Facts:

The case pertains to the challenge against the increase in the number of attempts for physically handicapped candidates of the General Category in civil services examinations, while not extending the same increase to physically handicapped candidates of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.

Issues:

Whether the differential treatment in the number of attempts for physically handicapped candidates of the General Category and OBC Category violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Whether the government's policy regarding horizontal reservation and relaxation for physically handicapped candidates is subject to judicial review.

Held:

The court elucidates that Article 16 of the Constitution provides for both vertical or social reservation and horizontal reservation, with the latter including reservations for physically handicapped individuals.

Reservation for physically handicapped candidates is considered a form of horizontal reservation, aimed at providing equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities across all categories.

The judgment clarifies that physically handicapped candidates of both the General and OBC categories are granted equal opportunities, with both groups allowed 7 attempts in civil services examinations, ensuring parity and no discrimination.

The court emphasizes that the relaxation and concessions provided to physically handicapped candidates, regardless of their category, are aimed at addressing similar disabilities and ensuring equal treatment.

The policy decisions regarding horizontal reservation and relaxation for physically handicapped candidates are considered matters of government policy and are not subject to judicial interference unless found arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The judgment upholds the increase in attempts for physically handicapped candidates of the General Category, as consistent with government policy, and dismisses the challenge against it.

Decision: The court allows the appeals and upholds the increase in the number of attempts for physically handicapped candidates of the General Category in civil services examinations, while rejecting the challenge against the policy.

Facts:

The suit involves a property dispute where the appellants purchased property based on a Power of Attorney from Annasamy Pandian.

Disputes arose over the validity of the Power of Attorney and the transfer of property.

During the trial, discrepancies in survey numbers of the property and the execution of an Inam Settlement Deed in favor of the respondent's son were discovered by the appellants.

The appellants sought to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC.

Issues:

Whether the discrepancies in survey numbers and execution of the Inam Settlement Deed constitute a formal defect justifying the withdrawal of the suit.

Whether the withdrawal of the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC was appropriate in the given circumstances.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the discrepancies in survey numbers and execution of the Inam Settlement Deed indeed constitute a formal defect justifying the withdrawal of the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC.

The trial court's decision to allow the withdrawal of the suit was appropriate and within its discretion.

The High Court erred in overturning the trial court's decision, and its interference was unjustified.

The costs imposed on the appellants were increased from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 10,000.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision and reinstating the trial court's order to withdraw the suit.

Facts:

The court had found it inappropriate for Mr. Ranjit Sinha, the then Director of the CBI, to have met with persons accused in coal block allocation cases without the investigating officer being present. A committee, led by Mr. M.L. Sharma, submitted a report on these allegations.

Issues:

The court had to determine whether to appoint an outside body of investigators to look into the matter or to entrust the CBI with investigating the abuse of authority allegedly committed by Mr. Ranjit Sinha.

Held:

The court decided not to appoint an outside body of investigators but instead directed the CBI to constitute a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to investigate the allegations against Mr. Ranjit Sinha.

The SIT would be led by the Director of CBI and assisted by two nominated officers and Mr. R.S. Cheema, a Special Public Prosecutor. The Director of CBI was instructed to inform the court about the composition of the investigation team and the time required to complete the investigations.

The court emphasized the significance of the matter and urged the Director of CBI to handle it with seriousness.

Facts:

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of his admission to the MBBS course at CM Medical College & Hospital (the College), based on an examination conducted by the College.

The admission process involved an examination called CGMAT-2016, supervised and monitored by the State of Chhattisgarh.

Changes in regulations regarding admissions to MBBS courses, particularly concerning the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), were a point of contention.

Despite regulatory changes, the College proceeded with admissions based on its own examination rather than NEET.

Issues:

Whether the admission granted by the College to the petitioner was valid.

Whether the College and the State of Chhattisgarh adhered to the regulations established by the Medical Council of India and endorsed by the Court.

Held:

The Court held that the admission granted to the petitioner by the College was unjustified and therefore set it aside. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the rule of law, even if it meant adverse consequences for the petitioner and similarly situated students.

The Court stated that the College and the State of Chhattisgarh did not adhere to the regulations established by the Medical Council of India, resulting in the petitioner becoming a victim of circumstances. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was given the liberty to proceed against the College and the State of Chhattisgarh in an appropriate manner.

Facts:

Appellants and private respondents appointed as SFOs in 1993 through direct recruitment.

Dispute arose over inter se seniority due to government's classification based on test clearance timing.

Private respondents successfully completed probation and cleared two tests; exempted from the third test by government order.

Government issued a memorandum for determining seniority, creating two classes among SFOs.

Appellants objected to the classification, leading to legal proceedings in the Tribunal, High Court, and eventually the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the government's classification for determining seniority among SFOs was justified.

Whether the classification was in conformity with relevant Rules.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the government's classification lacked justification and contravened relevant Rules. The Court emphasized that the respondents had fulfilled all requirements for seniority, including probation completion and test clearance.

The creation of two classes for determining seniority was deemed irrational and unreasonable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court. This decision aligns with recent precedent, providing no grounds for interference.

FACTS:

Accused appellant convicted for offences under IPC Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section 411.

Prosecution based on circumstantial evidence including presence of accused at crime scene, recovery of stolen goods, and witness testimonies.

Witness accounts inconsistent; recovery of stolen property insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

Whether circumstantial evidence sufficiently proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Admissibility and credibility of witness testimonies.

Application of presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

HELD:

The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found it insufficient to conclusively prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The recovery of stolen property, while suspicious, did not establish a direct link to the commission of the crime.

The witness testimonies were inconsistent and lacked credibility. Referring to the principle laid down in Sanwat Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, the Court emphasized that recovery of stolen property alone cannot establish guilt unless it is shown that the theft/robbery and the murder occurred in the same transaction.

The Court concluded that there was a significant gap in time between when the accused were last seen and the time of the incident, leaving room for the possibility that someone else could have committed the crime. Therefore, the appellant was acquitted of the murder charge under Section 302 IPC but the conviction for robbery under Section 392 IPC was upheld.

As the appellant had already served the sentence for the robbery offence, the Court ordered his immediate release.

Facts:

The appellant, S. Krishna Sradha, was denied admission to the MBBS course despite being more meritorious than the selected candidates. The High Court relied on the decision in Jasmine Kaur's case, denying admission benefits to the appellant due to the expiry of the cut-off date, but acknowledging lapses on the part of various authorities. The appellant approached the Court under Article 226 without delay, following the prescribed procedures for admission.

Issues:

Whether the previous decision in Jasmine Kaur's case restricting admission relief requires reconsideration by a larger bench.

Whether compensation alone is an adequate remedy for wrongful deprivation of admission, especially concerning the academic career of a student.

Held:

The decision in Jasmine Kaur's case, restricting admission relief based on the expiry of the time schedule, necessitates reconsideration by a larger bench, as it may not adequately address the grievances of meritorious students.

The Court emphasizes the importance of merit-based admissions and asserts that fundamental rights should not be denied to students due to institutional or administrative faults. The denial of admission based solely on the lapse of time may not serve the cause of justice.

Granting compensation may be an additional relief; however, it should not be the sole or adequate remedy for wrongful deprivation of admission, considering its impact on the academic career of the student. Restitution should be pursued where possible to restore the aggrieved party to their pre-wrongdoing condition.

Facts:

The case pertains to the interpretation of provisions under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, concerning the treatment of post-sale discounts granted through credit notes issued to customers.

Issues:

Whether discounts granted through credit notes can be deducted from the total turnover to determine the taxable turnover under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Held:

The Court analyzed Section 3(2)(c) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and held that all amounts allowed as discounts qualify for deduction from the total turnover to ascertain the taxable turnover.It was further held that the requirement for discount to be eligible for deduction includes being allowed in accordance with the regular practice of the dealer or as per terms of any contract or agreement, and such discounts should be reflected in the tax invoice or bill of sale.( Para 11-13)

The Court emphasized the importance of contemporaneous records to prove transactions allowing discounts and mandated that the final sale price after deducting trade discounts must be reflected in the accounts as stipulated under Rule 3(2)(c) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (Para 15).

Sections 29 and 30 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, along with Rule 3, were viewed as constituents of the same scheme to determine taxable turnover and were interpreted in a manner that ensures correct computation of tax liability (Para 26).

The Court stressed the practicality of allowing trade discounts, recognizing that they may not always be reflected at the time of the original sale but should be evidenced by contemporaneous documents and reflected in relevant accounts (Para 27).

It was reiterated that while statutes should generally be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning, if a literal interpretation leads to absurd results, courts may seek the underlying legislative intent and interpret accordingly (Para 34).

The interpretation of the first proviso to Rule 3(2)(c) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, was aligned with the legislative intent to sustain the benefit of trade discounts and ensure the correct determination of taxable turnover (Para 36).

The Court concluded that the requirement of referencing discounts in tax invoices or bills of sale should be construed in relation to the transaction resulting in the final sale/purchase price, but discounts must be proven through contemporaneous records (Para 37).

Decision: The appeals were allowed, affirming the deduction of post-sale discounts from the total turnover to determine the taxable turnover under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Facts:

Safety Retreading Company (P) Ltd. was engaged in the retreading of tires.

The dispute arose regarding the levy of service tax on the total amount charged for retreading, including the value of materials/goods used and sold in the execution of the contract.

The appellant had paid taxes under the local Act as a Works Contractor.

Issues:

Whether service tax is leviable on the total amount charged for retreading, including the value of materials/goods used and sold in the execution of the contract.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that service tax should be levied only on the service component and not on the entire gross value. The court emphasized the provisions of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, which exclude the cost of parts or materials sold to the customer from the taxable value. The court rejected arguments regarding insufficient evidence of the value of goods or parts used in the contract, noting the undisputed assessment of the appellant under the local Act and the details provided in the show cause notice issued by the Department.

The court set aside the majority order of the appellate Tribunal and held that the view taken by the Vice President of the appellate Tribunal was correct. The appellant was entitled to all reliefs due, and any amounts deposited were to be returned without interest. Bank guarantees related to penalties were discharged. The appeals are disposed of on the same terms.