Facts:

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, along with other authorities and the Commissioner of Income Tax, appealed against a judgment by the Delhi High Court. The case involved the non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act by a private limited company engaged in real estate activities, which had entered into a long-term lease with Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.

Issues:

Whether Noida and Greater Noida are considered "local authorities" under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act.

Whether the income of Noida and Greater Noida is exempt from tax deduction at source under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f).

Whether the circular dated 30.01.1995 applies to exempt Noida and Greater Noida from tax deduction at source under Section 194-I.

Held:

The Court held that Noida and Greater Noida are not considered "local authorities" under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002. The Court also affirmed that Noida's income is exempt under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) by virtue of a notification. However, the circular dated 30.01.1995, which exempted government and certain statutory authorities from tax deduction at source, is not applicable due to subsequent amendments in the law.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the Delhi High Court's judgment that tax deduction at source is applicable on lease rent payments to Greater Noida under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act.

Facts:

Appellant lent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondent for business purposes, with a promise of repayment within a month.

Respondent issued a post-dated cheque of Rs. 2,00,000 to the appellant, but it bounced twice due to insufficient funds.

After receiving a notice demanding payment, the respondent accused the appellant of stealing the cheque.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to set aside the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was justified.

Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Act was correctly applied and rebutted.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court found that:

The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by setting aside the conviction.

The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rightly raised against the respondent, and the respondent failed to rebut this presumption with evidence.

Mere denial of the existence of debt or liability by the accused is insufficient to rebut the presumption. The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the trial court, affirming the conviction of the respondent.

Facts:

The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, decided to extend certain benefits to officers in service in the North Eastern Region, including Special (Duty) Allowance.

Respondents, pharmacists in CRPF, were posted in different places in India, including the North Eastern Region.

A letter dated 31.03.1987 extended the benefit of Special (Duty) Allowance to CRPF personnel posted in the North Eastern Region, provided their headquarters were in that region.

The respondents filed an application claiming the allowance but were denied due to their headquarters being outside the North Eastern Region.

An Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2005 clarified the allowance would be admissible to personnel actually working in the North East Region.

Issues:

Whether the respondents were entitled to Special (Duty) Allowance from the date of their posting in the North Eastern Region or only from 03.08.2005 when the Office Memorandum was issued.

Held:

The Court held that the purpose of granting Special (Duty) Allowance was to attract and retain competent officers in the North Eastern Region. The denial of this allowance to personnel posted in the region, but with headquarters outside, was found unjustified and against the purpose of the allowance. The classification made in the Government Order dated 31.03.1987, differentiating between personnel based on the location of their headquarters, did not pass the test of valid classification under Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the subsequent clarification in the Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2005, allowing the allowance to all personnel posted in the North Eastern Region, irrespective of the location of their headquarters, was considered corrective of this error. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment of the High Court, and directing the grant of Special (Duty) Allowance to the respondents for the period they were actually posted in the North Eastern Region.

Facts:

Devidas Loka Rathod, the appellant, was accused of assaulting individuals with a sickle, resulting in injuries and the death of one person. The trial court and the High Court rejected Rathod's defence of unsoundness of mind. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's defence of unsoundness of mind was valid.

Whether there were gaps in the prosecution's case regarding the appellant's mental state.

Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exception under Section 84 of the IPC.

Whether proper care and support should be provided to the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Held:

The Court examined the evidence and found gaps in the prosecution's case regarding the appellant's mental state. It concluded that there was sufficient doubt about the appellant's mental condition at the time of the offence based on medical evidence and other factors.

Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exception under Section 84 of the IPC. As a result, the Court acquitted the appellant of all charges and directed his release from custody.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the need to provide the appellant with proper care and support in accordance with his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Facts:

The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenged the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and Vigilance Commissioner (VC) on grounds of alleged illegality and violation of principles of 'impeccable integrity' and 'institutional integrity'.

Allegations were made against the appointees regarding their conduct, including meetings with other officials, handling of specific cases, and accusations of fabricating/forging reports.

Issues:

Whether the appointments of the CVC and VC were influenced by extraneous considerations or made in breach of statutes or rules.

Whether the allegations against the appointees were substantiated and affected their integrity.

Held:

The court clarified that judicial review is limited to examining the integrity of the decision-making process. It can set aside decisions influenced by extraneous considerations or made in violation of statutes or rules. However, the court does not have the authority to interfere with the government's choice of appointees.

The court found the allegations against the CVC regarding meetings with other officials and handling of specific cases unsubstantiated. It noted that no wrongdoing or impropriety was found in the actions of the CVC.

Similarly, allegations against the VC regarding fabricating/forging reports were examined. The court found no formal findings against the VC in this regard and concluded that his integrity was not affected.

Emphasizing the importance of thoroughly examining complaints, the court stated that allegations alone cannot be taken as serious aspersions on integrity. It declined to interfere with the appointments based on the findings presented.

Decision: The court upheld the appointments of both the CVC and VC, concluding that the integrity of the decision-making process was not compromised, and no illegality was found in the appointments.

Facts:

The Respondent Bank, Canara Bank, paid interest to the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) in the form of Fixed Deposits (FDs) or deposits. However, it did not deduct tax at source. The Assessing Officer deemed the respondent as an assessee in default and issued a demand notice. The bank filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), relying on a notification dated 22.10.1970 issued under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant-Revenue argued that NOIDA was not entitled to the benefit of the notification as it was not established directly by the 1976 Act but was established under it.

Issues:

Whether NOIDA is entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 22.10.1970 issued under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Held:

The court observed that Section 194A(3)(iii) uses both the expressions "by or under." In the Dalco Engineering case, the Supreme Court held that the phrase "established by or under the Act" denotes a statutory corporation brought into existence by or under the statute. Comparing the provisions of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, with those of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, it was evident that NOIDA had been established by the 1976 Act. The notification dated 22.10.1970 was issued under the power of Section 3 of the 1976 Act, and NOIDA was constituted by the Act itself. Therefore, NOIDA was entitled to the benefit of the notification, and the High Court's decision in dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue was upheld.

Decision: The appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Kanpur, was dismissed, affirming that NOIDA was entitled to the exemption under the notification.

Facts:

The UPPSC issued an advertisement inviting applications for vacancies in the Upper Subordinate Services of the State.

The selection process involved a preliminary examination comprising two papers, with the dispute focusing on the General Studies-I paper.

After objections were raised regarding the key answers provided by the UPPSC, expert committees were constituted to review the objections.

Changes were made to key answers and certain questions were deleted based on the recommendations of the expert committees.

Subsequently, various candidates filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court challenging the correctness of the key answers.

Issues:

The court was the extent of judicial review in matters concerning the correctness of key answers in academic examinations.

Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in overturning the decisions made by expert committees of the UPPSC.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by overturning the decisions of expert committees. The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in academic matters and the need for clear and glaring mistakes in key answers to justify intervention.

The Court reiterated the principles established in previous cases, including Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta and Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which emphasized the presumption of correctness of key answers and the reluctance of courts to interfere unless errors are unequivocally evident.

Consequently, the appeals filed by Rahul Singh and others were dismissed, and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court was set aside.

Facts:

The petitioners raised concerns about the mismanagement of the CLAT 2018 exam, highlighting various difficulties experienced during the test, such as technical glitches, unhelpful invigilators, dysfunctional computers, and inadequate time allocation.

Issues:

Whether the entire test needed to be cancelled, and if not, what methodology could be adopted to compensate the affected candidates.

Held:

The Supreme Court acknowledged the grievances raised by the candidates regarding the loss of time and inconvenience during the CLAT 2018 exam due to technical issues. However, the Court decided against the outright cancellation of the entire test, as it would cause tremendous inconvenience and hardship to other candidates.

Instead, the Court accepted the normalization formula suggested by the Senior Advocate, Mr. V. Giri, to compensate the affected candidates. This normalization formula aimed to revise the scores of 4690 candidates who faced difficulties during the exam.

The Court directed the authorities to complete this exercise by June 15, 2018, and publish the revised scores on June 16, 2018. Additionally, the Court instructed the rearrangement of the merit list based on the revised scores, ensuring that candidates already allocated seats would not be adversely affected.

The Court also directed the Ministry of Human Resources and Development to appoint a committee to investigate the conduct of the exam and take appropriate remedial measures to prevent similar issues in the future. Lastly, the Court requested high courts to dispose of related matters in line with its directions.

Facts:

Vedantaa Institute of Academic Excellence Pvt. Ltd. and Vedantaa Institute of Medical Sciences (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, seeking direction to the Medical Council of India (Appellant) to conduct another inspection to verify the compliance of deficiencies pointed out in an earlier inspection report. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, prompting the Appellant to file an appeal.

Issues:

Interpretation of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) and its applicability to colleges seeking renewal.

Fairness of the inspection conducted by the Assessors.

Whether the Respondents are entitled to another inspection to rectify identified deficiencies.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court's interpretation of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) was erroneous as it failed to consider the proviso attached to it. The proviso applies not only to colleges seeking second renewal but also to those seeking first renewal. Therefore, the deficiencies identified during inspections up to the second renewal are subject to the regulation's provisions.

The inspection conducted on 25.09.2017 and 26.09.2017 revealed significant deficiencies, including a shortage of teaching faculty, residents, and low bed occupancy, among other issues. These deficiencies violated Regulation 8(3)(1)(a). While the regulation provides an opportunity for colleges to rectify deficiencies, it also sets minimum standards that must be met for renewal consideration. The Respondents cannot claim another inspection due to the large-scale deficiencies identified in the initial inspection.

The Court found no fault with the inspection conducted, stating that it was carried out in accordance with the Assessors' Guide issued by the Medical Council of India. Arguments regarding the impact of natural calamities on the inspection were dismissed, reiterating that medical colleges must maintain proper staffing and facilities at all times. Courts should not interfere with expert assessments of medical colleges unless there are compelling reasons such as malice or jurisdictional errors.

In conclusion, the judgment set aside the High Court's decision and ruled in favor of the Medical Council of India, disallowing another inspection for the respondent medical college due to the significant deficiencies identified.