Facts:

The case involved a dispute among family members over partitioned ancestral property.

An exchange deed was executed between the parties, involving immovable property.

The plaintiffs contended that the property was ancestral and challenged the validity of the unregistered exchange deed.

The defendant sought to rely on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Issues:

Whether the partitioned property retained its ancestral character.

Validity of the unregistered exchange deed.

Application of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Held:

The court held that It is settled that the property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father's father or father's father's father is an ancestral property.

It is clear from this provision that where either of the properties in exchange are immovable or one of them is immovable and the value of anyone is Rs. 100/- or more, the provision of Section 54 of the TP Act relating to sale of immovable property would apply.

Since Exhibit P2 is an unregistered document, it is inadmissible in evidence and as such it can neither be proved under Section 91 of the Evidence Act nor any oral evidence can be given to prove its contents.

The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is in relation to application of Section 53A of the T.P Act... Pleadings are meant to give to each side, intimation of the case of the other, so that, it may be met to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties. No relief can be granted to a party without the pleadings. Therefore, it is not open for the first defendant/appellant to claim the benefit available under Section 53A of the T.P. Act." Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.

Facts:

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) was constituted under section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The issue before the court was whether NOIDA fits the definition of a "local authority" under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002, particularly considering its functions and structure under the said Act.

Issues:

Whether NOIDA qualifies as a "local authority" under the Income Tax Act, 1961, given its constitution and functions under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, and a notification specifying it as an "industrial township" under Article 243Q of the Constitution.

Held:

The court held that NOIDA does not meet the criteria of a "local authority" as defined under section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite performing certain municipal functions under the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, NOIDA lacks the essential features of a Municipality as envisioned in Part IXA of the Constitution.

The notification issued by the Governor specifying NOIDA as an "industrial township" under Article 243Q does not equate it with a Municipality as defined in the Constitution. The purpose of the notification is to exempt NOIDA from constituting a Municipality, but it does not confer upon NOIDA the status of a Municipality as per Article 243P(e).

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming that NOIDA does not qualify as a "local authority" under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notification designating it as an "industrial township" does not alter its status in relation to the definition of a Municipality under the Constitution.

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.

Facts:

The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, highlighted deficiencies in the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA). The petitioner alleged that the "approved labor budget" fixed by the Central Government violated the essence of the Act. Additionally, it was contended that there was an unreasonable reduction in funds allocated to the States and delays in payment of wages to laborers.

Issues:

The legitimacy of the process of fixing the "approved labor budget" by the Central Government, the responsibility of State Governments regarding objections to fund reductions, the delays in payment of wages, and the entitlement of workers to compensation for delayed payments.

Held:

The Court held that Rule 5 of the National Employment Guarantee Fund Rules, 2006, empowers the Central Government to scrutinize and assess funds to be released to State Governments and Union Territory Administrations for MGNREGA implementation.

The Court emphasized the necessity of meaningful discussions while finalizing the labor budget and dismissed claims of arbitrary budget fixing by the Central Government.

It was decided that objections regarding fund reductions should be raised by the concerned State Governments, and in the absence of such objections, the petitioner cannot challenge the allocations.

Regarding delayed payments, the Court directed the Central Government to address bottlenecks causing delays and emphasized the need for a solution to expedite fund release.

The Court reiterated the statutory mandate of timely wage payment under MGNREGA and directed the Central Government, along with State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, to prepare a time-bound program to ensure timely payment of wages and compensation to workers.

Facts:

The issue brought before the Supreme Court pertains to the inadequacy of infrastructure within Consumer Fora throughout the nation.

Issues:

The primary issue for consideration in this civil appeal and writ petition is the deficiency in infrastructure within Consumer Fora across the country.

Held:

After hearing all parties involved, including representatives of various states, the Court accepted the Model Rules proposed by the Union of India. Consequently, the Court directed State Governments to frame appropriate rules using their rule-making power under Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in accordance with the Final Draft Model Rules submitted by the Union of India.

Facts:

The case involves Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 898 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007, concerning the Cauvery Water Dispute.

Issues:

The objections raised by the States of Karnataka and Kerala regarding the framing of a scheme for the Cauvery Water Dispute.

Held:

The objections raised by the States of Karnataka and Kerala regarding the framing of a scheme for the Cauvery Water Dispute were dismissed. The Court emphasized that these objections lacked merit and underscored that water, being a subject falling under Entry 17 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, cannot undermine the effectiveness of the Tribunal's Award modified by the Court. The Court stressed the importance of implementing the scheme to ensure the smooth and efficient implementation of the Tribunal's Award.

Facts:

Lt. Col. Vijaynath Jha, a Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army, sought permanent secondment in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), an organization under the Ministry of Defence. The Quality Assurance Selection Board (QASB) of DGQA deemed him unfit for permanent secondment, which was subsequently challenged before the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Issues:

Whether the refusal of permanent secondment by the QASB of DGQA constitutes a "service matter" under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007?

Whether Sections 27 and 33 of the Army Act, 1950 are applicable in this case?

Held:

The action challenged before the Tribunal, i.e., the refusal of permanent secondment by the QASB of DGQA, does not fall under the purview of "service matters" as defined in Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The refusal does not impact the conditions of service of the Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army.

Sections 27 and 33 of the Army Act, 1950 are not applicable in this case. Section 27 provides a remedy for wrongs by commanding officers or superior officers, which is not relevant here. Section 33 deals with the saving of rights and privileges under other laws, which is also not applicable to the facts of this case.

Thus, the appeal was dismissed by the Court.