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:

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:

The case involved allegations of rape followed by the suicide of the victim. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the victim's father (PW-3) and sister (PW-4), along with medical evidence.

Issues:

The reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution and whether it was sufficient to establish the guilt of the respondent.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after analyzing the evidence, found it insufficient to support the prosecution's case. The testimony of the witnesses, particularly that of PW-4, was deemed unreliable due to factors such as the witness's age and the possibility of tutoring or influence.

Additionally, discrepancies were noted in the statements made by PW-3. The Court reiterated the principle that interference with acquittal orders by the High Court should only occur in exceptional circumstances where the findings are glaringly erroneous or perverse. Finding no such grounds, the Court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the respondent's acquittal.

Facts:

The appellant challenged the probate granted in favor of the first respondent, alleging that the Will in question, purportedly executed by Mahanta Natabar Das, was fraudulent.

Issues:

The genuineness of the Will and whether it could be determined by sending the document to a handwriting expert for comparison with admitted signatures of Natabar Das.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that if scientific investigation of the document facilitates ascertaining the truth, it must be ordered in the interest of justice. The High Court's decision to set aside the District Judge's order allowing the appellant's prayer for sending the Will to a handwriting expert was criticized. The Court found that the appellant had challenged the genuineness of the signature of Mahanta Natabar Das by disputing the genuineness of the Will itself.

Therefore, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The Will, along with documents containing admitted signatures of Natabar Das, was directed to be sent to a handwriting expert for comparison. Upon receiving the expert's report, the trial court was instructed to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law.

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:

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.