Promotion Process - Principle of 'Merit-cum-Seniority' - Petitioners challenged the promotions made by the High Court of Gujarat under Rule 5(1) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 - Alleged misapplication of 'Merit-cum-Seniority' - High Court's promotion process involved a Suitability Test comprising Written Test, Evaluation of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), Assessment of Average Disposal, and Evaluation of Judgments - Petitioners contended the process effectively applied 'Seniority-cum-Merit' - Writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable despite alternative remedy under Article 226 - Rule 5(1) and All India Judges’ Association (3) envisages a suitability test to ensure candidates meet a minimum standard of merit for promotion - The principle of 'Merit-cum-Seniority' does not mandate a comparative merit assessment but rather an assessment of minimum suitability - High Court's method of promotion, which assesses legal knowledge, efficiency, and case law comprehension through a Suitability Test, complies with the principle of 'Merit-cum-Seniority' - Deviating from the established process would cause prejudice to judicial officers previously affected by seniority-based promotions - Petition dismissed, Select List dated 10.03.2023 upheld [Paras 1-145]

Maintainability - Preliminary objection raised on maintainability of writ petition under Article 32 due to availability of alternative remedy under Article 226 - Court held that existence of alternative remedy does not affect maintainability of petition under Article 32 - Rule behind relegating to alternative remedy is a rule of self-restraint and convenience - Court entertained petition on merits [Paras 37-43]

Historical Context - Examined evolution of promotion principles, statutory provisions, and judicial interpretations - Discussed Law Commission's recommendations, All India Judges’ Association cases, and various precedents on 'Merit-cum-Seniority' and 'Seniority-cum-Merit' - Clarified the distinct modes of recruitment and their objectives as intended by judiciary reforms [Paras 44-139]

Guidelines for Suitability Test - Court suggested enhancing Suitability Test by including an interview component, raising minimum threshold marks, evaluating judgments from last two years, and allocating marks for seniority in Suitability Test - Suggested amending rules in line with Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 [Paras 140-146]

Decision - Validity of Promotion Process - Upheld High Court of Gujarat’s promotion process - Confirmed that process adheres to 'Merit-cum-Seniority' principle as per All India Judges’ Association (3) - Suitability Test is valid and comprehensive, assessing legal knowledge, efficiency, and case law comprehension - Process ensures minimum merit standards and maintains judicial efficiency - Dismissed petition, upheld Select List dated 10.03.2023 - Interim Order vacated (Paras 141-144).

Consumer Protection - Insurance Claim - Contractor’s All Risk Insurance Policy - Appellant insurance company challenged NCDRC's order directing payment of Rs. 39,09,92,828/- to respondents for bridge collapse - NCDRC relied on independent expert reports and NHAI’s decision to continue contract despite collapse - Held, insurance contracts to be interpreted strictly; exclusion clauses must be proven by insurer with clear evidence - Expert Committee found multiple factors including design flaws and construction lapses contributing to collapse - Surveyor’s report corroborated these findings, concluding exclusion clause justified repudiation - Respondent’s expert reports deemed theoretical, not based on site inspections - Supreme Court emphasized strict interpretation of insurance contracts and upheld appellant’s evidence - Appeal allowed, NCDRC order set aside - No costs awarded [Paras 1-32].

Repudiation of Claim – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors. – NCDRC directed payment of insurance claim for collapse of bridge due to faulty design and workmanship – Insurer’s reliance on exclusion clauses upheld by Supreme Court – Detailed analysis of surveyor's report and Expert Committee findings corroborated insurer's stance [Paras 1-14, 16-29].

Exclusion Clauses – Supreme Court emphasized strict interpretation of exclusion clauses in insurance contracts – Burden on insurer to prove applicability of exclusion clause – Surveyor’s report and Expert Committee’s findings treated as credible evidence – Exclusion for defective design and workmanship justified repudiation of claim [Paras 17-23, 26-28].

Evidence Evaluation – Independent expert reports not admitted due to lack of examination and site-inspection – Surveyor’s on-site examination and unrebutted evidence deemed sufficient – NCDRC’s reliance on independent reports deemed erroneous by Supreme Court [Paras 18-19, 24-27].

Judicial Scrutiny – NCDRC’s dismissal of preliminary objections and reliance on inconclusive Expert Committee findings criticized – Supreme Court found sufficient grounds for insurer’s repudiation of claim – Rejection of NCDRC’s addendum modifying compensation amount without hearing parties [Paras 14, 15, 20-23, 28-29].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – NCDRC’s order set aside – Insurer’s decision to repudiate insurance claim upheld based on credible evidence – Supreme Court emphasized strict application of exclusion clauses and corroborative expert testimony in insurance disputes [Paras 30-32].

Land Allotment – Cancellation of patta initiated after 13 years – Supreme Court's intervention – Appellants challenged the order of the High Court upholding the cancellation of patta on the grounds of fraud and irregular allotment – Supreme Court examined whether the proceedings for cancellation could be initiated at any time in absence of a prescribed limitation period under Section 122-C(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (UPZALR Act) – Court held that power must be exercised within a reasonable period – Proceedings initiated after 13 years deemed unreasonable and without sufficient foundational facts of fraud – Appeal allowed and impugned orders set aside [Paras 1-19].

Fraud Allegations – Absence of clear evidence – Supreme Court scrutinized the allegations of fraud in land allotment process – Found no clear indication of fraudulent activity by the allottees – Irregularities based on presumed forged signatures deemed insufficient for proving fraud – Principle of reasonable time for exercising suo motu power applied – Orders of cancellation deemed unjust due to lack of concrete evidence of fraud [Paras 11-16].

Rights of Poor Villagers – Supreme Court emphasized the protection of rights of poor and rustic villagers – Allottees had constructed houses and lived there for several years based on legitimate allotment by Sub-District Magistrate – Quashing of cancellation orders to prevent injustice to poor and houseless persons – Established that unsettling long-standing residential allotments causes undue hardship [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Allowing of Appeal – Held – The appeal is allowed, and the impugned orders by the High Court, Additional Collector, and Additional Commissioner are set aside – The Supreme Court concluded that the initiation of cancellation proceedings after 13 years was unreasonable, and the allegations of fraud were unsubstantiated – The long-standing possession and residential use by the allottees justified the quashing of the cancellation orders [Paras 19].

Partnership Law - Dissolution of Firm - Limitation - Applicability of Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Automatic dissolution on the death of a partner - Held: Partnership firm constituted by partners including a deceased partner automatically dissolved upon his death in 1984 - Suit for dissolution filed in 1996 held to be time-barred - Duty of court to dismiss a suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit rejected as barred by limitation. [Paras 15-20]

Limitation - Duty of Court - Mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Court bound to dismiss a suit filed after the limitation period, even if limitation not raised as a defense - Held: Lower courts erred in allowing suits without considering limitation - Appeal allowed, suit dismissed. [Paras 16-17, 20-22]

Dissolution of Partnership - Continuation of Business - Impact on Limitation - Continuation of business activities post-death of a partner does not negate automatic dissolution under Section 42(c) - Business activities carried out post-dissolution deemed to be in individual capacity - Suit filed beyond limitation period held time-barred. [Paras 18-19]

Decision - Appeals Allowed - Original suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts dismissed as barred by limitation - Concurrent findings by lower courts reversed. [Paras 21-22, 33-36]

Civil Law – Dissolution of Partnership Firm – Appeal against High Court’s judgment which set aside the trial court’s decision dissolving a partnership firm and directing the rendition of accounts – Supreme Court upheld the dissolution of the firm and confirmed that the suit was not barred by limitation despite no plea of limitation being raised initially – It was established that the firm dissolved automatically upon the death of one partner in 1984, making the suit filed in 1996 barred by limitation – Decision based on the principle that courts must dismiss suits barred by limitation regardless of whether the defense was raised [Paras 1-24].

Limitation Act – Application of Section 3 – The Court reiterated that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, courts are obligated to dismiss suits instituted after the prescribed period of limitation even if limitation is not pleaded as a defense – Affirmed that the dissolution of the firm in 1984 triggered the start of the limitation period for filing the suit for rendition of accounts, thus barring the suit filed in 1996 [Paras 15-20].

Decision – Allowance of Appeal – Held – The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Division Bench allowing the appeal and setting aside the single judge's decision is reversed, reaffirming the firm’s dissolution in 1984 and barring the suit as time-barred – Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 21-24, 35-36].

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability Against Privatized Entity – Appeals filed challenging the High Court of Bombay's decision to dismiss writ petitions against Air India Limited (AIL) due to its privatization – Supreme Court examined whether AIL, post-privatization, remains amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – Concluded that writ jurisdiction does not subsist against a privatized entity not performing public duties, upholding the High Court's decision to deny relief and direct appellants to seek other remedies [Paras 1-6, 22-39].

Subsequent Events – Impact on Litigation – Equity Considerations – Appellants contended that rights crystallized at the institution of proceedings should not be defeated by subsequent privatization – Supreme Court reaffirmed that subsequent events rendering an entity private and non-public duty performing nullify its amenability to writ jurisdiction – Equity considerations and delay in disposal do not justify maintaining writ petitions against a privatized entity [Paras 7-13, 40-45].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Held – Appeals dismissed, affirming High Court's decision that writ petitions against privatized Air India Limited are not maintainable – Appellants directed to pursue alternative legal remedies – Delay in adjudication and privatisation's impact upheld as grounds for non-maintainability under Article 226 [Paras 41-46].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1) – Right of Widow – Possession Requirement – Civil Appeal arising from dispute over joint Hindu family property – Held, widow's right to maintenance alone, without possession, does not convert to full ownership under Section 14(1) – Widow's adopted son cannot claim partition rights based on widow's unasserted and unpossessed right – Appeal allowed – Revenue Suit for partition dismissed. [Paras 1-33]

Right to Maintenance vs. Right to Ownership – Analysis – Held – Widow's pre-existing right to maintenance must be coupled with possession to transform into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) – Mere entitlement to maintenance without actual or legal possession does not suffice – Previous civil suit judgment dismissing widow's possession claim stands uncontested and bars subsequent partition claim by adopted son. [Para 18-27]

Decision – Reversal of Lower Court Judgments – Supreme Court reverses judgments of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court – Revenue Suit for partition filed by widow's adopted son dismissed due to lack of possession and acquisition as required under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act. [Paras 28-33]

Civil Law – Review Petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Supreme Court reconsidered its own judgment setting aside the High Court’s decision in the context of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Constitution Bench ruling in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors. clarified the applicable legal standard for second appeals in Punjab and Haryana – Review allowed and appeal dismissed reaffirming the trial court's findings [Paras 1-15, 16-28].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope of interference by High Court in second appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act – High Court empowered to decide second appeals without framing substantial questions of law – First Appellate Court’s role in re-evaluating findings of trial court strictly limited – Supreme Court’s earlier judgment set aside for failing to consider these principles [Paras 2, 9-14, 23-24].

Judicial Precedents – Constitution Bench in Pankajakshi upheld the unamended Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act – Relevant case law from Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. and Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through LRs v. Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. reiterated [Paras 5, 10, 12-13, 14].

Decision – Review Petition allowed – Civil Appeal restored to original number and dismissed on merits – Held: The appeal is dismissed due to error apparent on record in applying Section 100 CPC standards instead of Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act – The High Court’s judgment was correctly set aside by the Supreme Court, restoring the trial court’s findings as they were neither perverse nor illegal [Paras 14-15, 25-27].

Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Article 300A - Interpretation and Applicability - The right to property under Article 300A is characterized as a constitutional right and also as a human right. Compliance with a fair procedure of law is a prerequisite before depriving any person of immovable property. Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which does not provide for necessary procedures before acquisition, cannot be considered a valid provision for the compulsory acquisition of property. [Paras 24-28]

Municipal Law - Power of Acquisition - Sections 352, 363, 535, 536, and 537 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 - Section 352 only authorizes the Municipal Commissioner to identify land for public purposes like parks, streets, etc., but does not confer the power of compulsory acquisition. The actual power of acquisition vests with the State under Section 537, which requires an application by the Municipal Commissioner to the State Government. The argument that Section 352 allows for acquisition was rejected. [Paras 16-23]

Procedural Fairness in Compulsory Acquisition - Seven Sub-Rights - The Court identified seven integral sub-rights under Article 300A that form the constitutional right to property: notice, hearing, reasoned decision, acquisition for public purpose, restitution or fair compensation, efficient and expeditious process, and conclusion. Non-compliance with any of these sub-rights renders the acquisition process unconstitutional. [Paras 27-30]

Judicial Review - Abuse of Statutory Powers - The KMC's actions were found to be in blatant violation of statutory provisions, including failure to follow due process under the Act, which led to the wrongful acquisition attempt. The High Court's decision to quash the acquisition was affirmed. [Paras 32-34]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Costs Imposed - The appeal by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000 to be paid to the respondent within sixty days. The High Court's judgment was upheld in its entirety, emphasizing that KMC's actions were illegal and without proper authority of law. [Paras 34-36]