Facts:

Various applicants, holding diplomas or degrees in Engineering through distance education mode from Deemed to be Universities, sought clarification and modification of directions issued in a previous judgment.

The controversy primarily concerned the validity of engineering degrees awarded through distance education mode and the subsequent career advancements of the applicants based on these degrees.

Issues:

Whether the judgment applied only to courses leading to degrees in Engineering and not to diplomas?

Whether the judgment covered post-graduate degrees obtained based on the disputed engineering degrees?

Whether the candidates who had advanced in their careers based on the disputed degrees should be exempted from appearing in the examination directed by the court?

Held:

The court clarified that the judgment did not cover courses leading to diplomas conferred by Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode.

The judgment indeed applied to both graduate and post-graduate degrees in Engineering obtained through distance education mode.

The court rejected the submissions seeking exemption from appearing in the examination directed by the judgment, stating that the infirmity in the degrees was fundamental and could not be overlooked.

However, as a one-time relaxation, the court allowed candidates enrolled during specific academic years to retain their degrees and advantages until one month after the declaration of the test result, provided they appeared for the examination in May-June 2018. This relaxation was not applicable for subsequent attempts.

All other submissions were rejected.

The court disposed of all applications, petitions, and writ petitions accordingly, with no costs imposed.

Facts:

The case involved the death of a person named Ram Kanwar, who was allegedly run over by a tractor driven by Dharampal. The claimants asserted that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the tractor driver. However, several discrepancies and disturbing facts emerged during the proceedings.

Issues:

Determining whether the death of Ram Kanwar was caused as a result of the accident caused by the tractor.

Assessing the credibility of the evidence presented by the claimants.

Evaluating the reasoning provided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Held:

Upon careful analysis of the judgment of the High Court and the material on the record, the Supreme Court found no reason to disagree with the High Court's decision.

The Court observed that the Tribunal had overlooked crucial aspects of the case and failed to provide sufficient reasoning for its decision. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Facts:

Atul Thakur was one of four individuals tried for the offense under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC by the Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla. The case stemmed from an incident where Hitesh Thakur was fatally injured in a fight. The prosecution's case alleged that Atul assaulted Hitesh, leading to his death. At trial, the other accused were acquitted, but Atul was found guilty under Section 304 Part-II of IPC by the Trial Court. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, convicting Atul under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Issues:

The nature of Atul's offense and whether he should be convicted for murder under Section 302 or for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to convict Atul under Section 304 Part-II of IPC instead of murder under Section 302. It was held that the incident was a sudden fight without premeditation, and there was no evidence to suggest that Atul intended to cause Hitesh's death.

Therefore, Atul was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. The Court found that Atul's actions, while resulting in serious injuries, were not committed with the intention to cause death.

The Court also noted that the use of a weapon like a knife and the number of blows inflicted were not decisive factors in denying Atul the benefit of Exception 4. Accordingly, the Court modified the sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.

The Court emphasized that this sentence was appropriate given the severity of the assault and to meet the ends of justice.

Facts:

The case involved a motor accident where a truck, insured by respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, collided with another vehicle, resulting in the death of Om Prakash.

The widow and family of Om Prakash filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partially allowed the claim but absolved the Insurance Company of liability due to the driver of the offending truck not possessing a valid driving license.

The appellants challenged this decision before the High Court, which upheld the Tribunal's decision.

Issues:

Whether the Insurance Company is liable for the compensation in a motor accident case.

The burden of proof regarding the validity of the driver's license and authorization to drive the vehicle.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that while the Insurance Company is entitled to raise defenses under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden of proof lies on the owner of the offending vehicle to establish that the driver was authorized and had a valid license.

The Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants initially, with the liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

The judgment clarified the liability of the Insurance Company in cases of motor accidents and emphasized the importance of establishing basic facts before shifting liability.

Facts:

Deepak, a passenger in a luxury bus, died in a collision with a truck.

His parents filed a claim seeking compensation against the truck owner and the insurer.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation, which was reduced by the High Court on appeal.

Issues:

The correct calculation of compensation, specifically regarding the multiplier to be applied.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the application of a multiplier of 17, considering the age of the deceased, as established in relevant case law.

Additionally, a 50% addition for future prospects was deemed appropriate.

Deducting 50% for personal expenses, as the deceased was unmarried, the total compensation was determined at Rs. 61,20,000.

After adding conventional heads, the total compensation stood at Rs. 61,90,000.

Interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition was ordered.

The compensation was to be apportioned according to the Tribunal's award.

The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Facts:

On 15 November 2008, an accident occurred involving a truck insured by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and a motorcycle, resulting in the death of Sonu Kumar Goyal.

The appellants, family members of the deceased, filed a compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).

The MACT found the accident to be caused by the negligence of the truck driver and held both the owner and the insurer liable.

Compensation was awarded based on the deceased's income, adjusted for personal expenses.

Issues:

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded, arguing for a higher income assessment, inclusion of future prospects, correction of the multiplier, and a higher interest rate.

Held:

The Court found the income certificates provided by the deceased's father insufficiently proven and upheld the MACT's income assessment. However, it agreed with the appellants on correcting the multiplier and including future prospects.

Following precedents, it adjusted the multiplier to 17 and added 40% towards future prospects, significantly increasing the compensation. Consequently, the Court quantified the compensation at Rs. 8,86,800 and allowed interest at 7.5% per annum from the petition's filing date till realization. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The appellant, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., entered into a contract with respondent no.2, M/S. Datar Switchgear Limited, for the installation of Low Tension Load Management Systems (LTLMS) at various locations. The contract faced issues during execution, leading to the termination of the contract by respondent no.2.

Issues:

The validity of the termination of the contract by respondent no.2 and the award of damages for the breach of contract.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Arbitration Tribunal, which determined that there was a fundamental breach of the contract by the appellant. This breach led to the valid termination of the contract by respondent no.2.

The Arbitration Tribunal's findings of fact, including the failure of the appellant to provide a list of locations for installation, were deemed valid and not subject to scrutiny by the court as if it were sitting in appeal.

Respondent no.2 was justified in terminating the contract, and the appellant was held liable for damages for the entire contract, including both performed and unperformed parts.

The methodology used by the Arbitration Tribunal to calculate damages was upheld as reasonable and aimed to place respondent no.2 in a position as close to that if the contract had been performed.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Arbitration Tribunal, affirmed by the High Court, was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Facts:

The appellant, National Travel Services, is a partnership firm with three partners. The firm had taken a loan from M/s Jetair Private Limited, where two of its partners held shares on behalf of the firm. The question arose whether Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act applied to the loan received by the firm.

Issues:

Whether Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies to a loan received by a shareholder who is the beneficial owner of shares.

Whether a partnership firm can be considered a "shareholder" under Section 2(22)(e) if it purchases shares in the name of its partners.

Held:

The court held that the interpretation in the Ankitech Private Limited case, which required a registered shareholder even after the 1988 amendment, needed reconsideration.

The court emphasized that the amendment intended to include beneficial owners directly, without requiring registration. Therefore, the court referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger bench to review the entire issue.

This decision underscores the evolving interpretation of tax laws and the significance of judicial review in ensuring consistency and fairness in their application.

Facts:

The case involved allegations against the accused-appellants, including a former Minister of Power, a Chief Electrical Engineer, and officials of certain companies, regarding conspiracy and wrongful gains related to a rebate scheme on power supply tariffs to industrial units.

Issues:

Whether the charges framed against the accused under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act were justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court, which discharged the accused from certain charges but directed framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court applied the prima facie standard while noting that there was sufficient evidence to indicate the existence of essential facts justifying the framing of charges. The Court clarified that at this stage, a detailed examination of evidence akin to a trial should not occur.

The Court found that prima facie, a case could be made out against the accused, especially considering the alleged issuance of notifications without proper approval. The framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld, and the appellants were allowed to submit additional material to the trial court for consideration.

The appeals were disposed of accordingly, affirming the High Court's order.