Facts:

Seven petitioners enrolled in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through Open Distance Learning by Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, a Deemed to be University, in 2004 and 2005.

They filed a Writ Petition seeking clarification on the validity of their degrees, mandamus to prevent declaration of their degrees as null, and other reliefs.

Issues:

Whether Deemed to be Universities could offer courses in technical education through Open Distance Learning without AICTE approval.

Whether the degrees obtained through distance education mode are valid for all purposes.

Held:

The Court, referring to its decision in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Shankar Patro and Ors., held that Deemed to be Universities were not justified in introducing new courses in technical education without AICTE approval.

The Court directed the suspension of degrees awarded by Deemed to be Universities concerned to candidates enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005, and recall and cancellation of degrees awarded through distance education mode to students admitted after 2005.

It ordered AICTE to conduct appropriate tests for affected students, with an option to clear the tests within stipulated timeframes, failing which their degrees would stand cancelled.

The Court also directed refunds of tuition fees and other charges to affected students who chose not to exercise the test option.

Deemed to be Universities were instructed to refund tuition fees to affected students and cease offering courses in distance education mode without specific permissions.

UGC was directed to take steps to restrain Deemed to be Universities from using the word "university" and to consider withdrawal of deemed status for certain institutions.

A three-member Committee was to be constituted to suggest oversight mechanisms for regulating deemed to be universities within six months.

The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, being completely covered by the Court's previous decision in Orissa Lift Irrigation case.

Facts:

FIR No. 16 of 2018 was registered on March 24, 2018, for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code against 18 persons, including the appellants.

The appellants were arrested on April 8, 2018, and subsequently remanded to police/magisterial custody.

A petition was filed by the complainant seeking a fair and impartial investigation. The High Court, in response, ordered that the investigation be conducted by a Gazetted Police Officer, and the report of the investigation along with the opinion of the Investigating Officer be submitted within two months.

The investigation report was filed on July 5, 2018, but it was returned by the Magistrate due to non-compliance with the High Court's order.

The appellants filed an application for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) immediately after the expiry of 90 days from their custody.

Issues:

Whether the investigation was complete within the prescribed period under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.

Whether the High Court's order could be construed as an extension of the investigation period.

Held:

The Court referred to previous judgments and principles laid down in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, highlighting that an accused has an indefeasible right to be released on bail if the investigation is not completed within the stipulated period.

The Court emphasized that the investigation must ideally be completed within the first 24 hours of arrest, and if not, within the prescribed period under Section 167 of the CrPC. In this case, since there were no papers or charge-sheet before the Magistrate at the end of the 90-day period, the accused were denied their right to bail. The Court rejected the argument that the High Court's order extended the investigation period, stating that there is no provision in the CrPC for such extension.

The Court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellants be admitted to bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, with conditions to be determined by the trial court. The Court clarified that the appellants could be arrested or re-arrested on cogent grounds, and in such cases, they would be entitled to petition for regular bail, to be considered on its own merit.

Facts:

The Una Nagar Palika (Municipality) denied pension benefits to five of its employees upon their reaching the age of superannuation.

The employees filed petitions in the High Court of Gujarat, seeking pension benefits, which were granted by the Single Judge. The Municipality appealed this decision before the Division Bench, which upheld the Single Judge's decision.

The Municipality contended that employees directly appointed by it should not be entitled to pension benefits, unlike those who were originally working with the Panchayat and later became municipal employees.

The High Court relied on a previous judgment in Chief Officer vs. Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and Others, which held that municipal employees are eligible for pension benefits.

Issues:

Whether municipal employees, directly appointed by the Municipality, are entitled to pension benefits.

The relevance of the distinction made by the Municipality between employees who were originally working with the Panchayat and those directly appointed by the Municipality.

Held:

The Court held that the distinction made by the Municipality between different categories of employees was insignificant. The employees were deemed eligible for pension benefits based on their qualifying service. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by Una Nagar Palika and directed the Municipality to finalize the pension cases of the respondents and release the pension amounts within four months from the date of the order.

Facts:

Sudarsan Puhan filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal awarded compensation to Sudarsan Puhan.

Both Sudarsan Puhan and the Insurance Company filed appeals in the High Court challenging the Tribunal's award.

The High Court partially allowed the Insurance Company's appeal, reducing the compensation awarded to Sudarsan Puhan.

Sudarsan Puhan appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order.

Issues:

Whether the High Court properly considered all submissions and evidence before reaching its decision.

Whether the High Court provided adequate reasons for reducing the compensation awarded to Sudarsan Puhan.

Whether the principles governing the duties of a First Appellate Court were followed by the High Court in this case.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court failed to adequately address the issues raised in the case and did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision to reduce the compensation awarded to Sudarsan Puhan. The Court reiterated the principle that a First Appellate Court must consider all issues and evidence before providing reasoned findings. Since the deficiencies in the High Court's judgment were apparent, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded Sudarsan Puhan's appeal back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to decide Sudarsan Puhan's appeal on its merits, including the question of further enhancement of compensation, within six months.

The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the case but had only decided to remand it to the High Court for proper consideration. It also noted that since the Insurance Company did not appeal against the High Court's order, Sudarsan Puhan alone would have the right to prosecute his appeal before the High Court after remand.

Facts:

The appellant challenged the decision of the High Court of Bombay affirming his conviction and sentence for offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act). He was convicted by the Special Judge and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fines for different offenses.

Issues:

The appellant argued that the cumulative default sentences imposed on him for non-payment of fines were excessive, especially considering his family's financial condition.

He also contended that all default sentences should run concurrently with each other since the trial court had ordered that all substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

Held:

The court rejected the appellant's plea for concurrent running of default sentences. However, considering the appellant's financial condition, the court reduced the quantum of default sentences. The default sentences for non-payment of fines were reduced to one month each for certain offenses under the IPC and to one year each for offenses under the MCOC Act. Even if the appellant failed to pay the fines, the total default sentence would be three years and four months, out of which the appellant had already served three years. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the default sentences were modified as per the court's directions.

Referred Cases in the above Judgment:

2017

Facts:

Phool Chand, an employee of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, was dismissed from service due to dereliction of duties.

He challenged his dismissal, leading to proceedings before the Labour Court, which modified the punishment and ordered his reinstatement with full back wages.

The appellant appealed against this decision in the High Court, which upheld the Labour Court's decision. The appellant then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the award of full back wages to the deceased workman's legal representatives was justified.

Whether the Courts below considered the principles governing the award of back wages.

Whether the workman or the employer presented evidence regarding the employment status of the workman after dismissal.

Held:

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and while modifying the impugned order award 50% back wages to the deceased workman (his legal representatives) in place of full wages.

In our considered opinion, the Courts below completely failed to see that the back wages could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent upon setting aside of his dismissal/termination order.

However, having regard to all facts and circumstances of the case such as period and money spent in litigation by the deceased workman and on his death by his legal representatives coupled with the fact that the workman Phool Chand has since expired, we consider it just and proper and in the interest of justice to award to the respondents (legal representatives of Late Phool Chand) 50% of the total back wages.

In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above.

Facts:

M.L. Singla, an employee of Punjab National Bank (PNB), was dismissed from service based on charges of consuming liquor on duty and being responsible for a cash shortage of Rs. 35,000.

The bank conducted a departmental inquiry, found Singla guilty on both charges, and dismissed him from service.

Singla's appeal against dismissal was rejected, and he sought relief under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, leading to the matter being referred to the Labour Court.

The Labour Court ruled in Singla's favor, ordering his reinstatement with 50% back wages, but the High Court overturned this decision, upholding Singla's dismissal.

Issues:

Whether the domestic enquiry against Singla was legal and proper.

Whether the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the gravity of the charges.

Whether the Labour Court and the High Court erred in their respective approaches to the case.

Held:

The domestic enquiry against Singla was legal and proper, as he was given full opportunity to defend himself, and no procedural lapses were observed.

The punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the gravity of the charges, considering the serious nature of both charges.

The Labour Court committed errors in failing to determine the legality of the domestic enquiry, prematurely calling for evidence on all issues, and improperly evaluating the evidence. The High Court erred in focusing on the merits of the charges rather than addressing procedural errors. Therefore, the dismissal was upheld.

Facts:

Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed.

Trial court dismissed the suit, upheld by the first appellate court and the High Court.

Parties reached a compromise during the legal proceedings, leading to the disposal of the second appeal.

One defendant challenged the compromise, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.

High Court proceeded to decide the second appeal on its merits without thoroughly examining the compromise's genuineness and legality.

Issues:

Interpretation of the Supreme Court's remand order.

Examination of the genuineness and legality of the compromise petition.

Proper procedural steps to be followed in dealing with the compromise petition.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court erred in not considering the genuineness and legality of the compromise petition as directed by the remand order. The failure to do so caused prejudice to the parties' rights. Consequently, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the High Court with specific directions. The High Court was instructed to reconsider the genuineness of the compromise and, if necessary, to refer the matter to the trial court for recording evidence.

Depending on the determination of the legality of the compromise, the second appeal would either be disposed of accordingly or heard on its merits. The Supreme Court urged the High Court to expedite the process and dispose of the matter within six months.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Jharkhand, which upheld the reinstatement of 37 workmen with full back wages by setting aside their dismissal orders for contravening Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issues:

Whether the lower courts were justified in awarding full back wages to the workmen after setting aside their dismissal orders.

Whether the principles established in previous cases regarding the awarding of back wages were properly applied in the present case.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the decision of the lower courts. It was held that back wages cannot be awarded as a matter of right to the workmen solely based on setting aside their dismissal orders. The workmen must demonstrate with evidence that they were not gainfully employed during the period of dismissal. The employer also has the opportunity to prove otherwise.

The court awarded 50% of the total back wages to the workmen, considering the circumstances of the case and aiming to achieve substantial justice. This decision was made under the powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India.