Facts:

The respondent, ABB Ltd., a Public Limited Company, was engaged in the manufacture and sale of engineering goods.

The Delhi Metro Railway Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) invited tenders for the supply, installation, testing, and commissioning of various electrical equipment for a specific project.

The respondent entered into a contract with DMRC to provide transformers, switch-gears, High Voltage Cables, SCADA system, and other electrical solutions.

The dispute arose when the respondent was asked to pay Delhi Value Added Tax (DVAT) on the deemed sales made to DMRC.

Issues:

Whether the inter-State movement of goods was in pursuance of and incidental to the contract for the supply of goods used in the execution of the works contract between the respondent and DMRC.

Held:

The High Court held that the inter-State movement of goods was in pursuance of and incidental to the contract for the supply of goods used in the execution of the works contract with DMRC.

The transactions constituting inter-State trade and those constituting sale or purchase in the course of import were deemed exempt from taxation under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, based on Section 3(a) and Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

The High Court's decision was based on a detailed examination of the relevant contract terms, specifications, and conditions, concluding that the movement of goods was integral to fulfilling the terms of the contract with DMRC.

The appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition, challenging sale deeds, and claiming possession and mesne profits.

Allegations included improper alienation of ancestral property by the guardian without legal necessity.

Issues:

Whether the suit filed in 1989 for setting aside the sale deed dated 20.01.1982 is within limitation.

Applicability of Articles under the Limitation Act, particularly Article 60 and Article 109.

Held:

The court held that the suit is governed by Article 60 of the Limitation Act, applicable to a quondam minor challenging a transfer made by a guardian in violation of Section 8(1)(2) of the 1956 Act.

Articles 109, 110, and 113 were deemed not applicable to the facts of the case.

The court emphasized that the limitation is three years from the date of attaining majority.

Section 7 of the Limitation Act was discussed, stating that time runs against all plaintiffs when a discharge can be given without the concurrence of all.

The interpretation of statutes emphasized a literal approach, and inconvenience and hardship were not deemed decisive factors.

The appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

The original lease of a mining operation had expired.

The appellant, Common Cause and Others, sought renewal under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

Issues:

Validity of a mining lease after the original lease has expired but has been renewed.

Entitlement to benefits under Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act based on lease renewal application timing.

Determination of leaseholder status for those who did not apply for renewal at least twelve months before the lease expiration.

Conditions for considering a leaseholder as valid with a first renewal application.

Held:

A leaseholder with a renewed lease, still within the renewal period on January 12, 2015, is considered to have a subsisting lease, entitling them to benefits under Section 8A of the amended MMDR Act.

Leaseholders failing to apply for renewal at least twelve months before the original lease's expiration before January 12, 2015, are not considered valid or subsisting leaseholders post-expiration, excluding them from the benefits of the amended MMDR Act.

Leaseholders who applied for the first renewal of the original mining lease at least twelve months before the lease's expiration, and whose application was not rejected, are considered valid leaseholders with the right to conduct mining operations until two years after July 18, 2014.

Unless the State Government issues an order declaring a mining lease as lapsed, the lease is deemed subsisting until the specified expiration date in the lease document. A leaseholder facing lapse is disentitled to benefits under the amended MMDR Act as per Section 8A(9).

Decision: The Court, after thorough consideration, ruled that leaseholders meeting the conditions outlined in Paras 1, 2, 3, and 4 are entitled to the respective benefits or limitations stated in each paragraph.

Facts:

The case involves the interpretation of Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984. Solatium, a form of compensation for compulsory acquisition, was provided at 15% of the market value of the land before the amendment. The dispute arises from the applicability of enhanced solatium at 30%, even in cases initiated before the amendment, if the award by the Collector or the Court was made between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984.

Issues:

The correct interpretation of Section 30(2) and whether the enhanced solatium is applicable to awards made by the Collector or the Court during the specified period.

Held:

The Court, after considering previous judgments and the legislative intent, concluded that the enhanced solatium at 30% should be made available for acquisition proceedings initiated before the amendment if the award was made between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984. The term "any such award" refers to awards made by the Collector or the Court during this specific period. The appellants were held entitled to the benefits as per this interpretation, and the appeal was allowed.

The Court also emphasized the applicability of interest on the compensation amount, including solatium, as per the proviso to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. In case of non-compliance by the respondent, execution could be levied, and the matter could be addressed at that stage.

Writ Petition - Grant of LPG Distributorship – Challenge of Approval – Civil Appeal – Supreme Court finds that writ court improperly entertained writ petition against LPG distributorship approval granted to appellant – Initially, both appellant and respondent No. 1 were eligible for distributorship, with appellant eventually granted the right after a draw of lots – Respondent No. 1's subsequent challenge on grounds that the land offered was encumbered held unjustified after appellant provided suitable alternate land – Supreme Court upholds Single Judge's dismissal of writ petition on grounds of delay and lack of locus standi – Impugned appellate court order set aside, and Single Judge's order restored. [Paras 1-15]

Writ Petitions – Delay and Latches – Consideration by Supreme Court – Court emphasizes that delay defeats equity, holding that inordinate delay without a satisfactory explanation is a valid ground for dismissal of writ petitions – Supreme Court observes that writ courts should exercise discretion judicially, not permitting revival of a lapsed cause of action due to indolent litigants – The Court reiterates established legal principles disfavoring delayed petitions, stressing the importance of prompt legal action and the potential injustice caused by unnecessary delays. [Paras 9-14]

Judicial Discretion in Writ Proceedings – Doctrine of Delay and Latches – Supreme Court discusses the discretionary nature of writ courts under Article 226, highlighting that delay and latches can preclude relief – Case references include Tridip Kumar Dingal and others v. State of W.B and others, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu, emphasizing the judicial responsibility to dismiss delayed actions to maintain the integrity and efficacy of legal proceedings – Supreme Court supports judicial discretion based on specific case circumstances without a fixed formula. [Paras 10-14]

Civil Appeal – Breach of Provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 – Challenge against the High Court's dismissal of appeal regarding the sale transaction and eviction order – Remand for fresh consideration on facts and law. [Para 2, 17]

Property Law – Partition and Sale of Ancestral Agricultural Land – Dispute over legality of sale transaction under the Act of 1947 – Controversy over partition and demarcation of land, and its classification as irrigated or dry land. [Para 4, 5, 12, 15]

Procedural Fairness – Lack of Proper Hearing in Original and Revisional Authorities – Absence of opportunity for appellant to present case on merits – Remand for fresh consideration with opportunities for both parties to adduce evidence. [Para 14, 17]

Legal Address – Discrepancy in Appellant's Address in Official Records – Impact on the service of notice and filing of revisions – Issue of impersonation in filing first revision. [Para 10, 14]

Administrative Law – Revisional Authority's Application of Res Judicata Principle – Challenge of its applicability in the context of previous orders and the need for a full hearing on merits. [Para 8, 14]

Judicial Review – High Court's Overlooking of Relevant Facts – Failure to consider executed sale agreement and its implications on the partition and demarcation of land – Requirement for detailed examination of evidence and legal issues. [Para 15, 16]

Decision – Setting aside of High Court's and authorities' orders – Restoration of case to original authority for fresh consideration – Directive for expeditious and reasoned decision within six months. [Para 17]

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) – Belated inclusion of claim – Appellant’s claim related to an arbitral award dated 01.08.2016, which was in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act – An agreement entered into on 02.08.2006 for the development of land into a residential group housing complex – Alleged misconduct by the Corporate Debtor in advertising the project under its own name led to arbitration proceedings initiated on 02.05.2011 – Award in favor of the appellant on 01.08.2016, directing the Corporate Debtor to apply for the transfer of licenses – Corporate Debtor filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on 26.09.2016 – Concurrent execution proceedings initiated by the appellant adjourned sine die due to the pendency of the Section 34 proceedings – Section 34 proceedings culminated in the award being upheld with modifications on 25.04.2019 – CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor in respect of three real estate projects on 27.03.2019 – Resolution plan approved by the COC on 11.07.2020 – Appellant’s claim of Rs.35,67,05,337 against the Corporate Debtor rejected as belated by respondent no.1 – Appellant filed an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC – Adjudicating Authority granted relief to the appellant, allowing consideration of their claim – NCLAT disagreed with the Adjudicating Authority’s view – Appellant’s contentions regarding the claim’s contingent nature, timeline under Section 12 of the IBC, and lack of awareness about the CIRP – Respondent No.1’s efforts to collate claims and the potential consequences of reopening claims after plan approval – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1-23]

Constitutional law - Governor's power to invite Chief Minister - Objective material for calling floor test - Held, the Governor must have objective material before concluding that the Chief Minister has lost the confidence of the House and calling for a floor test. [Para 166]

Constitutional law - Governor's power to invite Chief Minister - Restoration of status quo ante - Resignation of Chief Minister - Held, the Court cannot quash a voluntary resignation, and the status quo ante cannot be restored if the Chief Minister has resigned before the floor test. [Para 194]

Constitutional law - Governor's power to invite Chief Minister - Authority to recognize factions within a political party - Role of Election Commission - Held, the Governor's authority is not exceeded by inviting a faction as long as the party has returned the highest number of candidates, and the Election Commission is the appropriate authority to determine the factions within a political party. [Para 204]

Constitution of India - Article 164(1B) - Disqualification of Minister - Pending disqualification petition - Applicability - Held, Article 164(1B) does not bar the appointment of a member as a Minister if a disqualification petition is pending adjudication before the Speaker. [Para 199]

Constitution of India - Article 164(1B) - Disqualification of Minister - Triggering of disqualification - Speaker's verdict - Held, Article 164(1B) is triggered only when the Speaker returns a verdict finding that the member has breached Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule. [Para 200]

Constitution of India - Article 164(1B) - Disqualification of Minister - Disqualification related to date of act - Effect of subsequent acts - Held, subsequent acts or events do not have an exculpatory effect on the disqualification if the prohibited act has already been committed. [Para 202]

Constitution of India - Tenth Schedule - Disqualification of members - Procedure and jurisdiction of Speaker and Election Commission - Role of Court - Larger Bench reference - Held, the correctness of the decision in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1 is referred to a larger Bench of seven judges. [Para 206(a)]

Decision It cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule in the first instance, and the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period. [Para 206(b)]

 MLA has the right to participate in the proceedings of the House regardless of the pendency of disqualification petitions, and the validity of the proceedings is not subject to the outcome of the disqualification petitions. [Para 206(c)]

The political party, and not the legislature party, appoints the Whip and the Leader of the party in the House. The Speaker should recognize the Whip and the Leader authorized by the Shiv Sena political party based on the party constitution. [Para 206(d)]

Speaker and the Election Commission of India (ECI) have concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate on the petitions under the Tenth Schedule and Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, respectively. [Para 206(e)]

The effect of the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule is that the defense of 'split' is no longer available to members facing disqualification proceedings. The Speaker should determine the political party for adjudicating disqualification petitions when factions claim to be the same party. [Para 206(f)]

Governor was not justified in calling for a floor test as there was no objective material indicating that the Chief Minister had lost the confidence of the House. However, the status quo ante could not be restored as the Chief Minister had already resigned. [Para 206(h)]

Governor was justified in inviting Mr. Eknath Shinde to form the government based on the support extended by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLAs and independent candidates. [Para 206(i)]

Constitution of India - Tenth Schedule - Disqualification of members - Jurisdiction of Court to adjudicate disqualification petitions - Speaker's role - Held, the Court cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification in the first instance, and the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period. [Para 206(b)]

Constitution of India - Tenth Schedule - Disqualification of members - Right of MLA to participate in House proceedings - Pendency of disqualification petitions - Validity of proceedings - Held, an MLA has the right to participate in the House proceedings regardless of the pendency of disqualification petitions, and the validity of the proceedings is not subject to the outcome of the disqualification petitions. [Para 206(c)]

Service Law – Post Graduate Medical Courses – In-Service Quota – Eligibility: The Supreme Court held that there is a clear distinction between junior resident doctors who completed their undergraduate medical courses at ESIC institutions and regularly recruited Insurance Medical Officers (IMO-II). The in-service quota for postgraduate medical courses is justifiably reserved for regularly recruited IMO-II doctors and not for junior resident doctors serving under a bond​​.

Institutional Preference – Postgraduate Medical Education – Legal Validity: The Court reiterated that institutional preference in postgraduate medical admissions is permissible and constitutional as upheld in previous judgments (Pradeep Jain v. Union of India and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India). However, the decision to provide such institutional preference lies within the policy realm of the respondent-authority and cannot be mandated by the Court​​.

Difference in Recruitment and Employment Nature: Junior resident doctors are appointed on a contractual basis to fulfill bond conditions after completing their undergraduate courses, whereas IMO-II doctors are recruited through a formal selection process and serve as permanent employees. This fundamental difference justifies the reservation of the in-service quota for the latter category​​.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that junior resident doctors cannot claim parity with regularly recruited Insurance Medical Officers (IMO-II) for the benefit of the in-service quota for postgraduate medical courses. The in-service quota is reserved for IMO-II doctors due to their permanent employment status and continued service in ESIC institutions post their postgraduate studies​​.