Facts:

Respondent no. 1 appointed as Coach Grade-III on 20 March 1986.

Promotions: Coach Grade-II on 22 February 1990, Coach Grade-I on 10 January 1997.

Dispute arises from the promotion of respondent No. 2 for vacancies in 2003-2004.

High Court reverses the Single Judge's decision, citing the inapplicability of 2006 criteria to pre-existing vacancies.

Issues:

Applicability of criteria for promotion to the post of Sports Officer.

Interpretation of Rule 9(4) of the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006.

Held:

The respondent had no vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered as per the rules in effect at the time of promotion.

Rule 9(4) does not specify that vacancies must be filled based on rules prevailing in the year they occurred.

The High Court's direction to reconsider promotion as Sports Officer against 2003-2004 vacancies using criteria applicable at that time is unsustainable.

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. No order as to costs.

Facts:

MERC (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2011, were notified on 04.02.2011.

Regulation 44.2(d) imposed a more stringent Station Heat Rate (SHR) for Reliance Infrastructure Limited's Dahanu TPS compared to other thermal generating stations in the state.

Issues:

Applicability of Article 226 in challenging the validity of regulations framed by MERC.

Alleged discrimination in the imposition of a tighter standard for Dahanu TPS.

Held:

The High Court overlooked the Constitution Bench's judgment in PTC India Limited v Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Constitution Bench established that the validity of regulations framed under Section 178 of the Electricity Act 2003 can only be tested before a court exercising judicial review, not the Tribunal. Thus, the High Court's imposition of costs for using Article 226 was unjustified.

The appellant's plea of discrimination was based on the CPRI report, alleging similarity with other units. However, the Court emphasized that MERC, as an expert body, followed statutory procedures and considered various factors mandated by the statute. The Court rejected the claim of manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness and upheld the validity of Regulation 44.2(d).

The High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition under Article 226 was affirmed. However, the direction on the imposition of costs was set aside, concluding that there was no infirmity in the impugned regulation. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

Facts:

The appellant, aged about 50 years, was convicted for offenses under IPC Sections 302, 363, 366, and 376(2)(i) and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The case involved the rape and murder of a minor girl at a 'Mela.'

The trial court imposed the death sentence, considering the crime as 'rarest of rare.'

The appellant claimed denial of proper legal assistance, and there was no finding on the possibility of reformation.

Issues:

Validity of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

Compliance with Section 354(3) of CrPC in imposing the death penalty.

Consideration of mitigating circumstances and reformation possibilities.

Held:

The conviction is upheld based on circumstantial evidence, considering identification in the Test Identification Parade, witness accounts, and forensic and medical evidence (Paras 10-11).

Death sentence must be supported by special reasons as per Section 354(3) of CrPC.

The trial court and High Court failed to provide special reasons for imposing the death penalty, and reasons cited are not within the ambit of Section 354(3) (Para 13).

Mitigating circumstances like socio-economic background, lack of criminal antecedents, and possibility of reformation were not adequately considered (Para 13).

Refusal of legal assistance by the local Bar Association and the appellant's occupation as a manhole worker were factors overlooked (Para 13).

Death sentence modified to life imprisonment with an actual period of 25 years, without remission. Sentences for all offenses to run concurrently (Para 13).

Facts:

The respondent claimed that the appellant issued a cheque to repay a borrowed sum of Rs. 15 lakhs, which subsequently bounced. The appellant, in defense, asserted an absence of a legally enforceable debt, alleging misuse of cheques and providing a detailed narrative of events.

Issues:

Whether there exists a legally enforceable debt between the parties?

Whether the appellant's defense of cheque misuse and absence of debt is credible?

Held:

The appellant contested the existence of a legally enforceable debt and successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The defense raised cast doubt on the complainant's version, justifying the order of acquittal by the first appellate court.( Paragraph 8)

The Court emphasized that the standard of proof for rebuttal under Section 139 is a 'preponderance of probabilities.' The appellant's defense, creating doubts about the debt's existence, rendered the presumption rebutted.( Paragraph 10)

The first appellate court's analysis of evidence, including discrepancies in the complainant's testimony and non-disclosure of crucial facts, formed the basis for acquittal. The High Court's failure to appreciate these findings led to an unsatisfactory judgment.( Paragraph 12)

In alignment with the precedent in Rangappa, the Court concluded that the appellant effectively rebutted the presumption, justifying the order of acquittal. Consequently, the High Court's decision to convict the appellant under Section 138 was set aside.( Paragraph 15)

Facts:

The appellant, Himanshu, was accused of dishonouring a cheque.

The appellant argued that since the cheque was issued by him as a director on behalf of a company, the company should be named as an accused.

The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court, which was rejected.

Issues:

Whether the complaint against the appellant is maintainable without naming the company as an accused.

Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the petition under Section 482 of CrPC.

Held:

The court cited the decision in Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661, stating that for maintaining a prosecution under Section 138, arraigning a company as an accused is imperative. The court held that without the company being arraigned, the complaint against the appellant was not maintainable.

The court found merit in the submission that the proviso to Section 138 contains pre-conditions that must be fulfilled before an offence is made out. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the conditions, including the issuance of a notice of demand. In the absence of compliance, the direction of the High Court to arraign the company as an accused was deemed erroneous.

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and quashing the complaint under Section 482 of CrPC.

The court directed the amount deposited by the appellant to be paid to the respondent-complainant, as per the earlier order.

Facts:

The appellant convicted for murdering Smt. Ruby by acid attack.

Additional convictions under IPC sections for injuring other family members.

Appeal against the death sentence confirmed by the High Court.

Issues:

Validity of the death sentence in light of the circumstances.

Consideration of special reasons for the imposition of the death penalty.

Connection between the present crime and a prior murder conviction.

Held:

The appellant rightly convicted for causing the death of Smt. Ruby. Dying declaration of the victim and consistent witness accounts establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.( Para 5)

The evidence of the appellant fleeing the crime scene, fingerprints matching on the acid container, and the Dying Declaration hold strong probative value. The conviction is well-founded.( Para 6)

Consideration of the imposition of the death sentence. Special reasons required. Appellant committed the crime while on bail for a prior murder conviction. However, the earlier case is unrelated to the present incident.( Para 8)

Appellant's disappointment in his relationship with the deceased led to the attack. The choice of acid suggests an intention to injure or disfigure rather than premeditated murder.( Para 9)

No special reasons found to warrant a death sentence. Reference to Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 for sentencing guidelines.( Para 10)

The death sentence imposed by the High Court is set aside. Appellant to undergo imprisonment for life.( Para 12)

Facts:

The respondent's father, a Peon in the Revenue Department, passed away in service in 1997.

The respondent, a minor at the time of his father's death, applied for compassionate appointment upon reaching majority in 2002.

The application was rejected in 2008, citing the employment of the respondent's brother with the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board.

The respondent filed a Writ Petition seeking the setting aside of the rejection letter and his appointment as a Peon.

Issues:

• Whether the rejection based on the brother's employment was valid under the policy.

• Whether the High Court could direct the State to consider applications not meeting the policy's terms.

• Whether the delay in filing the Writ Petition affected the case.

Held:

The High Court overstepped its authority by directing the State to consider applications not meeting the policy terms.

Compassionate appointment is not a right but governed by the State's policy.

The High Court's direction breaches the policy framed by the State and is impermissible.

The Writ Petition was filed two years and six months after the rejection, with insufficient factual averments.

The delay, coupled with the High Court's unwarranted direction, renders its judgment unsustainable.

The appeal is allowed, and the High Court's directions are set aside, resulting in the rejection of the Writ Petition. No costs are awarded.

Facts:

The petitioner, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University, faced repeated lapses in meeting the minimum standards for MBBS student admissions. The respondents canceled admissions for the academic year 2017-18 due to concerns about the college's compliance. The college, in its defense, claimed unnecessary harassment by the authorities despite complying with standards.

Issues:

Whether the college had engaged in fraudulent practices by presenting false information to the court, particularly in relation to the authenticity of patients in the hospital.

Held:

The Committee's findings revealed that the college made a false statement based on a fabricated document. The assertion regarding the genuineness of patients was proven false, with only 21 patients identified, eight of whom were affiliated with the college. The college was found guilty of large-scale malpractices in showing compliance with minimum standards.( Para 13)

The court held the Dean of the College liable for prosecution under Section 193 of the IPC, given the blatant reliance on manipulated records to mislead the court.( Para 14)

In light of the deceitful methods employed by the college, a penalty of Rs. Five Crores was imposed for committing perjury. The amount was directed to be paid to the account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.( Para 15)

The court rejected the apology offered by the college, condemning its habitual indulgence in foul play, as evidenced by events in 2015.( Para 16)

While students admitted in the academic year 2017-18 were directed to other colleges for 2018-19, they were entitled to a refund of the fee paid for admission to the college.( Para 17)

The final order summarized the actions:( Para 18)

Dean of the college to be prosecuted.College barred from admissions for the next two years.A penalty of Rs. Five Crores imposed on the college.Students entitled to a fee refund and additional compensation.

Facts:

Provide a concise summary of the background and events leading to the legal dispute.

Issues:

Enumerate the key legal questions and disputes raised in the case.

Held:

The constitutional validity of Section 2(8)(i) is challenged on the ground of vagueness. However, the court rejects this plea, citing alignment with the definition of obscenity in Section 292 of the IPC.[Para 79-81, 84, 89]

Section 6(4), forbidding the grant of licenses for both dance bars and discotheques or orchestras at the same place, is deemed arbitrary and irrational, lacking a nexus with the intended purpose. Hence, it is struck down as unconstitutional.[Para 90]

Section 8(2) is upheld, considering the distinction between offenses under Section 8(1) and Section 8(2) of the Act.[Para 91, 92]

Section 8(4) is justified in banning the showering of money on stage but is set aside concerning the method of tipping, allowing flexibility between performers and visitors.[Para 93]

Rule 3(3)(i) is found vague, prompting its quashing, with liberty granted to refine the provisions.[Para 95]

Conditions regarding the size of the stage are upheld, but the imposition of a non-transparent partition is struck down for lacking rationality.[Para 96, 97]

Condition No.11 prescribing a 1 km distance from educational and religious institutions is deemed arbitrary and unreasonable, leading to its quashing.[Para 98]

Condition No.2 of Part B, mandating monthly employment contracts, infringes on the freedom of workers, and is set aside. The requirement for written contracts and remuneration in bank accounts is deemed appropriate.[Para 99]

Condition No. 9 limiting dance performance timings to 6 pm to 11:30 pm is considered reasonable and upheld.[Para 100]

Condition No. 12 prohibiting alcohol in bar rooms where dances are staged is found disproportionate and arbitrary, leading to its quashing.[Para 101]

Condition No. 20 mandating the installation of CCTV cameras is deemed an invasion of privacy and is struck down.[Para 102]