Facts:

The writ petition filed by the University of Delhi, challenging the change in land use for the Delhi Metro Rail project, was dismissed on grounds of delay and laches. The Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed after a delay of 916 days was also dismissed by the Division Bench.

Issues:

Whether the delay in filing the writ petition and LPA could be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant.

Held:

The court emphasized a liberal approach in matters of condonation of delay, irrespective of the status of the party. However, condonation should not be automatic, and the accrued rights of the opposite party must be considered.

The delay in filing the LPA was 916 days, and condonation could only be considered with a reasonable explanation. The reasons provided, including the non-availability of the Vice-Chancellor and the decision-making process of the Executive Council, were deemed insufficient.

The court found the appellant's explanation for the inordinate delay unconvincing, especially when the Vice-Chancellor, who was involved in the writ petition, was available for a sufficient period after its dismissal.

Approval from the Executive Council was obtained in 2017, yet the appeal was filed in 2018, indicating a casual approach without a proper explanation for the delay.

The appellant was aware of the land's conversion to residential use in 2005, and despite filing the writ petition belatedly, no steps were taken to file the appeal for 916 days after its disposal.

The cumulative effect of delay and laches could not be ignored, and the contention of public interest did not justify the lackadaisical approach in prosecuting the matter before the court.

Condoning the delay would be contrary to public interest, considering the manner in which the respondent, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), had proceeded, utilizing funds for public transport projects.

The Single Judge and Division Bench were justified in holding the writ petition and LPA were hit by delay and laches, and the decision did not warrant interference.

FACTS:

Appellant (Developer) and Respondent (Landowners) entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017 for agricultural land.

Sale consideration fixed at Rs. 46,00,000/- per acre.

Disputes arose over payment of the balance consideration for the land admeasuring 17 acres 31½ guntas ("suit property").

Appellant filed Suit for Specific Performance before Trial Court.

Interim Orders passed in I.A. No. 766/2018 and I.A. No. 767/2018 for Temporary Injunctions.

ISSUES:

Possession of the suit property - disputed facts on whether it was handed over to the Appellant.

Payment of part consideration - conflicting claims on the amount paid by the Appellant.

HELD:

The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the Orders dated 14.08.2019 do not warrant interference. The Temporary Injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the possession of the Appellant was vacated. However, the High Court had already granted a Temporary Injunction against alienation or creating third-party rights in the suit property.

Facts:

The appellant, accused No. 3, sought exemption from personal appearance before the Trial Court due to business commitments and the inconvenience of traveling from Delhi to Hyderabad every Friday. The application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was opposed by the CBI.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's grounds for dispensation with personal appearance were valid, considering the seriousness of the charges.

Held:

The Court, referring to Bhaskar Industries Ltd. case, allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court and Trial Court orders. The appellant was granted exemption with conditions:

An undertaking that the appellant won't dispute his identity, his counsel will appear on each hearing, no objection to evidence recording in his absence, and no adjournments requested.

The appellant to appear for framing charges and when the Trial Court insists on his presence.

Failure of counsel to appear or adjournment requests may lead to the Trial Court exercising powers under Section 205(2) Cr.P.C.

FACTS:

The minor daughter was born on 21.08.2007 and was over 12 years old.

The father filed a Guardianship Petition, seeking custody, citing the mother's Paranoid Schizophrenia and cruelty towards the child.

The mother resisted, accusing the father of sexual abuse, making it unsafe for the child to be in his custody.

Various counsellors' reports indicated the child's comfort with the father, and the mother's video clippings did not support her allegations.

ISSUES:

Custody determination based on the welfare and well-being of the child.

Validity of the allegations of sexual abuse by the mother against the father.

HELD:

The Court, considering parens patriae jurisdiction, emphasized the welfare of the child. After individual interviews, the minor girl, over 12 years old, expressed a definite desire to reside with her father. The Court affirmed the Family Court's Order granting custody to the father and specified visitation rights for the mother.

In Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr. vs. Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413, the Court established that while exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. The Court is not bound by statutes, rules of evidence, procedure, or precedent.

The Order is prima facie in nature and made at an intermediate stage of the proceedings.

This Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Referred C:ases

Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr. vs. Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413 : 2008 (11) SCALE 437

Facts:

The complainants, respondents 1 to 3, filed a complaint of medical negligence against appellant No. 1 (hospital) and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 (pediatricians and ophthalmologist) and respondent No. 4 (gynecologist). The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held appellant No. 1 guilty of medical negligence, leading to the total blindness of respondent No. 1, a pre-term baby. The NCDRC awarded compensation of Rs. 64,00,000.

Issues:

Whether the appellants owed a legal duty of care to the complainants?

Whether the failure to inform the mother of respondent No. 1 about the necessity of the ROP test and the high risks involved constituted a breach of duty?

Whether the failure to carry out the mandatory ROP test amounted to gross negligence and deficiency of service?

Whether the inordinate delay in providing medical records constituted professional misconduct?

Held:

The inordinate delay of over 2 years in making the Medical Records of Respondent No.1 available to the Respondent No.2 constituted a grave professional misconduct under Regulation 7. Regulation 7 holds that the refusal or failure to provide medical records within 72 hours is professional misconduct, rendering the doctor/hospital liable for disciplinary action and punishment under Regulation 8. Withholding the medical records for over 2 years was a gross deficiency in service by the Appellant No.1-Hospital and its management.

The ROP was not advised or carried out by the hospital or the senior ophthalmologist throughout the period of hospitalization of the baby, leading to a breach of duty. The lack of justification for not conducting the mandatory ROP screening during the baby's stay under direct care and supervision amounted to negligence.

Medical negligence comprises a legal duty, failure to inform about risks, resulting damage, and breach of duty. The cause of action for negligence arises when damage occurs. Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are liable for medical negligence, as they failed to advise or guide the parents about the possibility of ROP in a premature baby, leading to total blindness.

Decision: The Court affirmed the findings of the NCDRC, holding Appellant No.1-Hospital, Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 (pediatricians), and Appellant No.4 (ophthalmologist) jointly liable. Compensation of Rs. 76,00,000 was awarded to respondent No. 1.

Facts:

The case involves recruitment for the post of Technician Grade-II in Uttar Pradesh. The qualification requirement initially included a CCC certificate issued by DOEACC and was later amended to include CCC certificate or its equivalent computer qualification.

Issues:

Validity of qualifications and equivalence of CCC certificate.

Scrutiny process for verifying candidates' computer qualifications.

Deletion of names from the select list.

Held:

The CCC certificate is a well-known certificate issued under the Government of India, and there is no evidence of it being granted by any other body. The CCC certificate mentioned in the advertisement refers to CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.( Para 42)

The advertisement did not permit candidates to self-certify or declare equivalence of their computer qualification to CCC. Scrutiny of qualification is the responsibility of the recruiting agency/employer.( Para 52)

In the absence of guidelines or criteria for equivalence, the recruitment process without scrutiny of candidates' qualifications is an abdication of duty by the Corporation and the Commission.( Para 60)

The Division Bench erroneously restored the select list without considering cases where deletions were upheld by an earlier Division Bench.( Para 65)

Impleadment of every candidate is unnecessary when the challenge is based on an arbitrary or illegal process. Few selected candidates were impleaded in the writ petitions.( Para 75)

Facts:

The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, particularly the last seen together theory and an extra-judicial confession, to convict the appellants under various sections of the IPC, Arms Act, and Explosives Act. The trial court acquitted the accused, citing doubts in witness testimonies and inconsistencies in evidence. The High Court reversed the acquittal, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Reliability of the last seen together theory.

Credibility of the extra-judicial confession.

Adequacy of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond doubt.

Time gap between last seen together and the alleged time of death.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, emphasizing the importance of a complete chain in circumstantial evidence cases. The court highlighted the unexplained contradictions in witness testimonies, the time gap between last seen together and the alleged time of death, and the questionable extra-judicial confession. The judgment reinforced the need for a conscientious approach in cases based on circumstantial evidence and reiterated the principle that extra-judicial confessions are weak pieces of evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Facts:

There were 72,825 vacancies for the post of Assistant teachers.

43,077 were appointed, and 15,058 were undergoing training.

In pursuance of interim orders, a total of 66,655 teachers were appointed.

Contempt Petitions filed in 2018 alleged non-compliance with State representations.

Issues:

Discrepancy in the State Government's calculation of 66,655 appointments.

Alleged violation of Supreme Court orders in not appointing Contempt Petitioners.

Incorrect representation by the State regarding qualified persons' appointments.

Held:

The exercise of selecting eligible candidates resulted in 12,091 individuals, subject to verification.

The list of these 12,091 candidates, including Contempt Petitioners, was published.

Out of 12,091 candidates, only 391 were appointed due to various reasons, as detailed in the Affidavit dated 01.10.2016.

The State published additional advertisements to consider any candidates left out.

The reasons for not appointing all 12,091 candidates were on record from October 2016 onwards.

No grievance was raised until the matter was disposed of in July 2017, granting permanency to those appointed.

The grievances were raised almost a year after filing the contempt petitions.

The court observed that the challenge was raised more than a year after the final Judgment.

The State Government clarified that no fresh appointments were made after 2016, and all appointments adhered to the court's orders.

Decision: The Contempt Petitions were directed to be closed, as the court found nothing wrong in the process undertaken by the State Government in compliance with various interim orders passed by the Supreme Court.

Facts:

The appellant purchased a fire and special perils policy, including coverage for spontaneous combustion.

The factory was closed, and upon reopening, the appellant reported damage due to spontaneous combustion.

The respondent-insurer repudiated the claim, citing non-occurrence of fire as stipulated in the policy.

The appellant filed a complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

Issues:

Whether the insurer waived the condition of delayed intimation by appointing a surveyor.

Whether the insurer, having not mentioned delay in intimation in the repudiation letter, can raise it as a defense.

Held:

The appointment of a surveyor does not automatically waive the conditions of the insurance policy, as per the decision in Sonnel Clocks.

The insurer cannot introduce new grounds, such as delayed intimation, at the consumer complaint stage if not mentioned in the repudiation letter.

The NCDRC erred in rejecting the claim based on delayed intimation.

The appeal is allowed, directing the respondent-insurer to pay the assessed amount with interest.