Facts:

The case involves petitions concerning the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution of India regarding the appointment of District Judges via direct recruitment. The petitioners raised two main contentions: (i) whether candidates with seven years of advocacy experience are eligible despite being in the service of the Union or State at the time of application/appointment, and (ii) whether members of the judicial service with seven years of service should be considered eligible candidates.

Issues:

Interpretation of Article 233 regarding eligibility criteria for appointment as District Judges.

Determination of eligibility based on the duration of advocacy experience and membership in the judicial service.

Held:

The court concluded that the case raised substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of Article 233. It recommended the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate bench.

Notably, the court highlighted the distinction between candidates from the judicial service and those from the bar in terms of eligibility criteria, emphasizing the requirement for candidates to have seven years of continuous practice as advocates immediately preceding the application.

The court also clarified that eligibility for appointment as a district judge should be assessed at the time of application, appointment, or both. It noted the special circumstances of petitioners who had participated in examinations and interviews pending the resolution of their cases, suggesting seeking appropriate orders for an early posting from the Chief Justice of India.

Facts:

The incident occurred on August 3, 2008, involving the appellant and other accused individuals allegedly assaulting the victims with deadly weapons, resulting in the deaths of three individuals and injuries to others. The prosecution relied on witness testimony, recoveries of weapons, and forensic reports to establish its case.

Issues:

Whether the accused acted in self-defense.

Whether the prosecution adequately explained the injuries sustained by the accused.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after analyzing the evidence and arguments presented, upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court and the High Court.

The court rejected the appellant's claim of acting in self-defense, emphasizing the need to examine the entire incident to determine the aggressors.

Additionally, the court ruled that the prosecution was not obligated to explain simple injuries sustained by the accused. The medical evidence suggested that these injuries could have been self-inflicted. The appeals are dismissed.

Facts:

Various applicants, holding diplomas or degrees in Engineering through distance education mode from Deemed to be Universities, sought clarification and modification of directions issued in a previous judgment.

The controversy primarily concerned the validity of engineering degrees awarded through distance education mode and the subsequent career advancements of the applicants based on these degrees.

Issues:

Whether the judgment applied only to courses leading to degrees in Engineering and not to diplomas?

Whether the judgment covered post-graduate degrees obtained based on the disputed engineering degrees?

Whether the candidates who had advanced in their careers based on the disputed degrees should be exempted from appearing in the examination directed by the court?

Held:

The court clarified that the judgment did not cover courses leading to diplomas conferred by Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode.

The judgment indeed applied to both graduate and post-graduate degrees in Engineering obtained through distance education mode.

The court rejected the submissions seeking exemption from appearing in the examination directed by the judgment, stating that the infirmity in the degrees was fundamental and could not be overlooked.

However, as a one-time relaxation, the court allowed candidates enrolled during specific academic years to retain their degrees and advantages until one month after the declaration of the test result, provided they appeared for the examination in May-June 2018. This relaxation was not applicable for subsequent attempts.

All other submissions were rejected.

The court disposed of all applications, petitions, and writ petitions accordingly, with no costs imposed.

Facts:

On 15 November 2008, an accident occurred involving a truck insured by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and a motorcycle, resulting in the death of Sonu Kumar Goyal.

The appellants, family members of the deceased, filed a compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).

The MACT found the accident to be caused by the negligence of the truck driver and held both the owner and the insurer liable.

Compensation was awarded based on the deceased's income, adjusted for personal expenses.

Issues:

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded, arguing for a higher income assessment, inclusion of future prospects, correction of the multiplier, and a higher interest rate.

Held:

The Court found the income certificates provided by the deceased's father insufficiently proven and upheld the MACT's income assessment. However, it agreed with the appellants on correcting the multiplier and including future prospects.

Following precedents, it adjusted the multiplier to 17 and added 40% towards future prospects, significantly increasing the compensation. Consequently, the Court quantified the compensation at Rs. 8,86,800 and allowed interest at 7.5% per annum from the petition's filing date till realization. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

Deepak, a passenger in a luxury bus, died in a collision with a truck.

His parents filed a claim seeking compensation against the truck owner and the insurer.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation, which was reduced by the High Court on appeal.

Issues:

The correct calculation of compensation, specifically regarding the multiplier to be applied.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the application of a multiplier of 17, considering the age of the deceased, as established in relevant case law.

Additionally, a 50% addition for future prospects was deemed appropriate.

Deducting 50% for personal expenses, as the deceased was unmarried, the total compensation was determined at Rs. 61,20,000.

After adding conventional heads, the total compensation stood at Rs. 61,90,000.

Interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition was ordered.

The compensation was to be apportioned according to the Tribunal's award.

The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The case involved a motor accident where a truck, insured by respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, collided with another vehicle, resulting in the death of Om Prakash.

The widow and family of Om Prakash filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partially allowed the claim but absolved the Insurance Company of liability due to the driver of the offending truck not possessing a valid driving license.

The appellants challenged this decision before the High Court, which upheld the Tribunal's decision.

Issues:

Whether the Insurance Company is liable for the compensation in a motor accident case.

The burden of proof regarding the validity of the driver's license and authorization to drive the vehicle.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that while the Insurance Company is entitled to raise defenses under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden of proof lies on the owner of the offending vehicle to establish that the driver was authorized and had a valid license.

The Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants initially, with the liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

The judgment clarified the liability of the Insurance Company in cases of motor accidents and emphasized the importance of establishing basic facts before shifting liability.

Facts:

Atul Thakur was one of four individuals tried for the offense under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC by the Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla. The case stemmed from an incident where Hitesh Thakur was fatally injured in a fight. The prosecution's case alleged that Atul assaulted Hitesh, leading to his death. At trial, the other accused were acquitted, but Atul was found guilty under Section 304 Part-II of IPC by the Trial Court. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, convicting Atul under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Issues:

The nature of Atul's offense and whether he should be convicted for murder under Section 302 or for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to convict Atul under Section 304 Part-II of IPC instead of murder under Section 302. It was held that the incident was a sudden fight without premeditation, and there was no evidence to suggest that Atul intended to cause Hitesh's death.

Therefore, Atul was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. The Court found that Atul's actions, while resulting in serious injuries, were not committed with the intention to cause death.

The Court also noted that the use of a weapon like a knife and the number of blows inflicted were not decisive factors in denying Atul the benefit of Exception 4. Accordingly, the Court modified the sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.

The Court emphasized that this sentence was appropriate given the severity of the assault and to meet the ends of justice.

Facts:

The case involved the death of a person named Ram Kanwar, who was allegedly run over by a tractor driven by Dharampal. The claimants asserted that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the tractor driver. However, several discrepancies and disturbing facts emerged during the proceedings.

Issues:

Determining whether the death of Ram Kanwar was caused as a result of the accident caused by the tractor.

Assessing the credibility of the evidence presented by the claimants.

Evaluating the reasoning provided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Held:

Upon careful analysis of the judgment of the High Court and the material on the record, the Supreme Court found no reason to disagree with the High Court's decision.

The Court observed that the Tribunal had overlooked crucial aspects of the case and failed to provide sufficient reasoning for its decision. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Facts:

The appellant, National Travel Services, is a partnership firm with three partners. The firm had taken a loan from M/s Jetair Private Limited, where two of its partners held shares on behalf of the firm. The question arose whether Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act applied to the loan received by the firm.

Issues:

Whether Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies to a loan received by a shareholder who is the beneficial owner of shares.

Whether a partnership firm can be considered a "shareholder" under Section 2(22)(e) if it purchases shares in the name of its partners.

Held:

The court held that the interpretation in the Ankitech Private Limited case, which required a registered shareholder even after the 1988 amendment, needed reconsideration.

The court emphasized that the amendment intended to include beneficial owners directly, without requiring registration. Therefore, the court referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger bench to review the entire issue.

This decision underscores the evolving interpretation of tax laws and the significance of judicial review in ensuring consistency and fairness in their application.