Facts:

The Respondent No. 1 issued a Request for Qualification (RFQ) for a container terminal project, divided into eligibility and Request for Proposal (RFP) stages. The Appellant and Respondent No. 2 formed a consortium that qualified in the eligibility stage. A Letter of Award was issued to the consortium, but Respondent No. 2 withdrew from the bid process. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 issued a show-cause notice, and upon failure to perform, revoked the Letter of Award. An arbitration notice was sent by Respondent No. 1, claiming disputes under an arbitration clause.

Issues:

Whether there existed a concluded contract between the parties.

The applicability of the arbitration clause to the disputes.

Held:

The Court observed that the bid process, as per the Request for Proposal (RFP) clauses, did not result in a concluded contract between the parties. The process was ongoing, and several steps were required before a contract could be enforceable.

Section 7 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 requires acceptance to be absolute and unqualified. In this case, there was no such absolute acceptance by the Letter of Award. Therefore, there was no enforceable contract.

The Court relied on precedents such as Dresser Rand S.A. and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited to emphasize that certain steps are necessary for a contract to materialize. It reiterated that everything before the fulfillment of these steps is merely a prelude and not a binding contract.

Even if there were an arbitration clause, it would not be suitable for the current dispute. The clause only covered disputes between a Special Purpose Vehicle and Respondent No. 1, excluding the Appellant and Respondent No. 2.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court affirmed that there was no concluded contract between the parties, and the arbitration clause referred to by Respondent No. 1 was not applicable to the dispute at hand.

Facts:

The case involved an appellant, Maqbool, challenging the framing of charges against him under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in relation to an acid attack. The appellant argued that the injury caused was simple, not grievous, and thus, Section 326A should not apply.

Issues:

Whether an offense under Section 326A of the IPC is attracted if the injury caused in an acid attack is simple.

Whether charge can be framed under Section 326B if the injury caused is only simple.

Held:

The court held that the nature of the injury, whether simple or grievous, does not affect the application of Section 326A in cases of acid attacks. Additionally, the court clarified the distinction between Sections 326A and 326B, emphasizing that Section 326A applies when the injury falls under specified types due to an acid attack, regardless of its severity.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the framing of charges under Section 326A.

Facts:

The petitioners were appointed as Presiding Officers prior to the substitution of Section 6 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The original provision mandated a term of office until attaining the age of 62 or completing five years, whichever was earlier. The provision was substituted by Act 44 of 2016, effective from September 1, 2016, extending the term of office until the age of 65 or completing five years. At the time of the substitution, the petitioners had not completed five years but were attaining the age of 62.

Issues:

The applicability of the amended provision of Section 6 to the petitioners, considering their appointment prior to the substitution of the provision.

Held:

The Court held that the amended provision of Section 6 applies to the petitioners as well. Thus, they are entitled to continue working as Presiding Officers until they attain the age of 65 or complete five years' term before reaching the age of 65.

The Court interpreted the term "substitution" in legislative terms, noting that it effectively replaces the old provision with the new one. This means that the new provision operates as if it had been in place from the beginning, unless there is a clear intention otherwise.

Legislative intent was crucial in determining the applicability of the amended provision. The purpose behind amending Section 6 was to reduce the burden of pending cases by increasing the age limit of judges. Thus, a purposive interpretation of the statute was necessary to achieve the legislative objective.

The Court emphasized that the benefit of the amended provision extends to all Presiding Officers serving on the date when the amendment took effect. Consequently, those incumbents are governed by the substituted provision as if it were the only provision in force.

Decision: The Court allowed the matters and held that the amended provision of Section 6 applies to the petitioners, allowing them to continue their tenure as Presiding Officers until the age of 65 or completion of five years' term, whichever is earlier.

Facts:

Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) initiated acquisition proceedings under the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the acquisition proceedings, citing delay in possession of the acquired land.

MUDA filed appeals before the Division Bench, which were dismissed as not pressed, based on a resolution purportedly dropping the lands from acquisition proceedings.

MUDA appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the dismissal of appeals and arguing for their right to be heard on merits.

Issues:

Whether the Division Bench erred in dismissing MUDA's appeals as not pressed.

Whether subsequent actions by the parties should influence the decision on the appeals.

Whether MUDA had the authority to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings without the sanction of the State Government.

Held:

The Court held that the Division Bench erred in dismissing MUDA's appeals as not pressed. The court emphasized the importance of the right of appeal and the need for strict compliance with legal provisions. Subsequent actions by the parties were deemed irrelevant to the decision on the appeals. MUDA was found to lack the authority to unilaterally withdraw from the acquisition proceedings without the State Government's sanction. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the High Court was instructed to decide the appeals on their merits.

Facts:

The case involves a challenge to the seniority granted to promotee officers over direct recruits within the Indian Railways Establishment, specifically concerning the Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers.

The dispute arose when a direct recruit contested the seniority granted to promotee officers, who were placed en bloc senior to all direct recruits. The direct recruit argued that seniority should be fixed from the date of sending the requisition for vacancies relating to the year 2009. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejected the plea, stating that the IREM provisions determining seniority based on the 'date of increment in the time scale (DITS)' were flawed and arbitrary.

The High Court upheld this decision, asserting that DoPT circulars were binding on the Railways, and IREM was not statutory but merely a set of guidelines.

Issues:

The determination of seniority within the Indian Railways Establishment, specifically concerning the Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers.

The key contention is whether the seniority of direct recruits should be fixed from the date of sending the requisition for vacancies relating to the year 2009, as argued by the appellants.

Held:

The Court examined the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, framed under Article 77 of the Constitution, which explicitly exclude the Railways from the ambit of the Department of Personnel and Training's (DoPT) jurisdiction. Consequently, DoPT circulars are not inherently binding on the Railways unless specifically accepted or made applicable.

It was clarified that both the Indian Railways Establishment Code (IREC) and IREM have statutory force, being issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Railways have the authority to govern their employees' service conditions through these rules.

Referring to the N.R. Parmar case, the Court established that seniority could be determined based on the year of requisition only if it aligns with the vacancy year. However, this principle applies solely when the recruitment year matches the vacancy year. Since the vacancies related to the year 2009, direct recruits were not entitled to seniority from 2007 when the requisition was sent.

The Court found that the Railways' amendment to the IREM rules, aligning them with the CAT's judgment, did not violate the CAT's order. The CAT had only ordered the removal of arbitrariness associated with 'DITS' and adoption of the 'year of allotment.' Therefore, the Railways' action was in line with the CAT's directive.

Decision: The Court upheld the Railways' authority to govern its employees' service conditions, including seniority determination, through the IREC and IREM. It also affirmed the validity of the Railways' amendment to IREM rules, finding it consistent with the CAT's directive to remove arbitrariness in seniority determination. We dispose of the appeal.

Facts:

The petitioners, personnel of the Army Service Corps (ASC), challenged their posting orders to operational units/areas issued by the Respondents.

The petitioners contended that their postings violated their Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Respondents argued that the postings were within the discretion of the competent authority and were in line with organizational effectiveness and operational requirements.

Issues:

Whether the Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution are maintainable?

Whether the posting orders of the petitioners to operational areas/units are valid in view of previous judicial decisions?

Whether the postings of the petitioners violate any statutory rules, executive policies, or instructions?

Held:

The Writ Petitions were not maintainable under Article 32 as there was no violation of Fundamental Rights. The petitioners had an alternate statutory remedy available through the Armed Forces Tribunals.

The previous judicial decision, Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary's Case, regarding promotions did not apply to posting orders. Different streams of the Army, including the ASC, have distinct roles, and the ASC is considered operational. Therefore, the posting orders were valid.

The petitioners failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory rules, executive policies, or instructions regarding their postings.

The oath administered to all personnel binds them to serve wherever ordered, regardless of their arm or service.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petitions with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The appellant, R.S. Sehrawat, a Junior Engineer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), was implicated in a writ petition alleging unauthorized construction and subsequent demolition.

The High Court initiated contempt proceedings against him based on allegations of filing a false affidavit.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's finding of guilt against the appellant for filing a false affidavit was justified.

Whether the appellant was given fair opportunity and whether charges were properly framed against him.

Held:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to properly consider the appellant's defense, which was supported by contemporaneous official records.

The burden of proof in contempt proceedings is high and must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court did not meet this standard.

The Court criticized the High Court for not framing formal charges against the appellant and proceeding unjustly.

Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and orders, and dropped the show cause notices issued to the appellant.

Facts:

The petitioner sought a writ to ban the novel 'Meesha', alleging that it insulted and derogated temple-going women and had the potential to disturb public order and decency.

Issues:

Whether the novel 'Meesha' should be banned on the grounds alleged by the petitioner.

The extent to which freedom of speech and expression should be curtailed.

Held:

The court emphasized the importance of freedom of expression in literature and the dangers of stifling creativity. Literature represents the freedom to express oneself, and creativity should not be choked or smothered.

Intellectual freedom is crucial for the flourishing of literary freedom, and any obstruction to free speech and expression leads to intellectual repression.

While the freedom enjoyed by an author is not absolute, the court's duty is to ensure that any restriction imposed falls within the reasonable parameters of Article 19(2).

Readers should approach creative works with maturity and tolerance, appreciating them for their manifestation of imagination.

Courts should refrain from interfering with creative works unless they violate the law. Imposing restrictions based on subjective perceptions would amount to censorship.

Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the freedom of speech and expression and emphasizing the importance of safeguarding creativity in literature.

Facts:

The appellant, a teacher at Rani Chennamma School, Hospet, assaulted a second standard student (PW-2) with a wooden stick for not wearing uniform shoes, resulting in injury to the student's left eye.

The Trial Court initially acquitted the appellant, citing contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses and alleging that the injured child witness (PW-2) was tutored before his testimony.

The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 326 IPC, sentencing him to two years of imprisonment.

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Whether the conviction under Section 326 IPC was appropriate or if it should be modified.

Held:

The Supreme Court examined the evidence presented in the case.

Regarding the tutoring allegation of the child witness (PW-2), the Court found that being a child witness, PW-2 needed guidance to understand court proceedings and testify truthfully.

Contradictions in the testimony of eyewitnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) were deemed immaterial, especially as their evidence was supported by PW-5 and medical evidence.

The Court modified the conviction from Section 326 IPC to Section 325 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), as there was no evidence to show that the stick used by the appellant was a dangerous weapon.

The sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year, with an additional fine of Rs.50,000. In default of payment, the appellant would undergo three months of imprisonment.

The fine amount was ordered to be paid as compensation to the injured student (PW-2).

The appellant was given four weeks to surrender, failing which he would be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence. The appeal is partly allowed.