Facts:

Siya Ram and his son Kripal were attacked and Siyaram was killed by the appellant (Ramvir) and five others.

The appellant was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of charges under Section 148/149 IPC but was convicted under Section 302 IPC.

The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC and additionally convicted the appellant under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against these convictions.

Issues:

• Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC.

• Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC.

Held:

The appellant's conviction under Section 148/149 IPC was not legally sustainable as it had attained finality after acquittal by the Sessions Judge and the State did not appeal against it.

Since all accused, including the appellant, were acquitted of charges under Section 148/149 IPC, there was no basis for convicting the appellant under these sections.

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the one who fired the shot that killed Siyaram. Evidence and the ballistic report did not support this claim.

Based on these reasons, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

Facts:

The appellants, ex-employees of insurance companies, retired under the General Insurance Employees' Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (SVRS-2004 Scheme). They contended that they were entitled to additional benefits under the earlier General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 (1995 Scheme), which included the addition of five years to the qualifying service for pension calculation purposes. However, the SVRS-2004 Scheme explicitly excluded this benefit.

Issues:

Whether the appellants are entitled to the additional benefits under the 1995 Scheme despite the clear exclusion in the SVRS-2004 Scheme?

Whether observations made in previous judgments, seemingly granting benefits contrary to the terms of the SVRS-2004 Scheme, are binding in the present case?

Held:

The court held that the appellants were not entitled to the additional five years of service for pension calculation under the SVRS-2004 Scheme. The terms of the SVRS-2004 Scheme, being statutory, must be strictly adhered to, and no concessions contrary to the explicit terms of the scheme are permissible.

The court clarified that any observations made in previous judgments, which might seem to grant benefits contrary to the terms of the SVRS-2004 Scheme, should not be construed as binding, especially if those observations were not directly related to the issue at hand.

Therefore, the appeals of the ex-employees seeking additional pension benefits under the SVRS-2004 Scheme were dismissed.

Facts:

The appellant and respondent No.1 were married and had two children. They agreed for a divorce by mutual consent, with custody of the children granted to the appellant. Dispute arose when the appellant was transferred, and respondent No.1 filed for custody, alleging coercion and fraud in the divorce decree.

Issues:

The custody of the children and whether the appellant's second marriage affected his custody rights.

Held:

In our view, it clearly emerges that the decision to give custody to the appellant, of the two children, was a conscious decision taken by the parties at the relevant stage and can hardly be categorised as a decision under force, pressure or fraud.

The second marriage of the appellant cannot be put against him, nor can the factum of the child of his second wife residing with him deprive him of the custody rights of his two children, which has been specifically conferred on him with the consent of respondent No.1.

The appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Facts:

The Supreme Court invited applications for the allotment of Lawyers’ chambers on October 31, 2017, and May 16, 2018, setting various eligibility criteria. Petitioners, who were practicing advocates, some of whom were Advocates on Record (AOR), challenged the fixation of the block period and other eligibility criteria.

Issues:

Validity of the block period fixed for eligibility criteria.

Validity of Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules requiring membership of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for chamber allotment.

Requirement of residency in Delhi or New Delhi for chamber allotment.

Held:

The Court held that the suggestion to count the eligibility criteria from the last cut-off date in 2004 till September 30, 2018, was unacceptable as it might allot chambers to non-active advocates. Instead, the block period was modified to be from October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2018.

The Court upheld the requirement of SCBA membership for chamber allotment, as there is no fundamental or statutory right for chamber allotment, and SCBA membership is a reasonable criterion.

The Court suggested a review of the residency requirement for chamber allotment, considering changing circumstances and commuting patterns of advocates from neighboring states. The Judges’ Allotment Committee was tasked with reviewing this requirement.

Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of, upholding the validity of the Allotment Rules with modifications to the block period and suggesting a review of the residency requirement for chamber allotment.

Facts:

The appellant-accused was tried for offenses under two FIRs and convicted by the trial court. The trial court sentenced the accused to rigorous life imprisonment in both cases. The first case imposed a condition that the accused would not be considered for remission until serving 30 years, while the second case directed that the life sentence would begin after completing the sentence in the first case. During the appeal before the High Court, the appellant's counsel indicated that they did not intend to challenge the conviction but only the sentence. The High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentences.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's counsel's statement before the High Court regarding not challenging the conviction was made with instructions from the appellant.

Whether the modification of sentences by the High Court was within its jurisdiction.

Whether consecutive sentences were permissible in this case.

Whether the High Court erred in removing the cap of 30 years imposed by the trial court.

Whether the appellant would be eligible for remission.

Held:

The Court found that the appellant's counsel's statement before the High Court regarding not challenging the conviction was made with instructions from the appellant, as recorded in the High Court's records. Therefore, the Court proceeded on the premise that the statement was made on the appellant's instructions.

The modification of sentences by the High Court, initially reducing them to the period already undergone, was beyond its jurisdiction, as it was not a typographical error but a deliberate decision .

The High Court correctly concluded that consecutive sentences were not permissible in this case, and the sentences should run concurrently, as provided under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

However, the High Court erred in removing the cap of 30 years imposed by the trial court. The appellant would not be eligible for remission until completing 30 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused, upholding the conviction but modifying the sentences to run concurrently. The appellant would not be eligible for remission until completing 30 years of imprisonment.

Facts:

An industrial plot was allotted to the original allottee in 1984.

The allottee failed to commence production within the stipulated time.

Despite several opportunities and notices, the production was not initiated.

The plot was subsequently resumed by the authorities.

Issues:

Whether the resumption of the plot was justified under the provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977?

Whether the delay in commencing production can be justified on grounds of health issues faced by the allottee and subsequent legal heirs?

Held:

The Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities and the High Court, stating that the resumption of the plot was in accordance with the terms of the allotment. The appellants failed to provide satisfactory reasons for the delay in commencing production.

The Court noted that the allotment of industrial plots was governed by the industrial policy of the State of Haryana, and failure to fulfill the terms of allotment defeated the purpose of such allotments aimed at economic development and employment generation.

The Court rejected the appellants' argument regarding health issues faced by the allottee and held that sympathy cannot be a ground for non-compliance with the terms of allotment. Additionally, the Court ruled out the appellants' request to pay the current market value of the plot, as the allotment process was governed by existing regulations. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

Kamala and her children (the appellants) appealed against the High Court's decision setting aside a family court judgment directing the respondent, M.R. Mohan Kumar, to pay maintenance to Kamala and her children. Kamala claimed that she and the respondent were married and had two children together.

Issues:

Whether Kamala could claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC without strict proof of marriage.

Held:

The Court held that in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, strict proof of marriage is not necessary, and a broad interpretation of the term "wife" should be applied. The evidence presented, including Kamala's testimony, birth certificates of the children, and oral evidence, established a strong presumption of a valid marriage. The Court reiterated that when a man and woman cohabit continuously for a significant period, the law presumes in favor of marriage. Therefore, Kamala was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The High Court's decision was set aside, and the appeals filed by Kamala and her children were allowed. The respondent was directed to pay arrears of maintenance as ordered by the family court and to continue paying maintenance regularly.

Facts:The judgment provides a detailed background on the implementation of Bharat Stage compliant fuels, highlighting the progression from the National Auto Policy in 2003 to the final mandate for BS-IV compliant vehicles throughout the country from 01.04.2017. It also mentions the manufacturers' request for time to sell non-BS-VI compliant vehicles manufactured up to 31.03.2020.

Issues:

The seminal issue addressed in the judgment is whether BS-IV compliant vehicles should be permitted to be sold in India after 31.03.2020, considering the balance between environmental concerns and practical difficulties faced by manufacturers.

Held:

In exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court held that no motor vehicle conforming to the BS-IV emission standard shall be sold or registered in the entire country with effect from 01.04.2020. This decision was based on the need to prioritize public health and environmental concerns over economic interests.

The Court emphasized that any extension beyond 31.03.2020 would adversely impact public health and violate constitutional rights. Furthermore, the Court noted the significant improvements in environmental terms with BS-VI fuel and emission norms and highlighted the need to transition to cleaner fuel as early as possible.

Facts:

The Deemed University admitted students for the BTC Course during the academic sessions of 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Director of the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) subsequently quashed the course. Students filed a writ petition seeking recognition of the BTC Course and the certificates issued by the Deemed University. The Single Judge dismissed the petition.

Issues:

Whether the Deemed University was authorized to offer the BTC Course during the academic sessions of 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Whether the conditions specified by the National Council for Teacher Training (NCTE) were fulfilled by the Deemed University for offering the BTC Course.

Whether the compensation awarded to students by the High Court was justified.

Held:

The Court observed that BTC is regulated exclusively by the NCTE Act and its regulations. Mere conferment of Deemed University status did not automatically entitle the University to confer BTC degrees.

The University was required to comply with the conditions specified by the NCTE for offering the BTC Course. Non-compliance with these conditions was admitted by the University.

The Division Bench clarified that mere permission from NCTE did not automatically grant affiliation for running the BTC Course; fulfillment of NCTE norms was necessary.

Admission of students for the BTC Course in the mentioned academic sessions was impermissible as the University only received recognition from NCTE for the BTC Course from 2012 onwards.

Despite the hardship faced by students, the Court upheld the compensation awarded by the High Court, emphasizing that the recognition of an unaccredited course cannot be justified on grounds of equity alone.

Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the decision of the Division Bench, affirming that the BTC Course offered by the Deemed University during the academic sessions of 2008-09 and 2009-10 was not recognized, and the compensation awarded to the students was justified.