regulatory measures to address parking issues in various areas, including transport hubs, institutional areas, and commercial zones.

Held:

The court directs municipal corporations and authorities to clear pavements from encroachments, making them usable for pedestrians.

Notifies the draft rules for the Delhi Maintenance and Management of Parking Places Rules 2019, with a compliance deadline of 30.09.2019.

Emphasizes the duty of all concerned to enforce the parking rules once notified.

Directs the Government of NCT to ensure proper assessment of parking needs for the next 25 years before granting permission for new structures.

Recommends the evaluation and effectiveness of the pilot project in Lajpat Nagar, with reports to be submitted by 30.12.2019.

Urges consideration of the viability of introducing RFID tags, parking guidance systems, and last-mile connectivity, with a report submission deadline of 30.09.2019.

Facts:

Appellant, Ex-Sepoy Ram Khilawan, discharged on August 31, 1993, due to "CNS (IN) Seizure."

Discharge under Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) of Army Rules, 1954, for medical unfitness, not under residual clause (v).

Discharge proceeded without reference to Invalidating Medical Board.

Issues:

Whether the discharge of the appellant adhered to the prescribed procedure under Army Rules?

Applicability of Rule 13(3)(III)(v) in the discharge.

Held:

The discharge of the appellant was not under the residual clause (v) but under clause (iii) of Rule 13(3)(III) of the Army Rules. As the discharge was solely based on medical unfitness, it required adherence to the procedure laid down in Rule 13. Since the discharge proceeded without reference to the Invalidating Medical Board, it was deemed legally unsustainable.

The appellant, in accordance with General Principles of Army Order 46 of 1980, is entitled to be retained for ten years, and he would be deemed to be discharged only on October 22, 1997. Consequently, the appellant became entitled to pension, in addition to the disability pension granted for a period of five years. However, no arrears of salary were granted for the period up to the date of discharge due to "no work, no pay." Arrears of pension for a period of three years prior to filing the Writ Petition were directed to be paid to the appellant within six months from the date of the order.

FACTS:

The appellant filed a suit under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, disputing the declaration of a property as Wakf-Al-Allah.

The Survey Commissioner's report confirmed the property as Wakf-Al-Allah, published in the Official Gazette on December 2, 1965.

The appellant filed the suit on January 17, 1967, beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed by the Act.

ISSUES:

Whether the suit filed by the appellant is barred by the limitation period under the Wakf Act, 1954.

Whether the nature of the Wakf property can be challenged beyond the limitation period.

HELD:

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, confirming that the suit was time-barred. The key points include:

The property was declared Wakf-Al-Allah by the Survey Commissioner, and the list published on December 2, 1965.

The appellant's arguments regarding the nature of the Wakf and the applicability of Section 56 were rejected.

The Court affirmed that the suit was filed beyond the statutory one-year period, as per Section 6 of the Wakf Act.

The Court found no error in the lower courts' decisions and affirmed the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts:

The petitioners, diploma holders in the technical field and government employees, enrolled in the B.Tech. degree course offered through distance learning mode by the Institute-TIET (deemed to be University). The institute had received provisional recognition from the Distance Education Council (DEC) to initiate the course for one year. The petitioners sought clarification on the validity and recognition of their B.Tech. degrees from TIET through distance learning.

Issues:

Whether the B.Tech. degrees acquired through distance learning from TIET are valid and recognized, considering the absence of approval from the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

Held:

Approval of AICTE Mandatory : The court held that the approval of AICTE was mandatory for commencing the Bachelor of Technology courses. TIET, Patiala, failed to obtain AICTE approval.

Compliance with UGC and DEC Guidelines: The judgment clarified that, post the 2004 Guidelines, every deemed university, including TIET, required approvals from both UGC and DEC for starting any degree course through open and distance learning mode. The condition of approval was deemed mandatory.

Misconstrued Judgment in Orissa Lift-I Case : The petitioners and TIET misconstrued a specific paragraph in the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I case. The court clarified that the judgment did not confer the right upon deemed universities to start distance education courses without prior approval from AICTE and UGC.

No Relief Similar to Orissa Lift Cases : The plea for relief, similar to that granted in the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited I and II cases, was rejected since no relief was granted to candidates who took admission in 2005 or thereafter.

Provisional Recognition Contrary to Law : The judgment highlighted that TIET's provisional recognition by DEC was contrary to the law, and the institute was not competent to award graduation degrees in technical courses via distance mode. Various notifications and policy decisions were overlooked by the petitioners and TIET.

Criticism of DEC's Functioning : The functioning of DEC faced strong criticism, and its provisional recognitions were considered invalid. The court noted the order dated December 29, 2012, issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, vesting UGC and AICTE with regulatory powers for technical courses offered through distance learning.

Facts:

Appellants were respondents 2 and 3 in a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court.

High Court directed appellants to consider the candidature of the private respondent for appointment as a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate.

Private respondent initially applied as a "General" candidate and did not indicate any disability.

Subsequently claimed visual impairment and submitted a representation with a disability certificate indicating Hemiplegia.

Issues:

Whether the private respondent, who initially applied as a General candidate, can claim consideration under the Differently Abled Persons category.

Interpretation of disability-related provisions under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.

Held:

The court held that the private respondent's claim under the Differently Abled Persons category should have been made in the application, and the disability certificate should have been produced at the appropriate stage. The nature of the disability (locomotor or visual impairment) and the percentage of disability were crucial factors. The court, being unable to act as an expert, found the High Court's direction unjustified, especially when the appellants followed the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside.

Facts:

The Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure involved Sudam Kisan Gavane (Deceased) through legal representatives and others as appellants and Manik Ananta Shikketod (Deceased) through legal representatives and others as respondents.

The High Court admitted the appeal without framing any questions of law, creating a procedural irregularity.

Issues:

The primary issue addressed in the judgment pertains to the procedural lapse in admitting the appeal without formulating substantial questions of law as required by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Held:

The Supreme Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, determined that the matter should be remanded to the High Court.

It noted that the High Court's admission of the appeal without framing questions of law was a procedural flaw that wasn't fair to the parties.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was emphasized, stating that an appeal can only be admitted if it involves a substantial question of law. The court highlighted the importance of precisely stating the substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal.

The Court set aside the High Court's order due to the failure to formulate substantial questions of law before the final hearing.

Remanding the matter to the High Court, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to decide the questions of law after hearing the parties and granted the liberty to reframe the questions after the hearing.

The High Court was urged to treat the case as a second appeal filed in 1990 and give it priority.

Regarding the death of Respondent No. 2, the Supreme Court left it to the High Court to decide the effect of the death on the appeal.

The appeal was allowed in the aforementioned terms.

Facts:

The Roads and Buildings Department of the State of Telangana floated a tender for the construction of a BT Road.

The tender conditions required bidders to own a "Batch Type Hot Mix Plant" within 100 kilometers from the last point of working reach.

The appellant and the fourth respondent participated in the tender process, submitting necessary documents.

Dispute arose regarding the distance of the Hot Mix Plant owned by the appellant, leading to a complaint by the fourth respondent.

Chief Engineer, in response to the complaint, called for verification reports from Superintending Engineers in different regions.

Issues:

The re-verification of the distance of the Hot Mix Plant, as contested by the fourth respondent.

Whether the Chief Engineer's actions, including seeking reports from independent authorities, were in accordance with the tender conditions and legal procedures.

Held:

The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the re-verification undertaken by the Chief Engineer was not illegal, as there were no specific mala fides against any individual. The judge observed that the tender conditions permitted objections, and the authorities acted reasonably in getting re-verification done based on a complaint. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.

The Division Bench, however, found fault with the report of the Superintending Engineer, Warangal, and criticized the Chief Engineer for seeking a second report from the Superintending Engineer, Karimnagar, outside the jurisdiction. The Division Bench allowed the intra court appeal, directing the award of the work based on the report submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Warangal.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between the Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal, and Carpet India, Panipat, regarding the interpretation of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contends that supporting manufacturers should be treated on par with direct exporters for the purpose of claiming deductions under Section 80HHC.

Issues:

Whether supporting manufacturers are entitled to deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, and if so, whether their eligibility is on par with direct exporters.

The court also considers the applicability of previous judgments, including Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Baby Marine Exports, Kollam.

Held:

The court highlights the distinct parameters and schemes for claiming deductions under Section 80HHC for exporters (Section 80HHC(1)) and supporting manufacturers (Section 80HHC(1A)). The court emphasizes that the statutory scheme treats these entities differently.( Para 5)

The court overturns the decision in C.I.T. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, stating that it cannot be relied upon to conclude that supporting manufacturers are to be treated on par with direct exporters for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC.( Para 6)

The court allows the appeals in favor of the Revenue, setting aside the impugned judgments. In certain cases, the respondents are given the opportunity to demonstrate, with necessary facts, that they qualify as direct exporters and can avail of deductions under Section 80HHC(1) read with (3). These matters are remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for further consideration.( Para 7)

Facts:

The plaintiffs claimed half of the suit property and sought a declaration of rightful ownership, confirmation of possession, and correction of the entry in the Record of Rights. Despite the specific claim for half the property, the Additional Deputy Commissioner decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs based on the majority award of the Panchayat. The appellate authority and the Single Judge upheld the decision, and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court was called upon to consider the applicability and validity of Wilkinson's Rules and the Bihar Kolhan Civil Justice (Regulating and Validating) Act, 1978.

Issues:

The validity of Wilkinson's Rules, the correctness of the decree awarding more than half the property, and the applicability of the Bihar Kolhan Civil Justice Act.

Held:

Applicability of Wilkinson's Rules: The court found it unnecessary to delve into the applicability and validity of Wilkinson's Rules for two reasons.

Claim for Half Property: The court observed that the plaintiffs claimed only half of the suit property. As the decree awarded more than this, the court held that it needed to be set aside to the extent that it exceeded the claim.

Bihar Kolhan Civil Justice Act: The court considered Section 2 of the Bihar Kolhan Civil Justice Act, validating past actions under Wilkinson's Rules and concluded that, given the Act's provisions, it was difficult to set aside the concurrent judgments based on Wilkinson's Rules.

Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of in accordance with the findings, emphasizing the need to set aside the decree exceeding the plaintiffs' claim for half the property.