appellant Nos.2 and 3 had knowledge that Zahida and Ishlam had been murdered and their dead bodies were dumped in the septic tank in the backyard of their house and yet, they did not disclose that fact with an intention to screen appellant No.1 – Asar Mohammed, the offender, from legal punishment. In other words, even though they cannot be made liable for the murder of Zahida and Ishlam for want of legal evidence in that regard, they would certainly be guilty of having committed offence under Section 201 IPC as established from the proved circumstances coupled with their abject failure to offer any explanation, much less cogent explanation, about their conduct

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1617 OF 2011 Asar Mohammad and Ors. …..Appellant(s) :Versus: The State of U.P. ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at… Read More appellant Nos.2 and 3 had knowledge that Zahida and Ishlam had been murdered and their dead bodies were dumped in the septic tank in the backyard of their house and yet, they did not disclose that fact with an intention to screen appellant No.1 – Asar Mohammed, the offender, from legal punishment. In other words, even though they cannot be made liable for the murder of Zahida and Ishlam for want of legal evidence in that regard, they would certainly be guilty of having committed offence under Section 201 IPC as established from the proved circumstances coupled with their abject failure to offer any explanation, much less cogent explanation, about their conduct

Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC thereby allowing the appellant’s prayer for sending the signature of the Will in question to hand-writing expert for comparison with Testator Natabar Das’s admitted signatures.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10684-10685 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.33699-33700 of 2016) RAMA AVATAR SONI …Appellant VERSUS MAHANTA LAXMIDHAR DAS AND ORS. …Respondents J U D G M E N T R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise out of the judgment… Read More Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC thereby allowing the appellant’s prayer for sending the signature of the Will in question to hand-writing expert for comparison with Testator Natabar Das’s admitted signatures.

under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not necessary. = The family court rightly drew the presumption of valid marriage between appellant No.1 and the respondent and that they are legally married couple for claiming maintenance by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is summary in nature. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with the birth certificates of appellants No.2 and 3 and other evidences clearly establish the factum of marriage.- when the family court held that there was a valid marriage, the High Court being the revisional court has no power reassessing the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact. The High Court did not keep in view that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not necessary – in the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court in R.P.F.C. No.103 of 2008 and R.P.F.C. No.21 of 2009 dated 16.06.2009 is set aside and these appeals are allowed. The respondent shall pay arrears of maintenance as directed by the family court, Mysore to the appellants within a period of two months. Additionally, the respondent shall also continue to pay the maintenance to the appellants as directed by the family court on or before 10th of every English calendar month. The appellants are also at liberty to move the family court for enhancement of the maintenance.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2368-2369 OF 2009 KAMALA AND OTHERS …. Appellants VERSUS M.R. MOHAN KUMAR …. Respondent J U D G M E N T R. BANUMATHI, J. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 16.06.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at… Read More under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not necessary. = The family court rightly drew the presumption of valid marriage between appellant No.1 and the respondent and that they are legally married couple for claiming maintenance by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is summary in nature. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with the birth certificates of appellants No.2 and 3 and other evidences clearly establish the factum of marriage.- when the family court held that there was a valid marriage, the High Court being the revisional court has no power reassessing the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact. The High Court did not keep in view that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not necessary – in the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court in R.P.F.C. No.103 of 2008 and R.P.F.C. No.21 of 2009 dated 16.06.2009 is set aside and these appeals are allowed. The respondent shall pay arrears of maintenance as directed by the family court, Mysore to the appellants within a period of two months. Additionally, the respondent shall also continue to pay the maintenance to the appellants as directed by the family court on or before 10th of every English calendar month. The appellants are also at liberty to move the family court for enhancement of the maintenance.

the admission of students in BTC Course for the Academic Sessions i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10 was not permissible and such degrees cannot be treated as validly recognised. = there was no question of granting recognition to the private institutions upto January 15, 2010 for BTC Course in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As this was the legal position prevailing, coupled with the fact that the Deemed University approached the NCTE/SCERT for recognition of BTC Course and is given the said recognition only from the year 2012 onwards, the admission of students in BTC Course for the Academic Sessions i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10 was not permissible and such degrees cannot be treated as validly recognised. It may be harsh for the students who took admission in the Academic Sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10. However, the Court cannot countenance the position where the unrecognised course is given imprimatur of validity only on the ground of equity. Because of this reason itself, the High Court has awarded compensation to the students

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10677-10678 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 13743-13744 of 2017) NEHRU GRAM BHARATI UNIVERSITY …..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10679-10680 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 14259-14260 of 2017)… Read More the admission of students in BTC Course for the Academic Sessions i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10 was not permissible and such degrees cannot be treated as validly recognised. = there was no question of granting recognition to the private institutions upto January 15, 2010 for BTC Course in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As this was the legal position prevailing, coupled with the fact that the Deemed University approached the NCTE/SCERT for recognition of BTC Course and is given the said recognition only from the year 2012 onwards, the admission of students in BTC Course for the Academic Sessions i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10 was not permissible and such degrees cannot be treated as validly recognised. It may be harsh for the students who took admission in the Academic Sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10. However, the Court cannot countenance the position where the unrecognised course is given imprimatur of validity only on the ground of equity. Because of this reason itself, the High Court has awarded compensation to the students

no motor vehicle conforming to the emission standard Bharat Stage­IV shall be sold or registered in the entire country with effect from 01.04.2020. = The Government has developed a policy of phasing out polluting vehicles and discouraging the manufacturers of polluting vehicles. This has been done in a gradual manner. Europe introduced Euro­IV fuel in the year 2009 and Euro­VI standards in 2015. We are already many years behind them. We cannot afford to fall back further even by a single day. The need of the hour is to move to a cleaner fuel as early as possible. 21. Therefore, in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we read down sub­rule 21 of Rule 115 and direct that sub­rule 21 of Rule 115 shall be interpreted and understood to read that no motor vehicle conforming to the emission standard Bharat Stage­IV shall be 19 sold or registered in the entire country with effect from 01.04.2020.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13029 OF 1985 M. C. MEHTA …PETITIONER(S) Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) (IN RE : RECOMMENDATION NOS. 2.2.1 AND 2.2.2 OF REPORT NOS. 71 AND 78 SUBMITTED BY EPCA) J U D G M E N T Deepak Gupta,… Read More no motor vehicle conforming to the emission standard Bharat Stage­IV shall be sold or registered in the entire country with effect from 01.04.2020. = The Government has developed a policy of phasing out polluting vehicles and discouraging the manufacturers of polluting vehicles. This has been done in a gradual manner. Europe introduced Euro­IV fuel in the year 2009 and Euro­VI standards in 2015. We are already many years behind them. We cannot afford to fall back further even by a single day. The need of the hour is to move to a cleaner fuel as early as possible. 21. Therefore, in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we read down sub­rule 21 of Rule 115 and direct that sub­rule 21 of Rule 115 shall be interpreted and understood to read that no motor vehicle conforming to the emission standard Bharat Stage­IV shall be 19 sold or registered in the entire country with effect from 01.04.2020.

Clause (11) of the terms and conditions of allotment clearly stipulates that in the event of breach of any of the conditions of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977. The order of resumption of the plot is as per the terms and conditions of the allotment order and the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Revisional authority

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10718 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.36225 of 2014) DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS ….Appellants VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….Respondents J U D G M E N T R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the… Read More Clause (11) of the terms and conditions of allotment clearly stipulates that in the event of breach of any of the conditions of transfer, the Estate Officer may resume the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the HUDA Act, 1977. The order of resumption of the plot is as per the terms and conditions of the allotment order and the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Revisional authority

When sec.15[2] of Hindu Succession Act not applies = The provisions of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which has 5 been invoked by the High Court to reverse the decree in question, in our considered view, was not at all applicable inasmuch as Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 deals with the line of succession in case of property inherited by a female Hindu. In the present case, Muddamma had not inherited any property but what she had acquired is an absolute right to the suit property by way of the gift deed dated 9 th April, 1954. On her death, the property would, therefore, not vest in terms of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 but would go to her husband who would be competent to transfer the same in favour of the present appellant.

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).8076-8077 OF 2018 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.24201-24202 OF 2014] RANGAPPA …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THIPPESWAMY & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. One Rangamma and Odo Nagappa had two daughters Nagamma and Muddamma. Nagamma, who is represented by her legal… Read More When sec.15[2] of Hindu Succession Act not applies = The provisions of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which has 5 been invoked by the High Court to reverse the decree in question, in our considered view, was not at all applicable inasmuch as Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 deals with the line of succession in case of property inherited by a female Hindu. In the present case, Muddamma had not inherited any property but what she had acquired is an absolute right to the suit property by way of the gift deed dated 9 th April, 1954. On her death, the property would, therefore, not vest in terms of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 but would go to her husband who would be competent to transfer the same in favour of the present appellant.