Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Education

Education

AIBEA examination HELD the role of the universities to impart legal education, in any way, prohibit the Bar Council of India from conducting pre-enrolment examination, as the Council is directly concerned with the standard of persons who want to obtain a license to practice law as a profession.

Feb 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay…

Education

Medical College Admissions in breach of court order . Disastrous consequences which will be faced by the students if their admissions are disturbed, the sanctity of the judicial process has to be observed also. HELD that the admissions which were granted to 100 students should not be disturbed conditional on the Medical College depositing an amount of Rs 2.5 crores AIIMS.

Feb 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ANNASAHEB CHUDAMAN PATIL MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Education

Citizenship Act 1955 – Section 7B – Rights of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) – Entrance tests to medical courses – Impugned notification dated 04.03.2021 to be valid with specific prospective effect in view of the power available to respondent No.1 under Section 7B(1) of Act, 1955, keeping in perspective the wide ramification it may have in future also on the Indian diaspora and since it is claimed to be based on the policy decision of the Sovereign State.

Feb 14, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

Education

Education – with respect to wrong answer keys and thereafter when a conscious decision was taken to allocate the marks on pro-rata basis with respect to two questions whose answer keys were found to be wrong and when all the candidates were awarded two marks (one mark each for the two questions), it cannot be said that the Public Service Commission acted illegally and/or arbitrarily

Jan 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MISS HAGE MAMUNG AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Education

HELD The management cannot be permitted to retain the amount recovered/collected pursuant to the illegal G.O. dated 06.09.2017. The medical colleges are the beneficiaries of the illegal G.O. dated 06.09.2017 which is rightly set aside by the High Court. The respective medical colleges have used/utilized the amount recovered under G.O. dated 06.09.2017 for a number years and kept with them for a number of year . Appeal dismissed with costs.

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARAYANA MEDICAL COLLEGE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

Education

University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 – – the members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be the persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges – While preparing the panel, the Search Committee shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence etc.

Nov 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRA JUGRAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil…

Education

Education – Admission to Postgraduate Dental Course – Even if on the last date of admission, seats remained vacant was no ground by the institutions/colleges to grant admissions unilaterally and that too without intimating the vacant seats to the Directorate – High Court directing admissions quashed

Nov 3, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. SAILENDRA SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Stamp Act State Laws

“Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Power to Levy Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies” Stamp Act, 1899 – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act – LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharashtra – The State of Rajasthan argues that it has the power to collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the state’s power to levy stamp duty. However, it directed that the state shall not demand and collect the stamp duty as per the orders dated between 1993-94 and 2001-02 – The Court reasoned that the state has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies, and the 1952 Act applies to the case – The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to conclude that the state can impose stamp duty using rates prescribed by the Parliament – The Supreme Court concluded that while the state’s power to levy stamp duty is upheld, the specific demands for stamp duty payment in this case were set aside due to the circumstances presented.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Supreme Court Overturns Lower Courts, Orders Trial for Alleged Marriage Fraud and Conspiracy (IPC Sections 420 & 120-B)” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 read with Section 120-B – The appellant challenged lower courts’ orders regarding the summoning of respondents for alleged dishonest inducement in a marriage – The appellant claimed he was deceived into marrying a married respondent and that all respondents conspired to induce him into marriage and leave him with a significant sum of money – The respondents argued that there was no concealment or cheating, as all facts were disclosed to the appellant from the beginning – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court, and restored the Magistrate’s order for the respondents to face trial – The court found that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents, and the lower courts’ approach was not legally sustainable – The court concluded that the respondents should face trial for the alleged offences, and the case will be decided on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property – The appellants, owner of the property, allegedly evicted the respondent illegally and by force – The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the illegal dispossession – The appellants contended voluntary handover of possession and challenged the maintainability of the suit – The respondent filed a suit within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of the Act – The Trial Court decreed in favor of the respondent, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision – The High Court concurred with the Trial Court on the illegal dispossession and maintainability of the suit – The appeal was dismissed based on concurrent findings and evidence on record – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Conspiracy Theory Revived: Supreme Court Orders Trial in Forged Documents Case Involving Government Land” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 34 – The case involves allegations of a conspiracy to illegally transfer government land using forged documents – The respondents, along with others, are accused of manipulating judicial processes and revenue records to acquire government lands – The primary issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the order taking cognizance against the respondents, given the evidence of a conspiracy and manipulation of documents – The State argues that the High Court overlooked circumstantial evidence of a broader conspiracy and failed to appreciate the severity of the offences, which could undermine public trust in land administration – The respondents challenged the order of cognizance, arguing insufficient evidence directly implicating them in the conspiracy – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the trial to proceed against the respondents – The Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on an incomplete assessment of facts and that a detailed trial is necessary to fully unravel the extent of the alleged conspiracy – The Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court to determine the actual harm caused to the public exchequer – The Supreme Court concluded that the case should not be dismissed at the preliminary stage and must be examined judiciously in a trial setting to ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations and judicial processes.

May 5, 2024 sclaw