Facts:

The petitioner, Kanachur Islamic Education Trust, had its college admission allowed for the academic year 2016-2017 with the condition that admission for the next academic year would require permission from the respondent. Subsequent inspections by the Medical Council of India (MCI) recorded deficiencies, leading to negative recommendations for two academic years. However, the Oversight Committee recommended confirming the conditional Letter of Permission (LOP) granted to the petitioner's college. Despite this, the respondent concurred with the MCI's decision to debar the college from admissions for the academic years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.

Issues:

The procedural fairness of the decision-making process, the adequacy of the inspections, and the justification for debarment from admissions.

Held:

The importance of fair hearing and the audi alteram partem principle, which requires giving the affected party a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

This principle is fundamental to fair procedure and applies to administrative actions with civil consequences, as emphasized in paragraph 20.

The court found that the respondents failed to conduct a dispassionate and rational analysis of the materials on record, resulting in casual findings against the petitioner's college. Consequently, the decision to debar the college lacked justification and violated the principles of natural justice.

Decision:The court allowed the writ petition, confirming the conditional LOP granted to the petitioner's college for the academic year 2016-17 and granting LOP for the academic year 2017-18. Additionally, the court directed the Central Government and the MCI to conduct inspections if necessary to ensure compliance with medical education standards. The date of counseling for admissions for the academic year 2017-18 concerning the petitioner's college was extended accordingly.

Facts:

During communal riots in the State of Gujarat, various religious places owned by trusts and institutions were damaged or destroyed.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed seeking direction to compensate the trusts and institutions owning the religious places affected during the riots.

The High Court directed the State Government to compensate the affected trusts and institutions.

The State Government framed a scheme regarding the payment of ex gratia assistance to all religious places damaged or destroyed during the communal riots.

Issues:

Whether the State is obliged under the Constitution to treat persons of all faiths and religions with equality.

Whether the State is liable to repair or restore religious places damaged by the mob during communal riots.

Whether the scheme framed by the State Government for providing ex gratia assistance to the affected religious places is reasonable and falls within the constitutional guidelines.

Held:

The State is obligated under the Constitution to treat persons belonging to all faiths and religions with equality (Para 21).

Protection of property and places of worship is an essential part of secularism, and the State is responsible for repairing or restoring religious places damaged during communal riots (Para 22).

The scheme framed by the State Government, which provides ex gratia assistance to all religious places damaged or destroyed during the riots, is reasonable and falls within the constitutional guidelines (Para 40).

Decision: The appeal is disposed of, upholding the High Court's direction to compensate the affected trusts and institutions. The scheme framed by the State Government for providing ex gratia assistance to the damaged religious places is accepted.

Facts:

Search and seizure operation conducted on Mr. M.N. Navale, a trustee of Sinhgad Technical Education Society, under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Documents seized during the operation suggested irregularities in the society's financial activities, including alleged collection of capitation fees.

Proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C of the Act against the society for Assessment Years 2000-01 to 2005-06.

Society challenged the validity of the notice under Section 153C, arguing it was time-barred and lacked proper jurisdictional grounds.

Issues:

Validity of the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Jurisdictional grounds for initiating proceedings against Sinhgad Technical Education Society.

Held:

The Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) correctly allowed the additional ground regarding the validity of the notice under Section 153C. The Court affirmed the ITAT's decision, stating that the requirement under Section 153C is essential for assessment and constitutes a jurisdictional fact. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the ITAT and the High Court. It clarified that the assessment order covered eight Assessment Years, with the challenge relating only to four of them, and the decision to set aside the assessment was limited to technical grounds. The Court also emphasized that its decision did not absolve the society of potential repercussions based on findings regarding the genuineness of its activities and collection of capitation fees. Any pending proceedings regarding other Assessment Years would be considered independently of the outcome of this case.

Facts:

The appellant, Ahsan, was one of the accused in a case involving multiple charges under the IPC.

The incident involved the accused entering the complainant's paternal uncle's house and causing severe injuries to several individuals with gunshots.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court and his conviction was upheld by the High Court.

Ahsan appealed to the Supreme Court, primarily challenging the quantum of sentence imposed on him.

Issues:

Whether the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant was appropriate, especially considering the circumstances of the case and the injuries sustained by the victims.

Held:

The Court noted that the two lower courts did not commit any error in exercising their judicial discretion in awarding life imprisonment to the appellant. It was reasoned that the injuries caused by the appellant were grievous in nature, and the facts of the case satisfied the ingredients of Section 307 IPC.

The Court further emphasized that various factors such as the nature of the offense, the gravity of the injuries, and the common intention of the accused were duly considered while imposing the sentence, leaving little scope for interference.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, affirmed by the High Court, was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Facts:

The case stemmed from the history of illegal mining and environmental damage in Karnataka, leading to the intervention of the Court and the establishment of a Monitoring Committee for the sale of illegally extracted iron ore.

Various stakeholders, including petitioners, mining companies, and the State of Karnataka, presented differing opinions on the proposed changes to the sale mechanism.

Issues:

Whether the existing policy of selling iron ore through the Monitoring Committee's e-auction system should be replaced with alternative mechanisms proposed by the Central Empowered Committee and the State of Karnataka.

Held:

The Court concluded that the situation had not yet reached a point where the existing system of sale through the Monitoring Committee could be replaced. It emphasized the need to continue with the current system until significant progress was made in related aspects, such as environmental restoration and regulation of mining activities.

The application seeking to bypass the Monitoring Committee's e-auction system was rejected, and the Court declined to accept the suggestions put forth by the Central Empowered Committee and the State of Karnataka. I.A. No.248 accordingly is disposed of in the above terms.

Facts:

The appellant, M/s Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., entered into contracts with the Public Health and Engineering Department (PHED) of the State Government for providing and laying pipelines for water supply schemes.

Dispute arose regarding the taxability of these contracts under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

The High Court affirmed findings that the contracts were divisible and subject to sales tax, based on the substantial value of materials supplied by the appellant.

Issues:

Whether the contracts entered into by the appellant were divisible under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Whether the imposition of tax and penalty under Section 7AA of the Act was justified.

Held:

The Court held that the contracts in question were indeed divisible, and the imposition of tax and penalty was justified under Section 7AA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. This conclusion was based on the finding that a substantial part of the contract value pertained to materials supplied by the appellant, which were subject to sales tax.

The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the appellant, emphasizing that the issue at hand was divisibility rather than classification as a works contract. This interpretation aligned with the legal principles established in previous cases such as Larsen and Toubro Limited v. State of Karnataka and Kone Elevator India Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the findings of the lower authorities, confirming the taxability of the contracts under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Facts:

M/s. Aneja Consultancy, founded in 1984, faced financial troubles, leading to the inability to repay deposits made by various individuals.

Respondent No. 2 deposited Rs. 86,000 with the company in June/July 1987.

Respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR on May 30, 1998, against Samir Sahay and his father under Section 420 IPC, alleging fraudulent activities related to depositing money with the company.

Samir Sahay filed an application for discharge, stating that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him under Section 420 IPC.

Issues:

Whether the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were established in the case against Samir Sahay.

Whether Samir Sahay fraudulently or dishonestly induced the complainant to deposit money.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not established in the case against Samir Sahay. The Court emphasized the necessity to establish fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of inducement for the offense of cheating. Since there was no evidence to suggest such fraudulent intention on Samir Sahay's part, the Court allowed the appeal. The Court set aside the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the High Court, discharging Samir Sahay from the charges under Section 420 IPC in Case No. 545 of 2002.

Facts:

The case involves a challenge to Rule 1.5(1) of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972, which provides benefits for ex-servicemen in terms of seniority and pay in civil employment based on their past service in the armed forces. The challenge pertains to whether such benefits should be extended only to ex-servicemen who joined the armed forces during Emergency periods or if they should also apply to those who joined during peacetime.

Issues:

The justification for providing benefits based on past service in the armed forces, the distinction between ex-servicemen who joined during Emergency periods and those who joined during peacetime, and the proper implementation of the rules regarding reservations for ex-servicemen.

Held:

The Court upheld the validity of the rules providing benefits to ex-servicemen but restricted these benefits to those who joined the armed forces during Emergency periods. This holding is consistent with the rationale that individuals who join during Emergency periods make greater sacrifices compared to those who join during peacetime.

The Court emphasized the need for a clear rationale and reasonable limits in providing reservations and benefits to ex-servicemen. While reserving a quota for ex-servicemen is permissible within reasonable limits and does not violate the equality provision of the Constitution, departure from the normal rule of seniority should be justified by weighty reasons.

Ex-servicemen who joined during Emergency periods are considered to have made greater sacrifices and are entitled to benefits in terms of seniority. However, those who joined during peacetime are not entitled to the same benefits, as they joined the armed forces as a profession like any other.

The judgment also addressed the issue of proper implementation of the rules, ensuring that ex-servicemen are given the option to accept reserved vacancies at the time of initial appointment.

Facts:

The dispute revolved around agricultural land claimed by the plaintiff based on inheritance rights and by the defendants based on a purported Will.

The Trial Court granted the suit partially in favor of the plaintiff, awarding symbolic possession due to a tenant's occupation.

Both parties appealed to the District Judge, who affirmed the Trial Court's decision.

Subsequently, second appeals were filed before the High Court by both parties.

Issues:

Whether the High Court properly framed substantial questions of law before hearing the second appeals.

Whether the High Court's failure to do so rendered its judgment legally unsustainable.

Held:

The Supreme Court found fault with the High Court's judgment for not properly framing substantial questions of law. It emphasized the necessity of doing so under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Referring to the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs., the Court reiterated that the existence of substantial questions of law is a prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction in second appeals.

Since the High Court did not fulfill this requirement, the Supreme Court set aside its judgment and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to formulate substantial questions of law and decide the appeals accordingly, in accordance with the law laid down in Santosh Hazari case.