Facts:

A notice inviting tender was issued by the appellant, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL), for hiring Heavy Earth Moving Machinery (HEMM) for coal extraction and transportation. The bidding was conducted online, and technical issues led to connectivity problems during the auction. The last bid by respondent No. 1 went unresponded for thirty minutes, resulting in the auction's automatic closure. The auction was later restarted due to technical issues and communicated to all bidders. Respondent No. 6 was ultimately declared the successful bidder.

Issues:

The scope of judicial review in tender matters.

Allegations of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.

Whether larger public interest was affected by the auction process.

The existence of technical problems and connectivity issues during the auction.

Interpretation of contractual terms and authority's decision-making process.

Held:

The scope of judicial review in tenders has been extensively discussed. Courts are concerned with lawfulness, not soundness, of decisions. Allegations of illegality and procedural impropriety warrant judicial intervention. The decision-making process is subject to scrutiny, but not the end result.

Writs are appropriate remedies when a constitutional right is infringed, such as treating all equally or challenging actions in contravention to trade and commerce freedom. Writs are impermissible when allegations concern contractual rights or duties.

The Division Bench of the High Court failed to evaluate whether larger public interest was affected. Respondent No. 1's interest was private and monetary, not a public law right.

After an inquiry report by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), it was clear that BCCL and others acted bona fide. Technical issues and connectivity problems were established, and no fraudulent decisions were proven .

The Division Bench erred in holding no technical difficulties existed, contrary to the findings of various entities. Multiple bids were received after the resumption of the auction process, indicating technical issues

The uniform communication about the extension of the auction time placed all bidders on equal footing. Respondent No. 1's interpretation was moot since they did not object to the email's wording during the resumed auction .

Courts must defer to the authority's interpretation of contractual terms unless it is patently perverse or mala fide. BCCL's interpretation was plausible, and mere differences in interpretation are not grounds for finding illegality.

FACTS:

The case involved the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. as the appellant and M/S. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent.

The dispute centered around whether the eviction proceedings initiated by the Corporation against the respondent were valid under the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976.

The Corporation leased out three plots of land to the respondent, which did not have any structures on them.

The issue was whether these leased plots of land constituted "Government premises" under the Act and whether the eviction proceedings were legally justified.

ISSUES:

Whether the leased plots of land without any structures were considered "Government premises" as defined by the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976.

Whether the eviction proceedings initiated by the Corporation against the respondent were valid under the Act.

HELD:

The Corporation is a government undertaking as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act.

However, the leased plots of land without any structures do not meet the criteria for "Government premises" as defined in Section 2(a) read with Section 2(c) of the Act.

The Act's definition of "premises" includes various structures, and since the leased plots were bare land without any structures, they do not fall under the category of "Government premises."

Consequently, the eviction proceedings initiated by the Corporation against the respondent under the Act were without jurisdiction.

The Court suggests that the Corporation should pursue eviction under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962.

The appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) sought environmental clearance for its Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) Project. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) invalidated the environmental clearance, citing outdated data in the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report, which was based on primary data collected more than three years before submission to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

Issues:

Whether the process leading to the environmental clearance for the PRR Project suffered from due process failures.

Whether the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) failed in its role and function during the evaluation of the project's environmental impact.

Held:

The court noted a failure of due process in the environmental clearance process, starting from the issuance of outdated Terms of Reference (ToR) for the project. The appellant (BDA) relied on expired ToR and prepared the EIA report using outdated primary data. Additionally, contradictions regarding forest land and tree felling numbers were observed in the clearance process. The SEAC's reliance solely on the appellant's submissions and non-compliance with Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF-CC) guidelines were criticized.

The protection of the environment is rooted in robust institutional frameworks, responsive decision-making, and the rule of law. Environmental governance aligns with constitutional values and the right to life under Article 21. The court emphasized the balance between development and environment.

Due process failure occurred from ToR issuance to the grant of environmental clearance. Reliance on expired ToR and outdated data for the EIA report, along with contradictions in the clearance process, were noted.

SEAC abdicated its role by relying solely on appellant's submissions and not adhering to MOEF-CC guidelines. Inadequate reasoning for recommending environmental clearance was a failure to fulfill its duty under the 2006 Notification.

Balancing infrastructure development and environmental concerns is essential. The appeal, filed in 2015 and concluded in 2019, highlighted the need for timely proceedings.

Directions under Article 142 of the Constitution were issued, including the appellant conducting a fresh rapid EIA with an accredited consultant, addressing deficiencies, obtaining necessary clearances, SEAC assessment, and ensuring no damage to petroleum pipelines.

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

Facts:

The case involves appeals by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (Appellant) and Anil Padegaonkar (Respondent) against a common order in a writ appeal. The Corporation is aggrieved by the order setting aside the punishment due to issues related to the issuance of the charge-sheet. The employee is aggrieved by the grant of liberty for a fresh charge-sheet and denial of back wages upon reinstatement, especially since the employee had reached the age of superannuation.

Issues:

Whether the charge-sheet was issued by the appropriate disciplinary authority.

Whether the term "Competent Authority" includes a disciplinary authority authorized by the delegation of authority manual.

Whether the punishment of the employee was dismissal or discharge.

Held:

The court examined the definitions of various terms within the rules, such as "Functional Manager," "Disciplinary Authority," and "Competent Authority." The court concluded that the term "Competent Authority" could include a disciplinary authority authorized by the delegation of authority manual. The court held that the charge-sheet had been issued by an authority competent to do so, upholding the order of discharge. The direction to issue a fresh charge-sheet was set aside, rendering the question of reinstatement and back wages under the second charge-sheet academic and irrelevant.

The Corporation's appeal was allowed, while the employee's appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. was involved in the execution of a foreign decree from a reciprocating country in India. The question before the court was related to the period of limitation for executing such a foreign decree and the interpretation of Section 44A of the CPC.

Issues:

Does Section 44A of the CPC only provide for the manner of execution of foreign decrees or does it also indicate the period of limitation for filing execution proceedings?

What is the period of limitation for executing a foreign decree passed by a court from a reciprocating country in India?

From which date does the period of limitation start running for executing a foreign decree passed in a reciprocating country and sought to be executed in India?

Held:

Issue 1 - Section 44A of the CPC: The court concluded that Section 44A of the CPC is only an enabling provision empowering the District Court to execute a foreign decree as if it were an Indian decree. It does not deal with the period of limitation. Section 44A empowers the District Court to execute the foreign decree and provides that Section 47 of the CPC applies from the date of filing the certified copy of the decree. The section sets the procedure for execution but does not indicate the period of limitation for filing an execution petition. [Para 19, 20, 21]

Issue 2 - Limitation for Executing Foreign Decree: The court held that the limitation period for executing a foreign decree passed by a court from a reciprocating country in India would be as prescribed in the reciprocating foreign country. This is subject to the decree being executable under Section 13 of the CPC. The court emphasized that the law of limitation is substantive and not merely procedural, and the foreign decree's limitation law should apply. [Para 31, 33, 34, 35]

Issue 3 - Starting Date of Limitation: The court explained two situations: if the decree-holder doesn't take steps to execute the decree in the cause country within the prescribed limitation period there, they cannot execute the decree in India later. The period of limitation starts from the date the decree was passed in the cause country. However, if the decree-holder initiates execution proceedings in the cause country, the right to apply under Section 44A accrues only after those proceedings are finalized. In such cases, the decree-holder can file a petition for execution in India within three years from the completion of execution proceedings in the cause country. [Para 40, 41, 42, 43]

Facts:

The case involved a dispute concerning the interpretation of Section 37 of the Architects Act, 1972. The primary issue was whether individuals not registered with the Council of Architecture were prohibited from practicing architectural activities or merely from using the title "Architect." The case also examined whether government posts titled as "Architect" or similar titles could be held by individuals not registered as architects.

Issues:

The scope and extent of the prohibition imposed by Section 37 of the Architects Act on unregistered individuals regarding the use of the title "Architect" and their engagement in architectural activities.

Involved assessing whether individuals not registered as architects could occupy government posts with titles that incorporate the term "Architect" or similar styles.

Held:

Issue 1: The Court observed that Section 37 of the Architects Act prohibits individuals from using the title and style of "Architect." However, a distinction was drawn between the use of the title and actual architectural practice. The legislative intent was to protect the title "Architect" while allowing non-registered individuals to undertake architectural activities without using the title. The Court referred to the legislative history, including the Statement of Objects and Reasons, to support this interpretation. (Para 26-30)

Issue 2: The Court ruled that if an individual holds a government post with a title such as "Associate Architect" or "Architect," it implies the use of the title "Architect." Such a person would likely be assumed to be registered under the Architects Act and possessing a recognized architectural degree. Promoting individuals without the required qualifications to such posts using the title "Architect" would violate the prohibition outlined in Section 37. (Para 36-37)

Delegated Legislation and Primary Legislation: The Court highlighted the principle that when there is a conflict between primary legislation (Architects Act) and delegated legislation (Promotion Policy 2005), the provisions of the primary legislation prevail. (Para 38)

Facts:

The State of Rajasthan established welfare schemes for building and construction workers under the 1996 Act. One such scheme provided financial assistance for the marriage of beneficiaries' daughters. Kesar Lal, the respondent, applied for this financial aid but faced rejection.

Issues:

Whether the definition of "consumer" includes beneficiaries of a statutory welfare scheme.

Whether the functions of the Welfare Board fall within the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act.

Held:

The court analyzed the definitions of "consumer" and "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It observed that the first component of the definition of "consumer" includes any person who hires or avails of a service for consideration, while the second component includes beneficiaries of the service approved by the person availing the service. The term "beneficiary" was defined in the 1996 Act, and "fund" referred to the Welfare Fund established by the Board. The court ruled that workers registered under the Act are beneficiaries of the service provided by the Board and that the services were not rendered free of charge, making them amenable to redressal under the Consumer Protection Act.

The court held that the functions of the Welfare Board fell within the definition of "service" as provided by the Consumer Protection Act. The court emphasized the importance of public accountability for public authorities providing welfare services and underscored that registered workers contributed to the Welfare Fund, making the services non-free of charge.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the NCDRC's decision to award the claim to the respondent, with certain modifications to the rate of interest.

Facts:

The case involved the acquisition of land for the construction of the Hiwra Dam project. The appellant (Sajan) and others challenged the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, seeking higher compensation. The appellant argued that a valuation certificate provided by a government valuer was not adequately considered.

Issues:

Whether the valuation certificate presented by the appellant's side was given proper consideration.

Whether the deductions for development costs made by the High Court were reasonable.

Whether the valuation of civil work, electrical installation, machinery, and other components were accurately determined.

Whether the compensation for loss of business was appropriately calculated.

Held:

The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring land for the Hiwra Dam project. The acquired land included both non-agricultural and cultivable land.

The High Court and the Reference Court found that 1.44 hectares of land had non-agricultural potential, and thus, its valuation should be based on that premise. The Court accepted the valuation at Rs.6.90 per sq.ft.

The deduction for development costs was considered by the Supreme Court. The general rule of one-third deduction was mentioned, but deductions could vary based on the purpose of acquisition and development potential. The Court found that, given the irrigation project purpose, a 20% deduction was reasonable.

The compensation for land value was recalculated to Rs.14,42,707 after applying the 20% deduction for development costs.

The valuation of civil work and foundation was addressed. The Court affirmed the amount of Rs.4,26,890 awarded by the High Court for damages and dismantling charges.

The Court affirmed the amount of Rs.6,62,000 for the depreciated value of machinery and mechanical installation.

The Court increased the compensation for replacement of electrical installation to Rs.3,86,867, as awarded by the Reference Court, from the Rs.2,39,000 awarded by the High Court.

The compensation of Rs.5,00,000 awarded for loss of business was confirmed, considering the factory's idleness from 1981 to 1986.

Facts:

M/s. Abhilasha Construction (R-3) obtained a loan but failed to repay, leading to a decree in favor of Shree Mahalaxmi Mercantile Co-op Bank Ltd. (R-2). A subsequent sale of property took place during the execution proceedings, leading to objections from Mukul Thakorebhai Amin (R-1) and R-3. The primary contention was whether these objections were filed within the prescribed time limits.

Issues:

Whether the objections filed by R-1 and R-3 were within the statutory time limits as per Order XXI Rule 90, Section 5, and Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Held:

The court found that the objections filed by R-1 and R-3 were not within the prescribed time limits. The court examined the provisions of Order XXI Rule 90 and Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. The court held that the objections, even if filed in good faith, did not meet the time-bar requirements. The court noted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the condonation of delay, does not apply to proceedings under Order XXI Rule 90. Additionally, the court found that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which deals with the exclusion of time due to certain circumstances, could not be applied as the proceedings were not diligently pursued by the respondents. The appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the executing court's order was upheld.