Facts:

The couple, married since November 1997, had two children.

Allegations of mental and physical torture by the respondent led to the appellant leaving the matrimonial home in February 2013.

Legal proceedings, including domestic violence cases and custody applications, ensued.

The respondent voluntarily handed over custody of the children to the appellant at one point due to the son's academic struggles, leading to improved academic performance under the appellant's care.

Issues:

Determination of custody of the children in the matrimonial dispute.

Assessment of the welfare principle in deciding custody matters.

Consideration of the children's preferences and best interests.

Held:

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, restoring custody to the appellant based on the welfare principle and the children's preference. Noting the improved academic performance and positive environment provided by the appellant, the court emphasized the need for a holistic approach to custody matters.

The appellant was granted custody, with the respondent given weekend access and custody during vacations, ensuring the children's studies were not affected. Additionally, the appellant was awarded the children's domicile certificates and passports.

Facts:

Shalu Ojha and Prashant Ojha got married in Delhi on April 20, 2007, but their marriage lasted only four months.

Shalu Ojha filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance among other reliefs.

The Metropolitan Magistrate granted interim maintenance to Shalu Ojha, which was later challenged by Prashant Ojha in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ).

Various legal proceedings ensued, including appeals and petitions filed by both parties.

Issues:

The dispute regarding the rate of maintenance and whether the learned ASJ rightly reduced the amount of maintenance.

Held:

The Supreme Court entertained the petition despite the matter being pending before the High Court.

The Court directed both parties to file necessary documents in the domestic violence proceedings before the Family Court within four weeks.

The Family Court was directed to decide the case within eight months based on the evidence presented and determine the final rate of maintenance.

The High Court was instructed to expedite the hearing of the pending case and decide whether the ASJ's order needed modification regarding interim maintenance.

Facts:

Apparaju Malhar Rao (the Appellant) contested a judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.

The High Court had allowed a second appeal filed by the plaintiff (respondent No.1), setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower court, and confirming the decree in favor of the plaintiff.

The Appellant argued that the High Court failed to properly frame any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, before allowing the second appeal.

Issues:

Whether the High Court properly framed substantial questions of law before admitting the second appeal.

Whether the failure to frame substantial questions of law renders the High Court's decision legally sustainable.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court was not legally sustainable due to the failure to properly frame substantial questions of law. The Court emphasized the necessity of formulating such questions before admitting a second appeal.

In the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179, it was established that the High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating substantial questions of law. This requirement is essential for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The absence of substantial questions of law warrants dismissal of the appeal.

Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to properly frame substantial questions of law as required by law.

Facts:

The petitioner, Krishna Mohan Medical College & Hospital, applied for establishment under the Indian Medical Council Act and the Regulations.

The Medical Council of India (MCI) recommended against granting permission due to detected deficiencies.

Despite MCI's recommendation, the Oversight Committee directed issuance of a conditional Letter of Permission (LOP) for the academic year 2016-17.

Subsequent inspections by MCI revealed alleged deficiencies in faculty and residents, leading to a recommendation for debarring the college from admissions for two academic years.

Issues:

Whether the Central Government's decision to debar the petitioner college from admitting students and to encash the bank guarantee was lawful.

Whether successive inspections by MCI and the decision based on such inspections were justified.

Held:

The Court held that the Central Government's decision was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair hearing, as mandated by Section 10A(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act. The Court noted that the Hearing Committee did not adequately re-evaluate the materials on record or provide a reasoned decision.

The decision was based on flawed grounds, including the petitioner's alleged non-cooperation and unsubstantiated deficiencies. Therefore, the Court directed the confirmation of the conditional LOP for the academic year 2016-17. However, considering the importance of medical education standards, the Court ordered a fresh inspection for the academic year 2018-19.

The decision to debar the college from admitting students for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19 was overturned, and the Central Government was instructed not to encash the bank guarantee provided by the college.

Facts:

The petitioner, Saraswati Educational Charitable Trust, applied to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, for establishing a new medical college in Uttar Pradesh.

The application was forwarded to the Medical Council of India (MCI) for evaluation and recommendations.

The MCI conducted inspections and found deficiencies, leading to the Ministry debarring the petitioner college from admitting students for two academic sessions.

The petitioner challenged this decision through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Issues:

Whether the decision to debar the petitioner college from admitting students was justified.

Whether the second inspection conducted by the MCI was necessary.

Whether the Competent Authority considered all relevant aspects before debarring the petitioner college.

Held:

The Court quashed the decision to debar the petitioner college and directed the authorities to allow admissions for the academic session 2017-18. It extended the cut-off date for admissions and directed admissions through central counseling.

The Court emphasized that the MCI or competent authority could inspect the college at any time and take action if deficiencies were found. However, considering the college's fulfillment of infrastructure and academic requirements, relief was granted to the petitioner. Costs were not awarded.

Facts:

Shri Venkateshwara University filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order debarring them from admitting students in the MBBS course for the academic sessions 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.

The Medical Council of India (MCI) had conducted inspections and found deficiencies during the academic session 2016-2017.

The university argued that the inspection conducted on December 9, 2016, was invalid due to the religious holiday, and thus, the subsequent order debarring them from admitting students was unjustified.

Issues:

Whether the inspection conducted by the MCI on December 9, 2016, was valid despite falling within the timeframe of a religious holiday.

Whether the order debarring the university from admitting students for two academic years was justified.

Held:

The court held that the inspection conducted by the MCI on December 9, 2016, was valid as it did not fall within the specified moratorium period surrounding religious holidays. The order debarring the university from admitting students for two academic years was upheld.

However, the court allowed currently enrolled students to continue their studies for the academic session 2016-2017. The MCI was directed to conduct another inspection within two months to assess deficiencies for the academic session 2018-2019.

Facts:

The case involves a challenge to the appointment of arbitrators under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issues:

Whether the appointed arbitrators met the requirements of independence and impartiality as per the Act and relevant schedules.

Whether the challenges raised against the appointment of the arbitrators are sustainable under the provided grounds.

Held:

Under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a person approached for possible appointment as an arbitrator must make a written disclosure regarding any past or present relationship or interest in the parties or dispute that could raise doubts about their independence or impartiality.

The 2016 Amendment Act introduced a distinction between persons who become "ineligible" to be appointed as arbitrators and those about whom doubts exist regarding their independence or impartiality. If an arbitrator falls into any category specified in the Seventh Schedule, they become "ineligible" to act as an arbitrator.

Challenges based on grounds listed in the Fifth Schedule should be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 13. If unsuccessful, the party challenging the appointment may seek to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34. However, challenges based on the Seventh Schedule render the arbitrator "ineligible" and can be addressed directly by the Court under Section 14(2).

Items listed in the Schedules should be interpreted broadly to ensure arbitrators' impartiality and independence.

Previous involvement in an arbitration between the parties does not necessarily render an arbitrator ineligible due to bias, as long as there is no indication of a pronounced anti-claimant view.

Arbitrators should make timely written disclosures to parties, but failure to do so due to administrative oversight may not necessarily invalidate the appointment.

Explanation 3 to the Seventh Schedule, regarding maritime or commodities arbitration, does not affect the applicability of other items in the Schedule.

Decision:

The Court upheld the appointment of the arbitrators, finding the challenges to their appointments unsustainable based on the disclosed grounds.

Facts:

Canara Bank (appellant) received an application from C.S. Shyam (respondent) seeking information about the transfer and posting of clerical staff from 2002 to 2006.

The information sought included personal details of individual employees such as joining date, designation, promotions, and transfer orders.

The bank's Public Information Officer declined to provide the information citing Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and stating it had no nexus with public interest.

Issues:

Whether the information sought by the respondent falls within the ambit of personal information exempted from disclosure under Section 8(j) of the Act.

Whether there is a requirement to establish a public interest, especially a larger public interest, for the disclosure of such personal information.

Held:

The Supreme Court held in favor of Canara Bank and against C.S. Shyam. The Court concluded that the information sought was indeed personal in nature and exempted from disclosure under Section 8(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Moreover, the respondent failed to establish any public interest, let alone a larger public interest, justifying the disclosure of this information.

Therefore, the application made by the respondent under Section 6 of the Act was deemed misconceived. The Court set aside the orders of the High Court and Central Information Commission and restored the original decision of rejecting the respondent's application for information. The appeal is allowed,

Facts:

The petitioners applied to establish a medical college, which was evaluated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and forwarded to the Medical Council of India (MCI) for recommendations.

Despite initial negative recommendations and subsequent assessments, the Oversight Committee approved the scheme for the academic session 2016-17 with conditions.

The Ministry issued a Letter of Permission for the session 2016-17, but subsequent deficiencies led to a negative recommendation by the MCI and a decision by the Ministry to debar the college from admitting students for two years.

The petitioners challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the decision to debar the petitioner college from admitting students for the academic session 2017-18 was justified.

Whether the authorities provided tangible reasons for barring admissions.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the decision to debar the petitioner college from admitting students for the academic session 2017-18 was unjustified. The Court criticized the authorities for disregarding the fact situation and failing to provide tangible reasons for barring admissions.

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner college, allowing it to admit students for the academic session 2017-18 and directing authorities to facilitate the admissions process in the interest of justice and the larger public interest.

The Court emphasized that the Medical Council of India (MCI) or the Central Government could inspect the college and proceed against it if any deficiencies were found.