Facts:

Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. imported crude oil during a specific period, with allegations that certain consignments had escaped full payment of customs duty.

Issues:

The correct method of valuation for customs duty on the imported crude oil.

Held:

The court disagreed with the Tribunal's ruling, stating that it misinterpreted relevant provisions of the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules. It held that the quantity of crude oil actually received into the shore tank in India should be the basis for payment of customs duty. The court set aside the Tribunal's decision and directed the customs authorities to take consequential action accordingly.

Facts:

U.V. Mahadkar was selected as the Head of Department of Agronomy by a Selection Committee, but the decision was challenged by Subhash Anand Chavan and others. The High Court set aside the selection, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the selection committee appropriately considered both merit and seniority in accordance with relevant statutes and legal precedents.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of merit over seniority in promotion decisions, as mandated by the relevant statutes and legal principles. The Court underscored that seniority should only be a secondary consideration when merit is approximately equal among candidates.

Referring to legal precedents, the Court reiterated that promotion to higher posts should primarily be based on merit, with seniority serving as a secondary criterion.

The Court held that the High Court should not have intervened in the decision made by the selection committee unless there were allegations of malice or arbitrariness. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by U.V. Mahadkar and upheld his selection for the position of Head of Department of Agronomy.

Facts:

The appellant, Abdul Waheed, appealed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court affirming his conviction under various sections of the IPC.

The case stemmed from a civil dispute over the construction of a house on a Panchayat Ghar site, leading to contempt proceedings against Abdul Waheed.

On the eve of a court hearing, a confrontation ensued between Abdul Waheed and his associates, armed with guns and lathis, and the complainant party, resulting in injuries and fatalities.

Issues:

The appeal raised issues regarding discrepancies in the place of occurrence, the assertion that the complainant party were the aggressors, and challenging the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Held:

The Supreme Court rejected the defense's arguments, emphasizing the established motive by the prosecution and the consistency of witness accounts.

The Court affirmed the trial court and High Court's findings, concluding that the use of firearms indicated an intention to cause fatal harm, leading to the appellant's guilt of murder under Section 302 IPC.

Despite the appellant's age and the time elapsed since the incident, the Court stressed the importance of upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system and ordered the appellant's immediate custody to serve the remaining sentence.

Facts:

The appellant, Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth, was charged under Section 506(2) IPC in 2001. Later, in 2014, a charge under Section 376 IPC was added. The prosecutrix did not take any action for almost nine years after the alleged incident. The appellant applied for anticipatory bail after the charge under Section 376 IPC was added.

Issues:

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant considering the time lapse between the alleged incident and the addition of the serious charge, as well as the prosecutrix's inaction.

Held:

The Court held that merely adding a serious charge after a long period of time should not automatically deny the benefit of anticipatory bail (Para 17).

It was further emphasized that the appellant's participation in legal proceedings without attempting to influence witnesses weighed in favor of granting anticipatory bail (Para 24).

The impugned judgment was set aside, and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the appellant was restored (Para 27).

Decision: The Court allowed the appeals and restored the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. The decision was based on the considerations outlined in Paragraphs 17 and 24 of the judgment.

Facts:

The appellants, doctors serving under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, challenged the decision regarding eligibility criteria for appearing in the West Bengal Post Graduate Medical Admission Test for 2015.

A notification issued on 24.03.2015 stated that in-service candidates who obtained diplomas between 2012-2014 would not be considered for the degree course, favoring pre-2012 diploma holders instead.

The appellants contended that this change was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it was implemented after they were selected and called for giving sponsorship certificates.

The respondents argued that the decision was made to prioritize doctors who completed their diploma courses much earlier than the appellants, given the shortage of doctors in the state and plans to open new super-specialty hospitals.

Issues:

Whether the change in eligibility criteria for the medical admission test was arbitrary and discriminatory.

Whether the appellants' merit should take precedence over seniority in determining eligibility.

Held:

The court dismissed the appeals, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the decision. However, the respondents' counsel assured that the appellants would be given sponsorship for the following year, 2016-17. The court noted that the placement of doctors was at the discretion of the government, and while the appellants were allowed to appear in the examination and secured a place in the select list, there was no justification to prioritize them over their seniors. The court emphasized that seniority was a relevant factor, especially in the context of the shortage of doctors in the state and plans for new super-specialty hospitals.

Facts:

Various writ petitions were filed by teachers of Sanskrit Institutes in Patiala and Nabha, concerning the status of the institutes and their entitlement to salary scales.

The institutes had a historical background dating back to the 19th century and had been affiliated with universities.

Disputes arose over whether the institutes should be treated as colleges or schools, and whether the teachers were qualified for salary scales equivalent to college lecturers.

Issues:

Whether the institutes should be treated as colleges.

Whether the teachers were entitled to salary scales equivalent to college lecturers.

Held:

The Court observed that the institutes had been treated as colleges by various authorities over the years and had been affiliated with universities. The teachers had been teaching college-level courses and possessed the necessary qualifications.

The Court disagreed with the High Court's decision and ruled that the teachers were entitled to salary scales at par with college teachers.

However, the Court clarified that its decision was specific to the circumstances of this case and should not be seen as setting a precedent for similar cases.

Facts:

Gopal Shukla, a conductor with the U.P. State Transport Corporation, allowed 25 passengers to travel without tickets on a bus he was conducting.

This led to disciplinary proceedings against him, resulting in his dismissal.

Issues:

Whether the punishment imposed on Gopal Shukla for allowing passengers to travel without tickets was appropriate.

Held :

The Supreme Court held that leniency in cases of corruption or misconduct is against public interest and undermines institutional trust.

The Court criticized the Labour Court's reasoning for not adequately considering the breach of duty and trust involved.

The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Labour Court and the High Court, reinstating the Corporation's decision to dismiss Gopal Shukla.

Facts:

Indra Vijay Alok, the appellant, served as the Patwari of the Halka area during the relevant period. The prosecution alleged that he demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 1000 from the complainant, PW-3 Ram Singh, to facilitate the mutation of land records.

A trap was laid, during which marked currency notes were recovered from Alok's possession. Despite the lack of support from one of the panch witnesses, the prosecution's case relied on credible testimony from other witnesses.

Issues:

The credibility of witness testimony, the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the demand for a bribe was directly linked to official duties.

Held:

The Division Bench rejected the appellant's appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. They found the prosecution witnesses' testimony, especially that of PW-3 Ram Singh and PW-4 B.L. Vashist, to be credible.

Despite the lack of support from one witness, the court emphasized that the overall credibility of the prosecution's case remained intact. They noted that the presumption of motive under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not rebutted.

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that there was no illegality in the appreciation of evidence. The appellant's request to reduce the sentence was also denied.

Facts:

The Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College applied for permission from the Central Government to increase the number of seats for the MBBS course for the academic session 2015-16. However, the application was rejected as the 'Essentiality Certificate' was not filed along with the application within the specified time frame. The applicant sought condonation of the delay, which was denied.

Issues:

Whether the applicant's failure to submit the essentiality certificate along with the application within the specified time frame warranted rejection of the application?

Whether the court should issue any direction for considering the applicant's case for the ongoing academic session 2015-16 despite the delay?

Held:The court held that the applicant's failure to submit the essentiality certificate along with the application within the specified time frame warranted rejection of the application (para 15).

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory time schedule provided under the Regulations of 1999, which is designed to ensure uniformity in the commencement of academic sessions (para 6, 7, 14).

Since all dates in the time schedule for the ongoing academic session were already over, the court declined to issue any direction for considering the applicant's case for that session (para 20).

The court directed that the application be considered for the next academic session (2016-17) provided that all requisite formalities are fulfilled. The Medical Council of India (MCI) was instructed to conduct an inspection in a timely manner as per the schedule fixed under the Regulations of 1999 (para 23).

Decision:In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition and directed that the application submitted by the college for the academic session 2015-16 be considered for the next academic session, subject to fulfilment of other requisite formalities, as may be necessary (para 23).