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.

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:

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 prosecution charged three accused persons, including appellant No.1, with the murder of certain individuals. The case primarily relied on circumstantial evidence, including a confession made by appellant No.1 and the recovery of dead bodies based on information provided by him.

Issues:

Whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

Whether the confession of one accused can be used as evidence against co-accused.

Whether appellant Nos. 2 and 3 can be convicted under section 201 IPC.

Held:

The courts below were justified in holding appellant No.1 guilty of offenses under sections 302 and 201 based on circumstantial evidence, including his confession and leading the police to the location of the bodies.

The confession of appellant No.1 can be used against him but cannot be the sole basis for implicating other co-accused without additional evidence of their involvement.

Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted of the murder charge but convicted under section 201 IPC due to their knowledge of the crime and failure to disclose it.

Decision: The appeal of appellant No.1 is dismissed, and the conviction is upheld. The appeal of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 is partly allowed, acquitting them of murder but convicting them under section 201 IPC.

Facts:

The State Housing Board allotted flats to the University for its employees.

Disputes arose regarding payment and possession of the flats.

Employees of the University occupied the flats, but their right to occupy was tied to their employment status.

The Board canceled the allotment due to non-payment by the University.

Employees filed writ petitions seeking to enforce their right to the flats.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, ruling in favor of the University.

The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the employees' appeal, directing the Board to execute lease deeds for the flats.

Issues:

Whether the employees had the right to occupy the flats after ceasing employment.

Whether the cancellation of allotment by the Board was valid.

Whether the employees' payments to the Board conferred independent rights to the flats.

Whether the University was entitled to evict the occupants and claim penal rent.

Held:

The Court held in favor of the University and set aside the Division Bench's order. The key points of the decision are as follows:

It is not in dispute that the original allotment of the flats made by the Board was in favor of the University.

In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that respondent nos. 4 and 5 (writ petitioners) were in unauthorized occupation of the flats from the date they ceased to be in the employment of the University and hence were liable to be evicted from the flats and were also liable to pay penal rent to the University for their use and occupation till the date of their eviction.

The cancellation having been revoked on account of acceptance of payment from the University by the Board, the original allotment dated 05.07.1976 stood restored in favor of the University.

The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and that of the learned Single Judge restored.

Facts:

Disputes arose between the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (appellant) and Equipment Conductors and Cables Limited (respondent) regarding contracts for supply of goods and services.

The respondent initiated arbitration proceedings, resulting in an award that rejected certain claims as time-barred.

Various legal proceedings ensued, including challenges to the arbitral award and execution petitions filed by the respondent.

The respondent subsequently filed a Company Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), seeking initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process against the appellant.

The NCLT dismissed the petition, finding that there was a valid dispute regarding the unpaid operational debt.

Issues:

Whether the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 9 of the IBC is warranted in the presence of a valid dispute regarding the debt owed by the appellant to the respondent.

Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) erred in directing the appellant to settle the respondent's claim under threat of initiating insolvency proceedings.

Held:

The Court held that the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 9 of the IBC requires the absence of a valid dispute regarding the debt owed. Referring to the case law and statutory provisions, the Court emphasized that the existence of a real dispute precludes the invocation of the IBC provisions. The Court further emphasized that the adjudicating authority must determine whether a dispute genuinely exists and whether the debt is due and payable before admitting an application under Section 9 of the IBC.

In this case, the Court found that the respondent's claim was subject to a genuine dispute, as evidenced by previous legal proceedings and the rejection of certain claims as time-barred. Therefore, the NCLAT's direction to settle the claim under threat of initiating insolvency proceedings was unwarranted.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the NCLAT's order and dismissing the respondent's appeal before the NCLAT. Costs were not awarded.

The Court's decision was guided by the principles outlined in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2018) 1 SCC 353, where it was established that the IBC is not intended to serve as a substitute for recovery forums and cannot be invoked in the presence of a genuine dispute.

Facts:

The suit involved a dispute over property originally owned by two brothers, Pazanivelu and Chokalingam.

A partition took place in 1912 between the branches of Pazanivelu and Chokalingam, with each getting 50% of the property.

Subsequently, further partition occurred among the sons of Pazanivelu, resulting in Manickam obtaining sole ownership of a portion.

Chokalingam's half share was sold in a court auction, with the defendant's father being the purchaser.

Disputes arose regarding the extent and ownership of the property due to subsequent litigations involving third parties.

The plaintiffs claimed ownership of their share of the property, while the defendant asserted adverse possession and title through the auction sale.

Issues:

Whether the principles of res judicata apply between co-defendants in previous litigations?

Whether adverse possession is established by the defendant over the disputed property?

Held:

The Court held that the principles of res judicata do not apply between co-defendants in this case, as there was no conflict of interest necessary for its application. The previous litigations did not involve any dispute between the fathers of the plaintiffs and the defendant regarding their respective titles. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata was not applicable. Furthermore, adverse possession was not established by the defendant, as there was no evidence of exclusive possession to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. The property remained in joint possession, as evidenced by revenue records and other documents. Thus, the plaintiffs were deemed to be the rightful owners of their share of the property as per the partition of 1912. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.

Facts:

The appellant, Bhagirath, appealed against his conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentencing by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The case stemmed from an incident where the appellant, armed with a weapon called "farsi," and other accused individuals allegedly assaulted the deceased during a verbal altercation.

Issues:

The nature of the offence committed by the appellant, particularly whether it fell under Section 302 IPC or could be mitigated under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Held:

The Court, after considering the evidence and circumstances, modified the appellant's conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC. This decision was based on the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which deals with death resulting from a sudden fight without premeditation.

The Court found that the sudden altercation and the nature of injuries inflicted suggested the absence of premeditation. Therefore, the appellant's sentence was reduced to the period already served. The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Facts:

Provide a summary of the background and context of the case.

Issues:

Identify the key legal and factual issues addressed in the case.

Held:

The Court directed that only reduced emission (improved) and green crackers be permitted for manufacture and sale. The production and sale of other types of crackers were banned.

The manufacture, sale, and use of joined firecrackers (series crackers or laris) were prohibited. Sale was restricted to licensed traders only, and online sales on e-commerce platforms were banned.

Barium salts in fireworks were banned, and the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) was directed to review the chemical composition of fireworks, associating with the Fireworks Research and Development Centre (FRDC).

Crackers failing to meet reduced emission standards were not allowed to be sold in Delhi and NCR. PESO was tasked with ensuring the purchase, possession, sale, and use of fireworks with permitted chemicals only during festivals and occasions, testing for banned chemicals, and suspending licenses of violators.

Only crackers meeting permissible decibel levels were permitted in the market, and licenses of manufacturers violating this were to be suspended. Extensive public awareness campaigns about the harmful effects of firecrackers were mandated.

Designated times were specified for bursting fireworks during festivals, with community firecracking permitted for certain occasions. Enforcement by relevant authorities, including the police, to control the sale and timing of fireworks was ensured.

Decision: Summarize the court's decision and the rationale behind it.