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].

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].

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].