Bail Cancellation – Exercise of Suo Motu Powers – Appellant granted bail by Trial Court – High Court canceled bail citing appellant’s absconding behavior – Supreme Court emphasizes the requirement of cogent and overwhelming circumstances for bail cancellation – High Court's action deemed over-expansive for not considering the peculiarity of appellant's situation and the procedural requirements under Section 439(2) CrPC [Paras 2-21].

Regular Bail – Considerations for Grant – Appellant a 55-year-old woman, responsible for minor child after daughter-in-law's suicide – Regular bail granted by the Sessions Court referencing co-accused's pre-arrest and regular bails – Supreme Court notes that there was no misuse of bail conditions by appellant [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s order canceling bail set aside – Original bail order by First Additional Sessions Judge Jaura District Morena restored – Clarified that this order does not affect the merit consideration by the Trial Court [Paras 21-23].

Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) Benefits – Respondent initially appointed as a Lecturer in a temporary post, but with necessary approval and continuously worked from 1998 to 2011 – Regulation 10.1(f) of UGC Regulations allows counting previous ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year for CAS benefits, provided certain conditions are met [Paras 6-6.3].

Continuous Service and Promotions – Respondent's service included continuous work and promotions to Assistant Professor and Associate Professor in regular pay-scale – Her service from 1998 to 2011 to be counted for CAS benefits [Paras 6-6.3].

High Court's Decision – Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court directed the University to grant the benefit of CAS by counting the respondent's earlier service – Supreme Court found no error in this decision [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Held – High Court's judgment upheld – Respondent entitled to CAS benefits after counting her service from 1998 to 2011 [Paras 7-8].

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].

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].

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].

Market Value Determination – Public Auction – Section 47A – The provision under Section 47A of the Act does not apply to properties sold through public auctions conducted under court supervision – Public auctions ensure transparency and reflect the true market value, thus the Registering Authority cannot reassess or dispute the market value determined through such auctions [Paras 1-18, 22-32].

Auction Process and Market Value – Even if the auction price is slightly lower due to the legal complexities involved, the price obtained through a transparent auction process is considered the market value – The Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to challenge or revise this value as it is derived through a judicial process [Paras 22-32].

Objective of Section 47A – The intent of introducing Section 47A was to address under-valuation of property to prevent loss of revenue for the State – It targets private transactions where there is a risk of dual pricing, not court-monitored public auctions [Paras 22-24].

Judicial Precedents – Analysis and Differentiation – The decision references various cases (e.g., V.N. Devadoss, P. Laxmi Devi) to highlight the distinction between private sales and public auctions in determining the applicability of Section 47A – Emphasizes that court-monitored auctions do not warrant Registering Authority's intervention in determining market value [Paras 10-27, 30-31].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – Held – Section 47A of the Stamp Act does not apply to properties sold through court-monitored public auctions – The market value determined through such processes is final and cannot be revisited by the Registering Authority – No order as to costs [Paras 31-34].

Civil Jurisdiction – Bar under RDB Act – Section 9 CPC confers jurisdiction upon Civil Courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless barred under statute – RDB Act provides jurisdiction to Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for bank debt recovery, not explicitly barring civil suits initiated by borrowers against banks – Civil Courts retain jurisdiction in borrower-initiated suits [Paras 18, 45-46].

Counterclaims and Set-Off – Section 19 RDB Act – Permits defendants in DRT applications to claim set-off or counterclaims – Independent suits by borrowers not mandatorily transferred to DRT – Civil Courts can continue to hear such suits – Defendant’s choice to file independent suit or counterclaim [Paras 15-16, 45].

Judicial Precedents – Conflicting Views – Previous judgments (Abhijit Tea Co., Ranjan Chemicals) suggesting transfer of borrower suits to DRT not upheld – Judgments in Indian Bank and Nahar Industrial Enterprises affirming civil court jurisdiction validated, except for transfer provisions [Paras 40-41, 60].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – Held – Civil Court jurisdiction to try borrower-initiated suits affirmed – No power for civil courts to transfer suits to DRT without legislative provision – DRT proceedings to proceed independently without being impeded by civil suits [Paras 56-60].

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].