Facts:

The appellant, Vivek Mudgil, challenged the order passed by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board regarding his appointment as Principal.

The appellant's appointment was cancelled due to not fulfilling the required qualification of possessing ten years of teaching experience.

The appellant, initially a Lecturer, had his services regularized in 1990. He had a period of study leave from 1992 to 1996, during which he pursued higher studies in Czechoslovakia.

The Board considered this period as not counting towards teaching experience. The appellant fell short of the required teaching experience by nine months when he applied for the Principal position.

Issues:

Whether the appellant met the eligibility criteria for the position of Principal.

Whether the period of study leave should count towards teaching experience.

Whether the exemption granted by the Board affected the appellant's eligibility.

Held:

The Court dismissed the appeals and disposed of the transferred case. The Court held that the possession of ten years of teaching experience was a necessary qualification for the appointment as Principal.

The exemption granted by the Board did not cure the appellant's disqualification as of the last date of application submission and the date of preparing the panel. The Court emphasized that the exemption was not granted retrospectively and did not affect the appellant's eligibility at the time of application.

The Court left open the question of whether the respondent authorities had the power to grant exemptions under Section 16-E(3) of the 1921 Act after the enactment of the 1982 Act, allowing parties to approach the High Court if necessary to decide this issue independently.

Facts:

The case involved the eligibility criteria for the post of Technician-III in the Power Development Department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The J & K State Service Selection Board (SSSB) had advertised the position, specifying the qualification as "Matric with ITI." Several individuals, including the appellants, possessed diplomas in Electrical Engineering or Electronics and Communication, rather than the specified ITI qualification. After the selection process, the SSSB excluded the appellants from the select list because they did not possess the required ITI qualification.

Issues:

Whether the appellants, who possessed diplomas but not the specified ITI qualification, were eligible for the post of Technician-III.

Whether the actions of the SSSB in excluding the appellants from the select list were justified.

Held:

The Court held that the prescribed qualification for the post of Technician-III was "Matric with ITI," as specified in the advertisement issued by the SSSB. The Court rejected arguments that a diploma should be considered a higher qualification and that candidates should be eligible based on a presumption of acquiring the lower qualification. It emphasized that such presumptions could only be made under specific statutory rules, which were absent in this case.

The Court also addressed the enabling provision in Note 12 of the advertisement, which allowed the SSSB to grant weightage to higher qualifications. However, it emphasized that the decision to grant such weightage was within the discretion of the SSSB and did not create a vested right for candidates.

Ultimately, the Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had ruled that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. However, considering the prolonged legal process and the potential age-barred status of the appellants for future applications, the Court granted them an age relaxation of four years for any future posts advertised by the State of Jammu and Kashmir until November 30, 2020.

Facts:

Mahabir Prosad Choudhary was an Accountant at Octavius Tea and Industries Ltd since 1986.

He was not allowed to work from May 2, 2005, following a change in management in 2004.

The State of West Bengal referred the industrial dispute between the company and the appellant to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal.

The Tribunal proceeded ex parte after the company failed to appear despite summons being issued.

An ex parte award was passed in favor of the appellant, granting him reinstatement with full back wages.

The company filed an application to recall the ex parte award, which was rejected by the Tribunal.

The company filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court, which set aside the award and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue.

The appellant appealed this decision before the Division Bench of the High Court, which was subsequently dismissed.

Issues:

Whether the application for recall of the ex parte award should have been entertained despite being filed after 30 days from the publication of the award.

Whether there was a violation of Rule 20B(5) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958.

Held:

The application for recall of the ex parte award should have been entertained despite being filed after 30 days from the publication of the award. The Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute until the award becomes enforceable under Section 17 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

There was a violation of Rule 20B(5) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, as the Tribunal failed to fix a date for the service of the written statement and failed to intimate the same to the party concerned.

The High Court's decision to set aside the ex parte award and direct the Tribunal to proceed afresh was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The appeal was dismissed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Facts:

Dispute arose between Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Appellant) and Pratibha Industries Ltd. (Respondent) regarding a tender contract.

Respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an interim injunction.

An arbitrator was appointed based on an oral agreement between the parties during the Section 9 petition hearing.

Appellant filed a notice to recall the order appointing the arbitrator, arguing that the clauses cited by the Respondent did not constitute arbitration clauses but were in-house procedures.

Single Judge of the High Court recalled the order appointing the arbitrator, but the Division Bench overturned this decision.

Issues:

Whether the clauses cited by the parties constituted arbitration clauses or in-house procedures.

Whether the High Court had the inherent power to recall its own orders in this context.

Whether the Arbitration Act's self-contained nature precluded a review or recall application in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement.

Held:

The clauses cited by the parties did not constitute arbitration clauses but were related to in-house procedures. The oral agreement during the Section 9 petition hearing could not supersede the absence of arbitration clauses in the contract (Para. 10).

High Courts, as courts of record, have the inherent power to recall their own orders to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct errors. This power has been recognized in previous judgments (Para. 11).

The Arbitration Act's self-contained nature did not preclude a review or recall application in this case, as there was no valid arbitration agreement (Para. 15).

The Division Bench's decision was set aside, and the original order appointing the arbitrator was continued for four weeks, allowing the parties time to approach the appropriate forum (Para. 16).

Facts:

Three individuals, namely Rameshwar Singh (A-1), Surendra Singh (A-2), and Ram Singh (A-3), were prosecuted for the murder of Rajendra Prasad.

The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence due to the absence of eyewitnesses.

The trial court found all three accused guilty, and their appeals to the High Court were unsuccessful.

Surendra Singh (A-2) and Ram Singh (A-3) appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging their convictions.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were legally sustainable.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence and legal arguments, upheld the convictions of Surendra Singh (A-2) and Ram Singh (A-3) for the murder of Rajendra Prasad. The Court found no reason to overturn the concurrent findings of the lower courts, as the prosecution's evidence was deemed sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court concluded that the appellants were involved in the commission of the crime based on various circumstantial evidence, including motive, presence near the crime scene, recovery of stolen articles, and identification of the perpetrators.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the convictions of Surendra Singh (A-2) and Ram Singh (A-3) for murder.

Facts:

S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited (Appellant) was awarded a construction contract by the State of Himachal Pradesh (Respondent).

An arbitration clause (Clause 65) was included in the contract for the resolution of disputes.

Dispute arose between the parties, and the appellant requested the appointment of an arbitrator.

The Chief Engineer, HPPWD appointed the Superintendent Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HPPWD as the arbitrator, in accordance with Clause 65 of the agreement.

The appellant challenged this appointment before the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issues:

Whether the appointment of the Superintendent Engineer as the arbitrator was valid under Clause 65 of the contract?

Whether the appointment of an arbitrator by designation rather than by name was permissible?

Whether Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, applies to the appointment of the arbitrator?

Whether the appellant's failure to file a statement of claim before the arbitrator warranted termination of the arbitration proceedings?

Held:

The appointment of the Superintendent Engineer as the arbitrator was valid and in accordance with the arbitration clause. Appointment by designation is permissible as per clause (65) of the agreement. The contention regarding the applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act was dismissed as the arbitration proceedings commenced prior to the Amendment Act, 2015.

The appellant's challenge to the appointment of the arbitrator after the proceedings had already commenced was rejected, as the arbitration agreement had already been invoked, and the remedy would lie under Section 13 and Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The proceedings terminated due to the appellant's failure to file a statement of claim before the arbitrator. The order of termination was set aside, and the Chief Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, was directed to appoint an arbitrator as per clause (65) of the agreement.

The appellant was given the opportunity to file their claim before the newly appointed arbitrator, and proceedings were to continue accordingly. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the appellant's claim.

Facts:

The respondent, a teacher in an aided Higher Secondary School, challenged the direct recruitment of the appellant to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Economics). The State Government had directed the management to fill the post by transfer of the respondent, but the appellant contested this decision.

Issues:

Whether the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Economics) should be filled by direct recruitment or transfer.

Whether Rule 5 of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, applied to the appointment process.

Whether the management erred in appointing the appellant directly.

Held:

The Court held that the Kerala Education Rules, specifically Chapter XXXII, governed the appointment process for teachers in aided Higher Secondary Schools. Rule 4(2) stipulated that vacancies in Higher Secondary School Teacher posts should first be offered to Junior Lecturers in the subject concerned under the management. The Court determined that the cadre strength of Higher Secondary School Teachers was not relevant for apportioning vacancies, as specified by Rule 4(2).

The Court also clarified that Rule 5(3) of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, did not apply to appointments under Chapter XXXII. Citing previous judgments, the Court emphasized that where a later general rule conflicts with an earlier special rule, the later rule prevails. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Economics) by transfer, as directed by the State Government and upheld by the Division Bench.

The Court directed the management to appoint the respondent by a specified date and offered the appellant an alternative post if accepted. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

The appellant, Kanubhai Bhagvanbhai Nayak, appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, which affirmed his conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC.

The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal without adequately discussing the issues raised or properly appreciating the evidence.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court seeking a review of the High Court's decision.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's criminal appeal without proper discussion of the issues and appreciation of evidence.

Whether the appellant's right to a fair trial and appellate review was violated due to the High Court's inadequate judgment.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's criminal appeal without thorough discussion and appreciation of evidence was improper. The Bench emphasized the duty of the appellate court to examine evidence and issues raised by the parties before arriving at a decision.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

Facts:

The State of Karnataka acquired land for the expansion of an industrial estate in Tahsil Hubli under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

The landowners disputed the compensation amount and sought a reference to the Civil Court.

The Reference Court awarded compensation at a higher rate than initially determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

Both parties appealed to the High Court, which reduced the compensation rate.

The landowners appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the compensation rate determined by the Reference Court.

Whether the market value of the land was correctly determined.

Held:

The market rate determined by the Reference Court was proper and should have been upheld by the High Court.

There was sufficient evidence to establish the potentiality and market value of the land.

The market value of the land was fixed at Rs. 18,900/- per Gunta after deducting 10% towards development charges .

The respondents were directed to recalculate the compensation amount based on the Supreme Court's determination and pay the landowners within three months.

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.