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].

Service Law – Appointment Validity – Appellants were appointed temporarily on leave vacancies and did not pass the speed test for Hindi Stenographers – High Court rightly quashed their appointments and upheld the termination of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who were selected through due process – Rule 14(3) validity of the select list was one year, expired on 13.07.1988 – No appointments could be made from this expired list [Paras 2-9].

Financial Burden – State Implications – Court noted that appointing two persons on one sanctioned post would financially burden the state – Highlighted the necessity to maintain appointments in accordance with legal provisions to avoid such burdens [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's order upheld – No relief granted to appellants as their appointments were legally untenable – Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to be accommodated as per due process [Paras 9-10].

Service Law – Promotion Requirements – Passing of SAS Part II exam was mandated for promotion from Superintendent (D/A) to AAO but not for direct recruits to AAO – Amended notification dated 02.01.2010 requiring SAS Part II for promotion to AO found arbitrary and illogical – High Court read down the requirement, holding it applicable only to promotion from Superintendent (D/A) to AAO and not for promotion to AO [Paras 2-8].

Seniority and Promotion – Litigation and Seniority – Direct recruits' regular appointment and seniority determined by Supreme Court in 2015 – Promotions made before this were set aside – High Court rightly directed reconsideration of promotions to AO, providing seniority and benefits from initial appointment date [Paras 6-8].

Equity and Relief – Reversion and Promotion – Appellants promoted to AO since 2010 argued against reversion – Supreme Court rejected this plea, emphasizing necessary consequences and re-shuffling of promotions to maintain fairness and legality [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Promotions to AO to be reconsidered, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and proper seniority [Para 9].

Arbitration Law – Appellate Jurisdiction – Distinction – High Court erroneously acted as an appellate forum in a regular civil suit, rather than under the limited scope of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act – District Judge rightly rejected the petition under Section 34, finding no basis for interfering with the arbitral award – High Court's judgment set aside as it exceeded its jurisdiction [Paras 11-13].

Arbitral Award – Reasoned Findings – Sole arbitrator provided detailed reasons based on evidence, upholding the appellants' defense of sub-standard supplies – High Court failed to appreciate the arbitral findings and incorrectly decreed the respondents' claims [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – District Judge's order rejecting the petition under Section 34 upheld – Respondents' appeal dismissed [Paras 13-14].

Tender – Transportation of Rice – Continuation of interim arrangements for transportation without fresh tenders at old rates from 2017-18 caused significant financial loss to the State – High Court directed immediate steps for fresh tenders – Supreme Court upheld and directed issuance of fresh NIT within 10 days, ensuring fair and transparent process through e-Tender, to be completed within six weeks [Paras 2-6].

Administrative Lethargy – Financial Implications – State’s failure to issue fresh tenders criticized as causing financial loss – Directed to ensure maximum price and avoid cartels – Current arrangement to continue only until 31.12.2021 to prevent inconvenience to beneficiaries [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Respondents directed to issue fresh NIT within 10 days and complete process within six weeks – State to submit compliance report – Non-compliance to be viewed seriously [Paras 6-7].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Conviction and Sentence – Appellants used deadly weapons, inflicting grievous injuries on the vital parts of the victims' bodies – Stab injuries on stomach and near the chest warranted conviction under Section 307 IPC – Conviction upheld as per evidentiary value of injured eye-witnesses and nature of injuries [Paras 2-4].

Evidentiary Value – Injured Eye-witnesses – Testimonies of injured eye-witnesses carry great weight and were consistent with other prosecution witnesses – No compelling reason to doubt their statements [Para 2].

Nature of Injuries – Vital Parts of Body – Injuries caused by sharp cutting instruments on vital body parts like stomach and chest are grievous – Application of Section 307 IPC justified – Court noted the intention of the accused from the weapon used and the manner of attack [Paras 3-4].

Precedent – Relevance – Previous case law distinguished based on facts, weapon used, and nature of injuries – Subsequent decisions considered [Para 5].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC upheld [Para 5].