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]

Income Tax – Discretionary Trusts – Civil Appeal against High Court decision regarding classification of trusts – Dispute on whether trusts established by ex-Ruler of Gondal in the UK are discretionary or specific – Held that UK trusts are discretionary – Trustees have the discretion to pay beneficiaries from the income – Income not disbursed but retained by trustees – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Wealth Tax – Valuation of Assets in Discretionary Trusts – Civil Appeals under Wealth Tax Act relating to valuation of assets held in discretionary trusts – High Court held assets of UK trusts not assessable on the estate of deceased Settlor – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 20-21]

Role of Settlor and Trustees – Analysis – Settlor included income from UK trusts in returns during his lifetime – After settlor's death, his son included such income in returns – No appointment of discretion exercisers by settlor or his son – Trustees retained income – Character of trusts remained discretionary – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 13-19]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Supreme Court dismissed all civil appeals concerning substantive assessments under Income Tax and Wealth Tax Acts – Appeals arising from protective assessments also dismissed – No order as to costs. [Paras 21-23]

Service Law - Child Care Leave - Continuous Leave for 730 days – Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 - Rule 43C – Appeal against High Court decision denying uninterrupted 730 days of CCL - High Court ruled CCL can only be granted in three spells per calendar year - Supreme Court sets aside High Court decision - Held that Rule 43C allows for uninterrupted 730 days of CCL if the conditions are met – Tribunal's direction to grant CCL upheld - No exigencies of public service shown to deny continuous CCL to the appellant - Appeal allowed. [Paras 13-18]

Interpretation of Service Rules - Rule 43C - Examination of Rule 43C and relevant guidelines issued by Government of India – Rule allows for up to 730 days of CCL during the entire service period for women government employees having minor children - CCL can be combined with other types of leave if due - High Court's interpretation limiting CCL to three spells per year not supported by the rule or guidelines. [Para 10-13]

Decision - Grant of Continuous CCL for 730 Days - Appeal allowed - Impugned judgment of Calcutta High Court set aside - Tribunal's decision to grant continuous CCL for the appellant affirmed - Respondents directed to comply within three months. [Para 18-19]

Civil Procedure - Execution of Sale - Limitation Period - Appeal against High Court order remitting matter back to the Executing Court for fresh disposal - Executing Court conducted auction and issued Sale Certificate - Judgment-debtor’s application to set aside sale filed beyond prescribed period - No deposit made within 60 days as mandated by Article 127 of the Limitation Act - Held, application to set aside sale must comply with both filing and deposit requirements within 60 days - High Court erred in ignoring the limitation period and statutory requirements - Appeal allowed with costs. [Paras 1-9]

Execution of Decree - Order XXI Rule 89 CPC - Limitation - Court Sale - Application to set aside sale must be filed and deposit made within 60 days from date of sale - Judgment-debtor's failure to comply with mandatory requirements results in automatic rejection of the application - High Court's order remitting case back to Executing Court set aside due to non-compliance with procedural law. [Para 7-9]

Decision - Application to Set Aside Sale - Court quashes High Court's order and reinstates Executing Court's order - Application to set aside sale rejected for non-compliance with Article 127 Limitation Act and Order XXI Rule 89 CPC - Appeal allowed with Rs. 10,000 costs payable by Respondent No. 1 to Appellant. [Para 9]