Company Law - Priority of Claims in Liquidation - Civil appeals against High Court judgment regarding claims of ONGC for dues owed by Ambica Mills (in liquidation) - High Court ruled ONGC could not claim preferential payment over secured creditors and workmen under Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 - Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that ONGC's claim did not create an enforceable charge on the assets of Ambica Mills, and ONGC could not be treated as a secured creditor. [Paras 1-26]

Enforceability of Undertakings - Analysis - Held - The interim order dated 15th April 1987 and the undertaking provided by Ambica Mills did not create an enforceable charge on the company’s assets - ONGC’s undertaking not to encumber or alienate assets did not specify particular immovable assets and thus did not constitute a secured charge - Priority of claims must be determined in accordance with statutory provisions. [Para 22-23]

Registration of Charges - Interpretation - Held - Charges on company assets must be registered under Section 125 of the Companies Act to be enforceable against liquidators and creditors - ONGC's claim lacked such registration, therefore, it could not be considered a secured creditor. [Para 20-21]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals - The civil appeals by ONGC were dismissed, affirming that ONGC could recover its dues at par with other unsecured creditors - The Gujarat High Court’s findings were upheld, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions regarding liquidation. [Paras 24-26]

Constitutional Law - Powers of CAG - Scope of Article 149 - Civil appeals addressing whether the CAG can audit the accounts of private telecom service providers under revenue-sharing agreements with the Union of India - Supreme Court held that CAG has the authority under Article 149 of the Constitution read with Sections 16 and 18 of the CAG Act, 1971, to audit such accounts to ensure proper collection and allocation of revenue due to the Consolidated Fund of India. [Paras 33-47]

Telecom Law - Maintenance and Audit of Accounts - Legality of TRAI Rules - Challenge to Rule 5 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Service Providers (Maintenance of Books of Accounts and other Documents) Rules, 2002, on the grounds of being ultra vires to Section 16 of the CAG Act and Article 149 of the Constitution - Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 5, stating it facilitates the constitutional mandate of the CAG to audit receipts payable into the Consolidated Fund of India. [Paras 49-50]

Licence Agreement - Interpretation - Scope of Clauses 22.3, 22.5, and 22.6 - Analysis of the audit provisions under the UAS Licence Agreement - Supreme Court clarified that Clause 22.3 empowers the DoT to call for books of accounts without recording reasons, while Clauses 22.5 and 22.6 pertain to audits ordered by the DoT, independent of CAG's audit authority. [Paras 62-70]

Decision - Appeals by Service Providers Dismissed - Appeals by the DoT Allowed - Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by the service providers challenging the CAG’s audit authority and allowed the appeals by the DoT, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment that restricted the DoT’s and CAG’s audit powers. [Paras 67-70]

Public Trust - Determination of Property Status - PILs challenging the status of Galta Peeth properties as public or private – High Court's direction to Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department to decide pending inquiries – Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision to refer matters to statutory authorities for determination, rejecting the notion that High Court should have addressed these issues directly. [Paras 1-42]

Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner - Review and extent of Assistant Commissioner’s powers under Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 – Assistant Commissioner found competent to adjudicate issues of public trust properties and succession as per statutory framework – Comprehensive powers including those akin to civil court powers under Sections 16-24, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 49, 53, and 67 of the Act affirmed. [Paras 27-39, 41-42]

Concurrent Jurisdiction - Simultaneous litigation before Assistant Commissioner and Supreme Court – Appeals to the Commissioner against Assistant Commissioner’s decisions pending – Supreme Court emphasizes proper forum utilization and dismisses appeals as abuse of process. [Paras 43, 50]

Mandate for Government Action - Public trust management under amended Section 53 – High Court's dismissal of writ petition regarding the management committee upheld – No directive for immediate reconstitution of committee under the amended discretionary provision. [Paras 44-46]

Public Interest Litigation Scope - PILs in religious trust disputes – Supreme Court highlights limited judicial intervention where statutory mechanisms are available – Emphasis on judicious PIL acceptance to prevent misuse and uphold statutory processes. [Paras 47-49]

Decision - Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court endorses the High Court's decision to refer the matters to the Assistant Commissioner and declines to interfere with pending appeals before the Commissioner. [Para 51]

Arbitration - Jurisdiction and Contractual Rights – Appeal against the High Court order directing the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to take over the highway project from the appellant and imposing penalties for delay – Supreme Court examines the validity of High Court's directions and assesses the contractual obligations under the Concession Agreement – Held, the High Court's directions resulted in the annulment of the contract, which was beyond its jurisdiction in a public interest litigation – The Court reinstates the appellant's right to continue the project, subject to relocation of the toll plaza within specified limits. [Paras 1-68]

Contract Law - Enforcement and Interpretation – Examination of Concession Agreement – Dispute regarding relocation of toll plazas from predetermined locations – Supreme Court holds that relocation was permissible under the contract, supported by approvals from the Independent Engineer and previous High Court orders – Finds the unilateral reversal of this decision by NHAI as arbitrary and legally untenable – Orders NHAI to allow relocation between KM 110 and KM 117. [Paras 58-67]

Decision – Reversal of High Court Order – Court quashes the High Court's directions that effectively nullified the Concession Agreement – Allows the appellant to continue and complete the highway project, subject to new timelines and conditions – Directs NHAI to facilitate the project and ensure compliance with legal formalities for toll plaza relocation. [Paras 64-68]

Criminal Law - Delay in Lodging FIR – Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and rioting – Appellant contended delay in lodging FIR allowed embellishment – Occurrence at 3:00 p.m., FIR at 7:45 p.m. – Court noted time taken to transport injured, medical examination, police arrival – Delay satisfactorily explained by prosecution – Held not fatal to case – No adverse inference drawn. [Paras 9-10]

Medical Evidence - Ocular Testimony Corroboration – Appellant disputed tractor overrun causing injuries – Eyewitnesses corroborated by medical evidence – Doctors opined injuries consistent with lathis and tractor wheels – Minor contradictions not weakening prosecution case – Held medical and ocular evidence aligned. [Paras 11-13]

Unlawful Assembly - Common Object and Overt Act – Appellant argued lack of specific role attribution – Court observed all accused armed, involved in common assault – Section 149 IPC applicable despite lack of specific overt act evidence – Emphasized shared common object and coordinated attack. [Paras 14-17]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed – Convictions upheld – Prosecution's evidence and witnesses deemed credible and consistent – No merit found in contentions regarding FIR delay, medical contradictions, or Section 149 application – Appeal dismissed, sentences affirmed. [Paras 18]

Criminal Law - Delay in Lodging FIR – Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and rioting – Appellant contended delay in lodging FIR allowed embellishment – Occurrence at 3:00 p.m., FIR at 7:45 p.m. – Court noted time taken to transport injured, medical examination, police arrival – Delay satisfactorily explained by prosecution – Held not fatal to case – No adverse inference drawn. [Paras 9-10]

Medical Evidence - Ocular Testimony Corroboration – Appellant disputed tractor overrun causing injuries – Eyewitnesses corroborated by medical evidence – Doctors opined injuries consistent with lathis and tractor wheels – Minor contradictions not weakening prosecution case – Held medical and ocular evidence aligned. [Paras 11-13]

Unlawful Assembly - Common Object and Overt Act – Appellant argued lack of specific role attribution – Court observed all accused armed, involved in common assault – Section 149 IPC applicable despite lack of specific overt act evidence – Emphasized shared common object and coordinated attack. [Paras 14-17]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed – Convictions upheld – Prosecution's evidence and witnesses deemed credible and consistent – No merit found in contentions regarding FIR delay, medical contradictions, or Section 149 application – Appeal dismissed, sentences affirmed. [Paras 18]

Delegatus Non Potest Delegare - Principle of Non-delegation – Legal Position and ExceptionsThe principle of "delegatus non potest delegare" asserts that a delegate cannot further delegate. This case examines exceptions to this principle, particularly differentiating between legislative and non-legislative delegations. It reaffirms that legislative powers cannot be sub-delegated, but non-legislative/administrative tasks may be delegated under specific statutory authorizations. [Paras 1-8]

Delegation of Non-legislative Powers - Validity of Administrative ActionsHeld that non-legislative powers, once delegated, can be further entrusted to subordinates for implementing decisions already taken by the primary delegate. It emphasizes that ministerial or clerical tasks can be performed by authorized officers without constituting illegal sub-delegation. [Paras 9-10, 16]

Authorization of Land Manager to Issue Ejectment NoticesThe delegation of authority by the Board of Kolkata Port Trust to the Chairman, and further authorization to the Land Manager to issue eviction notices, is upheld. The issuance of notices by the Land Manager is deemed a ministerial act implementing the Chairman's decisions, thus not violating the principle of non-delegation. [Paras 14-19]

Role and Powers of Kolkata Port Trust and Its OfficersExplains the statutory provisions under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, particularly Sections 21 and 34, allowing the delegation of powers by the Board to the Chairman and further to officers like the Land Manager. This delegation is essential for efficient administration and handling of leases and terminations. [Paras 11-13]

DecisionThe Special Leave Petition is dismissed. The Court upholds the validity of the eviction notices issued by the Land Manager, finding no legal infirmity in the delegation process. There is no order as to costs. [Paras 19-20]

Education Law – Revision of Fee Structure – Appeal against High Court judgment upholding that DAV Public Schools in Odisha, although private unaided institutions, are subject to the Orissa Education Act, 1969 – The High Court ruled that the schools' fee structures were subject to state policy decisions – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitting fee revision in accordance with the recommendations of the Fee Structure Committee, Odisha – Directed that the schools could implement revised fee structures to meet liabilities due to the 6th Central Pay Commission pay scales from 1st June 2012 – Held that the issue of whether such schools are governed by the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is left open for future determination. [Paras 1-13]

Management Committees – Continuation – Supreme Court directed that the existing Managing Committee constituted under CBSE by-laws should continue until further orders – Any changes to the Managing Committee should comply with legal requirements and provide due notice and opportunity for hearing. [Para 12]

Fee Structure – Reasonable Profit – Supreme Court found that the Fee Structure Committee allowed only a reasonable profit to the appellant institutions – The court approved the fee increase as calculated based on financial analysis and actual expenses over per child, adhering to principles from T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka. [Paras 7-11]

Objections by Parents – Addressed – Supreme Court considered objections raised by parents but found them unsubstantial – Emphasized that objections to fee revision should come from parent representatives rather than individual parents to avoid undue delays and impacts on academic standards. [Paras 8-10, 13]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the implementation of the revised fee structure as recommended by the Fee Structure Committee, Odisha – The contempt petitions and other pending petitions were disposed of. [Para 13]

Delhi Rent Control Act – Striking out of defense – Section 15(7) – Discretionary power of Rent Controller – Appeal against order striking out tenant’s defense for non-compliance with deposit orders under Section 15(1) – Held, striking out defense under Section 15(7) is discretionary, not mandatory – Should be exercised only in cases of willful, deliberate, or contumacious default – In this case, tenant's repeated and continued default in paying future rent despite orders – No acceptable justification for delay – Rent paid for several months after due date – Defense rightly struck out by Rent Controller – High Court upheld decision – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 9-19]

Delhi Rent Control Act – Purpose and legislative intent – Protective statute aimed at safeguarding tenants against arbitrary eviction and excessive rent demands – Balanced with measures to curb abuse of process by tenants – Sections 15(1) and 15(7) must be harmoniously interpreted – Non-compliance with Section 15(1) orders must be met with appropriate judicial discretion under Section 15(7) – Not every default mandates striking out of defense – Courts must evaluate each case’s circumstances. [Para 10.1-10.4]

Case Analysis – Appellant's arguments – Claim of delayed rent receipt issuance rejected – Examination of payment dates showed consistent delay – Exercise of discretion by Rent Controller upheld – No misapplication of judicial discretion – High Court's intervention appropriate. [Paras 13-17]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Order of Rent Controller striking out tenant's defense for persistent non-compliance with Section 15(1) of the Act upheld by Rent Control Tribunal and High Court – Legislative intent of balancing protection and curbing abuse upheld. [Paras 18-20]