Facts:

The appellant, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), conducts bi-annual examinations and awards the AMIE certificate.

Government recognition was provisionally granted in 1976, acknowledging the AMIE certificate as equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering.

A notification recognized the Technician Engineers' Examination as equivalent to a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from State Polytechnic.

A writ petition challenged the validity of the AMIE certificate for state-related services.

The High Court, in a previous judgment, held that the AMIE certificate could not be treated as equivalent to a degree in engineering.

A review application was filed, and the Registrar of the Supreme Court refused to register the application.

Issues:

Recognition and equivalence of the AMIE certificate to a degree in Mechanical Engineering.

Validity of the AMIE certificate for recruitment/promotion to state services.

Held:

The Registrar's refusal to register the application for clarification and modification was deemed correct.

The appellant, by its own admission, conducts examinations without imparting education and does not fall under the Acts specified.

The appellant's claim of equivalence lacks a statutory basis, as Section 22(1) of the UGC Act designates specific bodies to confer degrees.

Equivalence to AMIE certificates was granted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) until 31.05.13, as evidenced by official notifications.

An exception was made for candidates enrolled up to 31.05.13, declaring their AMIE certificates equivalent to a Mechanical Engineering degree for Central Government employment.

Decision: The Miscellaneous Application No. 2367 of 2018 is rejected. The AMIE certificates for candidates enrolled up to 31.05.13 are considered equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering for Central Government employment.

Facts:

The case involves Assam Public Works as the appellant, challenging actions related to the National Register of Indian Citizens (NRC) in Assam. The matter pertains to citizenship provisions, especially Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Issues:

The primary issues revolve around the interpretation and application of Section 6A, the special provisions for Assam, and the procedures outlined in Rule 4A of the 2003 Rules for the NRC in Assam.

The addresses concerns raised by the State Coordinator regarding descendants of individuals with D Voter (DV)/Declared Foreigner (DF) status.

Held:

The Court clarified that issues related to Sections 3 and 6A of the Act are pending consideration by a Constitution Bench. It upheld the special provisions of Rule 4A and the Schedule for NRC in Assam, considering the unique citizenship category created by Section 6A. The Court directed the State Coordinator to act on the suggestions/prayers made in the report, subject to further orders from the Constitution Bench.

The Court emphasized the necessity for a security regime similar to AADHAR data security before making the list of inclusions and exclusions available. Validity of orders under the IMDT Act was directed to be governed by the Gauhati High Court decision in Anowar Ali v. State of Assam (2014).

Subject to orders from the Constitution Bench, the Court affirmed that the National Register of Citizens (NRC) will be updated.

Facts:

Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Lecturer of Home Economics on an ad-hoc basis with a condition in the appointment letter allowing termination for unsatisfactory performance.

The termination was based on the finding that the services of respondent No. 1 during the academic years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were unsatisfactory.

An appeal was filed before the College Tribunal, and subsequently, an appeal was made to the High Court, challenging the termination.

Issues:

Whether the termination of services of respondent No. 1 on an ad-hoc basis was valid based on unsatisfactory performance.

Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the termination order.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the termination of services of respondent No. 1 was valid as it was on an ad-hoc basis and was not punitive. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside. The key points include:

The appointment of respondent No. 1 was on an ad-hoc basis, and the termination was within the rights of the Management Committee based on unsatisfactory work.

The termination was not punitive and did not carry any stigma.

The Division Bench of the High Court went beyond the controversy involved in the writ petition, and its decision was found to be unsustainable in law.

The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

Three separate suits were filed against the defendants, including the State of Andhra Pradesh. The first two suits pertained to land in Survey No.9 of 2013 of Khairatabad Village, while the third suit concerned land in Survey Nos.49 and 50 in Rasoolpura Village. The State contended that all three suits should be dismissed as the land in question fell within Survey No.43 of Village Bholakpur, designated as a Government Shikkam Talab.

Issues:

Whether the findings in the first and second suits, which were dismissed, should be treated as a decree and operate as res judicata in the appeal against the decree in the third suit.

Held:

The findings recorded by the High Court were patently erroneous. The decree in the third suit was a dismissal of the suit, entirely in favor of the State, and not immediately executable.

The decrees in the first and second suits had not attained finality, as they were still under appeal before the First Appellate Court.

Section 11 and Explanation I of the Code were held to be applicable in subsequent proceedings, but the findings in the first and second suits would not operate as res judicata due to their subject to challenge in ongoing appeals.

The High Court failed to distinguish between the decree and a finding on an issue. The right of the defendants-State to dispute findings on Issue No.1 was upheld, even without filing cross-objections, as the decrees had not attained finality.

The term "decree" was discussed in terms of Section 2(2) of the Code, emphasizing its formal expression of an adjudication conclusively determining the rights of the parties.

Decision: The order of the High Court was set aside, affirming that the findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the first and second suits did not operate as res judicata. The defendants-State retained the right to dispute these findings in the ongoing appeals.

Facts:

Long-standing rivalry between the wife of the appellant (accused no.3) and the victim-deceased.

Alleged altercation between appellant (accused no.1), his wife (accused no.3), and the victim.

Appellant and associates attacked the victim, resulting in his death.

Trial Court convicted appellant and accused no.2, acquitted accused no.3.

High Court maintained conviction of the appellant but acquitted accused no.2.

Issues:

Doubts regarding the place and manner of occurrence.

Unclear identification of the aggressor and how the altercation started.

Lack of clarity on the presence of the deceased at the appellant's doorstep and the presence of bloodstains.

Credibility of the defense version claiming the deceased assaulted the appellant's wife.

Held:

The prosecution failed to remove doubts about the place and manner of occurrence, the identity of the aggressor, and the start of the altercation.( Para 14)

Even after disbelieving the prosecution's case, the court examines whether the appellant is entitled to acquittal based on the right of private defense.( Para 15)

The likelihood that the incident occurred at the appellant's doorstep is considered, given the hostile terms between the parties and a previous argument.( Para 17)

The court accepts the alternative case that the incident took place without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel.( Para 18)

The appellant is convicted under Part-I of Section 304 IPC, extending the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.( Para 20)

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between the Director of Horticulture, Odisha (appellant) and Pravat Kumar Dash and others (respondents).

Candidates were selected for training for the post of Gardener, and the training process lacked transparency.

The Tribunal directed the State to consider the applicants for appointment against existing vacant Gardener positions, a decision upheld by the High Court.

Six persons' services were terminated, but the termination was later set aside in 2001.

Issues:

Validity of the training process for the post of Gardener.

Applicability of Orissa Civil Services Rules and Article 311 to the appointment.

Legality of the direction to the State for the appointment of candidates who completed training.

Held:

The selection of candidates for training lacked transparency, and there was no commitment to appoint candidates post-training.Completing training did not automatically confer the right to employment; appointments must be through fair competition.The direction to appoint candidates based on training alone was unjustified.( Para 17)

The order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, directing the State to appoint the applicants as Gardeners, exceeded its jurisdiction.The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the High Court and Tribunal were set aside.The OAs filed by the respondents were dismissed.( Para 19)

Facts:

The Indian Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) issued a Notification on 17.11.2014, inviting applications for various posts, including Agricultural Field Officer.

Private respondents applied for the post with a degree in B.Sc. (Forestry).

The specified qualification in the Notification was a 4-year degree in various disciplines, including "Agro-Forestry."

Private respondents received appointment letters, but later it was found that their qualifications did not meet the specified criteria.

The High Court set aside termination orders, considering B.Sc. (Forestry) as equivalent, citing the absence of a 4-year degree in "Agro-Forestry."

Issues:

Whether the Court can read into or assume qualifications not explicitly mentioned in the recruitment Notification.

Whether a change in qualification midstream is permissible, especially when considering additional qualifications retrospectively.

Whether the Court can provide equivalence for educational qualifications.

Held:

It is not within the Court's purview to assume or read qualifications not specified in the Notification.

Any change in qualification midstream must be through a corrigendum, providing an opportunity for all qualified candidates.

Equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical matter best left to expert bodies.

The Court set aside the High Court's orders, stating that private respondents did not possess the specified qualification at the time of recruitment.

In a specific case, the Court exercised discretion under Article 142 to provide relief to one of the private respondents, directing the Bank of India to offer her appointment based on unique circumstances.

Clarified that the decision should not be applied retroactively to initiate action against officers recruited in similar circumstances in other cases where the employer permitted equivalence.

FACTS:

Lands acquired in 1985, award declared in 1988, and compensation enhanced to Rs. 30/- per square yard by Reference Court.

High Court in 1996 reduced compensation to Rs. 22-20 per square yard.

Petitioners seek parity with Kasna landowners who received Rs. 65/- per square yard in 2016.

Delay of 21 years in filing special leave petitions.

ISSUES:

Condonation of the substantial delay in filing special leave petitions.

Petitioners' entitlement to enhanced compensation and parity.

HELD:

The Court notes the absence of a sufficient cause for the substantial delay of 21 years and an additional delay in refiling the petitions.

Emphasizes the lack of explanation for the delay, stating no grievance was made for about 21 years after the High Court's judgment.

Invokes principles of acquiescence and laches, highlighting the non-existence of a right not exercised for a long time.

Rejects reliance on previous decisions cited by petitioners, emphasizing the unique circumstances and adverse impact on the acquiring body if directed to pay enhanced compensation after a long delay.

Dismisses applications for condonation of delay and consequently dismisses special leave petitions on the ground of limitation.

REFERRED CASES:

Dhiraj Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127

K. Subbarayudu vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in (2017) 12 SCC 840

Market Committee, Hodal vs. Krishan Murari reported in (1996) 1 SCC 311

Facts:

The dispute involves Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL), Canara Bank, and its subsidiary CANFINA. The disagreement arises from a transaction where CANFINA subscribed to bonds floated by MTNL, subsequently transferring them to Canara Bank. MTNL canceled the bond allotment, alleging incomplete payment by CANFINA.

Issues:

Existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

Joinder of CANFINA as a party in arbitral proceedings.

Application of the Group of Companies Doctrine.

Held:

Existence of a Valid Arbitration Agreement: The court establishes that a valid arbitration agreement is crucial for the arbitration process, and it can take various forms. Section 7(4)(b) allows deriving an arbitration agreement from different means of communication, including electronic means. The court emphasizes interpreting arbitration agreements based on the parties' intentions rather than technicalities.

Agreement Evidenced by Documents: The agreement between MTNL and Canara Bank to arbitrate disputes is evidenced by documents exchanged and court proceedings. Once a party consents to arbitration, they are estopped from later denying the existence of a written agreement.

Application of Section 7(4)(c): Section 7(4)(c) is cited, stating that an arbitration agreement can be in the form of exchanged statements of claims and defense. The court highlights that documents filed before the arbitrator can constitute evidence of an arbitration agreement if not denied by the other party.

Tri-Partite Agreement: The court concludes that the agreement is essentially a tri-partite agreement between MTNL, Canara Bank, and CANFINA. The dispute's nature requires the involvement of all three parties for effective resolution.

Joinder of CANFINA: The "Group of Companies" doctrine is invoked to join CANFINA in the arbitration proceedings. The court deems CANFINA a necessary and proper party due to the tri-partite nature of the transaction.

Application of Group of Companies Doctrine: The court applies the "Group of Companies" doctrine, considering the tight group structure, organizational links, and financial support among the companies. The doctrine is deemed applicable to enable the arbitral tribunal to decide disputes involving all three parties in one proceeding.

Remittal to Arbitral Tribunal: The court partly allows the appeals and remits the matter to the Sole Arbitrator to continue with the arbitral proceedings, including all three parties.