Jurisdiction – Civil Court – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act – Whether the bar on jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, applies even when the landlord-tenant relationship is disputed in a proceeding under Section 14A of the Act – Supreme Court held that the validity of orders under Section 14A is open to scrutiny in a Civil Court when the tenant disputes the landlord-tenant relationship – Mere plea by the tenant should not render authorities powerless if found frivolous [Paras 1-54].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Dispute – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Bar under Section 25 of the Act does not prevent civil courts from adjudicating the existence of landlord-tenant relationship when disputed – Authorities under the Act lack power to conclusively determine landlord-tenant relationship if genuinely contested [Paras 47-53].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Contention raised by the appellants found meritless – Civil courts retain jurisdiction to scrutinize orders when the landlord-tenant relationship is disputed – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 54-55].

Reservation in Promotion – Gradation List – Appellants challenged the gradation list prepared based on the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules 2005, contending it should not apply to inter se seniority for promotion – High Court set aside the gradation list and promotion orders based on it – Supreme Court found the High Court's reliance on an unrelated case (Ashok Kumar) unnecessary – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration without reliance on the unrelated case [Paras 1-13].

Seniority Determination – High Court’s Administrative Powers – Supreme Court noted the High Court accepted the invalidity of the gradation list independent of other considerations – Remanded matter for High Court to decide the main issue of whether seniority for the gradation list can be based on roster points [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Writ petition remanded to the High Court for fresh decision – Directions based on the gradation list to be held in abeyance pending High Court's decision [Para 12].

Civil Procedure – Injunction – Appellants challenged the High Court's injunction order which was granted without giving them an opportunity to be heard and without making them party-defendants – High Court had granted injunction regarding 1/7th share of properties – Supreme Court held that no injunction could be granted without proper hearing and impleading necessary parties – Appeal allowed and High Court's order set aside [Paras 1-8].

Necessary Parties – Impleading – Supreme Court emphasized that parties with a direct interest in the properties must be impleaded and heard before granting an injunction – Directed trial court to first decide on applications to implead appellants before reconsidering the injunction [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashed – Matter remanded to trial court to decide on impleading applications and reconsider the injunction application afresh if necessary [Para 8].

Motor Vehicles Act – Notional Income – Fixation of notional income for non-earning members at Rs.15,000/- per annum is outdated and unjust – Supreme Court raises the notional income to Rs.25,000/- per annum considering inflation and cost of living – Compensation for death of a child aged 7 years reassessed at Rs.4,70,000/- including filial consortium and funeral expenses [Paras 14-17].

Compensation – Dependency and Consortium – Tribunal and High Court awarded compensation based on outdated notional income – Supreme Court increases compensation to reflect current economic conditions – Total compensation includes Rs.3,75,000/- for loss of dependency, Rs.80,000/- for filial consortium, and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Enhanced compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- awarded with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization – Insurance Company entitled to recover from the owner of the motorcycle as driver lacked a valid license [Paras 17-18].

Environmental Law – Forest Clearance – Appellant challenged Stage-I Forest Clearances and sought remedy under Section 14 of the NGT Act – Tribunal dismissed the application, suggesting it should have been an appeal under Section 16 – Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was incorrect in its dismissal and allowed the appeal, remanding the case to the Tribunal [Paras 8-16].

Public Participation – Right to Information – Appellant argued that the permission for tree felling was not placed in the public domain – Supreme Court highlighted the need for transparency in environmental clearances to ensure public participation and accountability [Paras 11-12].

Remedy – Appellate Jurisdiction – Court clarified that the appellant has the right to appeal the DFO’s order under Section 16(e) of the NGT Act and directed the Tribunal to consider the appeal on merits without rejecting it on the ground of limitation [Paras 14-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NGT's order set aside – Case remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration – Interim order restraining further tree felling until 26 November 2021 [Paras 18-21].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Selection of DGP – Challenge to the empanelment and selection process for the post of DGP in Punjab – Appellants alleged bias and arbitrary selection criteria – Supreme Court upheld the selection process as per the Draft Guidelines, confirming their legality and conformity with the principles laid down in Prakash Singh v. Union of India [Paras 23-26].

Bias – Doctrine of Necessity – Appellants contended bias against a member of the Empanelment Committee – Court held that the participation of the DGP in the committee was necessary and the Appellants had waived their right to challenge by not raising objections during the process [Paras 27-37].

Selection Criteria – Core Policing Areas – Identification of five core policing areas for assessing range of experience in the selection process upheld – Criteria found to be objective and relevant to the specific needs of Punjab [Paras 24-26].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's decision to set aside the Tribunal’s order upheld – Selection and appointment of the DGP (HoPF) confirmed [Paras 38-39].

Banking Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Misconduct by Bank Manager – Respondent sanctioned advances in violation of Head Office instructions causing financial loss to the bank – Disciplinary action taken under Clause 22(ix)(a) of the Bank of Cochin Service Code – Respondent dismissed from service after inquiry – High Court quashed disciplinary proceedings citing violation of representation rights – Supreme Court upheld disciplinary action, noting the respondent was granted fair opportunity and no substantial prejudice was caused [Paras 1-26].

Delay and Laches – Appeal Filing – Respondent filed appeal four years and five months after dismissal – Supreme Court held that no specific time limit does not mean any time – Appeal must be filed within a reasonable period – Delayed appeal not justified and doctrine of delay and laches applied [Paras 27-28].

Acquiescence and Prejudice – Respondent did not challenge dismissal for over four years – Silence indicated acquiescence – Appellant bank prejudiced by delayed challenge – Supreme Court emphasized principles of good administration and finality of decisions [Paras 29-33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashing disciplinary proceedings set aside – Dismissal order upheld – Respondent directed to return dues paid as per High Court's order within six weeks, or interest at 8% per annum to be applied [Paras 34-35].

Insurance Law – Repudiation of Claim – Appellant claimed non-disclosure of hydrology data by respondent – National Commission found no non-disclosure or fraud by respondent – Supreme Court upheld the Commission's decision, emphasizing that the appellant was aware of the previous year's insurance policy details and did not request additional data before issuing the policy – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Policy Cancellation – Justification – Appellant canceled the policy not for non-disclosure but because they could not secure reinsurance – Supreme Court held that this reason was not justified for repudiating the claim – Cancellation was based on the respondent’s refusal to accept reduced coverage, not on alleged non-disclosure [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellant directed to pay the balance amount due within three months – Respondent permitted to withdraw the deposited amount with accrued interest [Para 16].

Contract Law – Time of Essence – Determination – Whether time is of the essence of a contract must be derived from the entire contract and surrounding circumstances – Merely having an explicit clause is insufficient – Extensions granted indicate time was not of the essence – Contract provided for extensions and imposition of liquidated damages, suggesting timely performance was not strictly essential [Paras 26-31].

Liquidated Damages – Waiver and Re-imposition – ONGC waived liquidated damages initially, indicating a lack of intent to enforce strict timelines – Subsequent extensions with liquidated damages not justified unless clearly accepted by parties – Tribunal's award based on actual loss sustained is upheld [Paras 32-35].

Judicial Review – Arbitral Awards – Scope of Section 34 – Courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is patent illegality – Arbitral Tribunal's interpretation, if reasonable, should be respected – High Court and District Court overstepped their jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 23-25, 35].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court and District Court orders set aside – Arbitral Tribunal's award upheld – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 36-37].