Recognition of B.Ed. Colleges – State Government's Policy – State Government took a policy decision not to grant recognition to new B.Ed. colleges based on statistics showing that the number of B.Ed. graduates far exceeded the need for teachers, leading to unemployment – High Court quashed this decision as arbitrary – Supreme Court found the decision based on valid reasons and necessary statistics, thus not arbitrary [Paras 1-9].

NCTE Regulations Compliance – Under Rule 7(5) of NCTE Regulations 2014, the State Government is required to provide detailed reasons and necessary statistics if not in favor of granting recognition – State Government's decision aligned with this requirement – High Court's interference with the policy decision held unsustainable [Paras 8-9].

Precedents – Supreme Court referred to similar cases, including Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra, affirming the State's right to restrict new colleges based on employment prospects and necessity [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court's judgment quashing the State Government's decision set aside – State's policy decision upheld – No order as to costs [Para 9].

Review Petition – Judge Availability – Bombay High Court Rule 3(1) stipulates that a review application should be heard by the same Judge who decided the original matter, unless the Judge is no longer available – Application for transferring the review petition to be heard by the same Judge rejected on judicial side instead of administrative side [Paras 1-16].

Administrative Powers of Chief Justice – Proviso to Rule 3(1) empowers the Chief Justice to assign a review petition to another Judge if the original Judge is unavailable – Matter should have been referred to the Chief Justice on the administrative side [Paras 15-16].

Procedural Requirements – Procedural rules require that applications for review be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Judicial decision to reject the transfer application found improper [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Held – Impugned order set aside – Registry directed to place the application before the Chief Justice on the administrative side for appropriate orders [Para 16].

Appointment of Vice-Chancellor – Procedure and Eligibility – As per Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations 2018 and Section 10 of the University Act 2019, the selection for Vice-Chancellor must be through a Search-cum-Selection Committee – The committee must consist of distinguished persons in higher education unconnected with the University – The Vice-Chancellor should have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a Professor – Appointment must be made from a panel of 3-5 names recommended by the committee [Paras 9-11].

First Vice-Chancellor – State Government’s Authority – Proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act 2019 allows the State Government to appoint the first Vice-Chancellor – However, this does not bypass the eligibility criteria or procedure – The appointment must still adhere to UGC Regulations and statutory requirements [Paras 11-13].

Invalid Appointment – Appellant’s Experience – Appellant did not have the requisite 10 years’ experience as a Professor – Time spent as a member of the Public Service Commission could not be counted as teaching experience – No Search-cum-Selection Committee was formed, and the appellant’s name was not part of a recommended panel [Paras 14-15].

Judicial Precedents – Conflict Resolution – In cases of conflict between State University Act and UGC Regulations, the latter prevails – UGC Regulations adopted by the State Government must be followed – The High Court’s decision to quash the appointment was upheld as it was contrary to statutory requirements [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Held – The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor quashed – Appointment found illegal and contrary to Section 10 of the University Act 2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations 2018 – No order as to costs [Paras 18-20].

Letter of Credit – Autonomy and Protection – A letter of credit is independent of the underlying sale contract – Courts generally refrain from interfering with the autonomy of an irrevocable letter of credit to prevent misuse and protect the issuing bank in the international financial market [Paras 34-35].

Negligence in Issuing FCR – Respondents' admission of error in mentioning the wrong port of loading in the FCR – Deficiency in service acknowledged – National Commission erred in reducing compensation awarded by the State Commission [Paras 37-39].

Compensation and Redressal – State Commission's award of Rs. 1,379,901 plus compensation and litigation costs justified – National Commission's reduction to Rs. 10,000 incorrect – Compensation restored to original amount awarded by State Commission [Paras 40-41].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Held – Impugned judgment of the National Commission set aside – State Commission's order restored – Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount within two months – Appellant entitled to withdraw deposited amounts as per State Commission's order [Paras 41-43].

Election Law – Non-disclosure of Conviction – Appellant failed to disclose conviction under Kerala Police Act for holding a dharna – High Court declared election void – Supreme Court held such non-disclosure does not constitute undue influence under Section 102(1)(b) or 'fake' details under Section 102(1)(ca) – Offences under Kerala Police Act are not substantive offences impacting electoral rights – Appeal allowed, election upheld [Paras 6-48].

Undue Influence – Definition and Application – Supreme Court clarified that undue influence pertains to interference with the free exercise of electoral rights – Non-disclosure of petty offences under Kerala Police Act not amounting to undue influence – Distinction made between substantive offences and regulatory offences [Paras 20-45].

Section 52(1A) and Rule 6 – Disclosure Requirements – Appellant argued Rule 6 cannot expand scope of Section 52(1A) – Supreme Court agreed Rule 6 requires disclosure of past convictions – However, regulatory offences under Kerala Police Act do not fall within intended scope of electoral disqualifications [Paras 34-45].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Election upheld – Non-disclosure of conviction under Kerala Police Act not grounds for annulment of election under Section 102(1)(b) or Section 102(1)(ca) – No costs [Paras 46-48].

Eviction – Mesne Profits/Compensation – Tenant liable for mesne profits or compensation from date of eviction decree – Compensation should reflect market rate at which landlord could have let out premises if tenant vacated – Landlord not bound by previous contractual rate [Paras 7.1-7.2].

Tenancy – Determination of Compensation – High Court's methodology of calculating compensation based on property's purchase price and estimated return found unsound – Supreme Court remands case for fresh determination – Compensation to be based on rate at which landlord could have let out premises [Paras 7-8].

Interim Arrangement – Pending fresh determination, tenant directed to deposit compensation at Rs. 250,000 per month from date of eviction decree – Subject to final decision by High Court on remand [Para 8].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court's determination of compensation quashed – Case remanded for fresh determination of compensation – Parties allowed to present evidence on market rent – Interim compensation set at Rs. 250,000 per month [Paras 8-8.1].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Determination of market value – Land acquired for coal excavation by Singareni Collieries Company Limited – High Court awarded Rs. 80,000 per acre after deducting 1/3rd for developmental activities – Supreme Court held that no developmental activity was required as land was for mining – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,23,000 per acre plus Rs. 10,000 per acre for sub-soil coal deposits – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 2-7].

Development Charges – Deduction Unjustified – Land acquired solely for mining purposes – Supreme Court observed that deduction towards developmental activities such as roads, sewage lines, parks, etc. not applicable – High Court erred in deducting 1/3rd of the market value for such activities – Compensation recalculated without deduction [Paras 6.2-6.3].

Sub-soil Rights – Additional Compensation – High Court awarded Rs. 10,000 per acre for sub-soil coal deposits – Supreme Court upheld this award – Recognized importance of sub-soil mineral rights in determining market value of land [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – Compensation for land acquired set at Rs. 1,23,000 per acre with statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Additional Rs. 10,000 per acre for sub-soil coal deposits affirmed – High Court judgment modified to reflect this enhanced compensation – No order as to costs [Paras 7-7.1].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – Acquisition for public purpose (planned development of Delhi) – Possession taken in 2005 but compensation not paid – High Court declared acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Supreme Court overturned this decision, citing the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 – Held, deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings requires both non-possession and non-compensation for five years before the commencement of the Act, 2013 – Appeal allowed, High Court decision set aside [Paras 1-88].

Subsequent Purchaser – No Right to Claim Lapse – Original writ petitioner (subsequent purchaser) acquired right through Agreement to Sell dated 09.05.2005 – Agreement to Sell does not confer title – Subsequent purchasers cannot claim lapse of acquisition – High Court erred in entertaining writ petition by subsequent purchaser – Appeal allowed, writ petition dismissed [Paras 4-4.2].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court judgment declaring acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 quashed – Writ petition dismissed – Supreme Court reiterates duty of courts to follow the Constitution Bench's interpretation of Section 24(2) and restrict claims of lapse to circumstances where both possession and compensation are lacking for five years or more [Paras 5-5.2].

Insurance Law – Repudiation of Claim – Appellant's shop insured under a policy from the respondent – Policy excluded coverage for basement locations – Shop located in basement and met with fire accident – State Commission ruled in favor of appellant citing unfair trade practice and non-disclosure by insurer – National Commission overturned decision – Supreme Court emphasized insurer's duty of good faith and full disclosure – Exclusion clause considered void due to non-disclosure and prior knowledge of insurer about shop’s location [Paras 1-88].

Adhesion Contracts – Doctrine of Blue Pencil – Standard-form insurance contracts require high degree of good faith – Exclusion clause contrary to main purpose of contract – Clause void as it undermines the contract’s primary objective – Supreme Court applied "blue pencil" doctrine to sever the exclusion clause, rendering the contract enforceable [Paras 8-22].

Duty of Disclosure – Good Faith – Insurer's duty to disclose all material facts and ensure policy terms are clear to insured – Failure to disclose material facts, especially regarding exclusion clauses, constitutes unfair trade practice – Supreme Court stressed reciprocal duty of good faith between insurer and insured [Paras 14-35].

Consumer Protection – Unfair Trade Practice – Non-compliance with IRDA regulations – Exclusion clause leading to contract repudiation without proper disclosure considered an unfair trade practice – Supreme Court held that insurance companies must strictly comply with regulatory requirements to avoid repudiation on such grounds [Paras 36-42].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Order of National Commission set aside except denial of Rs.2.5 lakhs towards harassment and mental agony – State Commission’s award reinstated except for the aforementioned amount – Insurer's non-compliance with disclosure duties highlighted – Future caution advised for insurance companies to comply with IRDA regulations [Paras 40-42].