Facts:

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract and alternative relief of refund of advance amount and permanent injunction against the defendants.

The suit involved unregistered agreements to sell and a registered Power of Attorney.

The Trial Court had admitted the documents as evidence, subject to proof and relevancy, while leaving open other issues regarding their validity and applicability.

The High Court reversed the Trial Court's decision, declaring the agreements inadmissible as evidence.

Issues:

Whether the suit agreement, which was unregistered, could be admissible as evidence for specific performance.

Other issues included the admissibility of the Power of Attorney and whether the documents were hit by the provisions of relevant Acts.

Held:

The Court held that the unregistered suit agreement could be admitted as evidence under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, but it would have no effect for the purposes of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to admit the documents as evidence, subject to proof and relevancy, and directed the Trial Court to decide other issues concerning their validity and applicability.

The Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Facts:

The N.C. Medical College and Hospital faced repeated deficiencies in infrastructure, teaching faculty, and other facilities as assessed by the Medical Council of India (MCI). Despite recommendations and disapprovals by the MCI and the Central Government, the college was permitted to admit students for the academic year 2016-17. Subsequent assessments continued to find deficiencies, leading to the college's debarment from admitting students for two academic sessions.

Issues:

The correctness of the High Court's interim order allowing the medical college to proceed with admissions for the academic session 2018-19.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court was not justified in passing interim directions. It emphasized the need for caution in granting such relief, considering the potential adverse consequences, including the jeopardy faced by admitted students if deficiencies were found later. The Court referred to previous cases where similar interim orders were questioned, highlighting the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting the interests of students.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. It clarified that it did not address the factual controversy of the case, leaving it to be considered purely on its merits in the pending writ petition.

Facts:

The Medical Council of India (MCI) recommended against renewing permission for a medical college due to deficiencies found during inspections.

The Central Government initially granted renewal for the second batch but declined renewal for the third batch after further inspections revealed persistent deficiencies.

The medical college filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan, which, in an interim order, directed the Central Government to allow the college to admit students for the third batch pending the final hearing.

Issues:

Whether the interim order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan was justified.

Whether the matter should be heard and decided finally rather than through interim directions.

Held:

Based on the reasoning provided in various precedent cases cited in the judgment, the Supreme Court found no justification for the interim direction given by the High Court. The Court emphasized that such interim orders could cause prejudice to students and that the matter should be heard and decided finally rather than through interim directions.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim order of the High Court. The Court stressed that the pending matter should be considered purely on its merits during the next hearing before the High Court.

Facts:

The disputed land was proposed for acquisition for construction purposes by the Divisional Controller, MSRTC Corporation, Amravati in 1985.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award regarding compensation payable to the appellant.

The appellant received notice of the award but did not receive the certified copy until later.

The appellant filed a reference against the awarded compensation for enhancement under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

The Reference Court partly allowed the reference, and both parties filed cross-appeals before the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the reference for enhancement of compensation was filed within the limitation period as per the Land Acquisition Act.

Held:

The Court held that the notice of the award, dated December 4, 1987, was not accompanied by the award itself, which affected the appellant's ability to effectively exercise the right to seek reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the reference for enhancement was not barred by limitation. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order on the limitation issue and remanded the matters back for fresh consideration on the merits of the case, particularly the quantum of compensation.

Additionally, the Supreme Court urged the High Court to expedite the disposal of the matter due to its long pendency.

Facts:

The respondent, Janakdhari Prasad, was elected to the post of member in the Panchayat Samiti.

The Election Commission disqualified the respondent on the grounds that he was deemed to be in the service of the State Government due to his appointment as an Assistant Government Advocate and receiving fees for cases conducted by him from the Government.

The High Court set aside the Election Commission's order, and the Division Bench upheld the same.

Issues:

Whether the respondent can be considered to be in the service of the State Government, thereby being disqualified under Section 139(1)(c) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

Held:

In Section 139(1)(c) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, there is a postulate that a person shall be disqualified if such a person is in the service of Central or State Government or any local authority.

The respondent was treated as disqualified based on the foundation that he was in the service of the Government. However, the appointment letter issued by the Government of Bihar, Legal Department, to the District Magistrate, only mentioned the appointment of the respondent to the post of Assistant Government Advocate without specifying any fixed remuneration.

The legislature has not used the term "office of profit" in the relevant provision. Therefore, the determination of whether the respondent held an office of profit is not necessary. The absence of such a provision possibly includes persons from different fields as long as they are not in service under the government.

The existence of a master-servant relationship between the State and a person holding a post under it is crucial. However, in this case, there was no master-servant relationship between the respondent and the State Government.

The absence of essential aspects required to establish a relationship of master and servant indicates that the respondent could not have been treated to be in service under the State Government.

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, ruling that the respondent was not in service under the State Government and therefore not disqualified from holding the position in the Panchayat Samiti.

Facts:

Adesh Kaur, the appellant, acquired 903 equity shares in Eicher Motors Limited in 1994-95.

In 2012, an impersonator fraudulently changed the address of the shares to Mumbai, obtained duplicate share certificates, and transferred them to a third party.

Adesh Kaur discovered the fraud and sought revalidation of her shares, but Eicher Motors Limited did not provide relief.

Adesh Kaur filed a Company Petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which ruled in her favor, directing rectification of the share register.

On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the NCLT's decision, directing Adesh Kaur to pursue her remedy through a civil suit.

Issues:

Whether the procedural irregularities in issuing duplicate share certificates and the fraudulent transfer of shares warrant rectification of the share register.

Held:

The Court reinstated the order of the NCLT, finding the fraud evident and the procedural requirements for issuing duplicate shares not followed. The Court directed Eicher Motors Limited to rectify its share register and the concerned depository to rectify demat records accordingly. The Court allowed the appeals and disposed of any pending applications.

Facts:

The case revolved around the withdrawal of an Essentiality Certificate granted by the State Government to a medical college.

Issues:

Whether the State Government had the authority to withdraw an Essentiality Certificate once granted.

The relevance of reasons provided by the State for withdrawing the certificate.

The power of inspection post-establishment of the college.

The nature of the Essentiality Certificate issuance as a quasi-judicial function.

Held:

The Court held that the State Government cannot withdraw an Essentiality Certificate once granted by the Central Government, except in cases of fraud or if the basis for the certificate ceases to exist.

Reasons for withdrawal must be relevant to the establishment of the medical college, not merely deficiencies in its functioning.

The power of inspection post-establishment lies with the Medical Council of India.

Issuing an Essentiality Certificate is a quasi-judicial function, and it's not an "order" under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.

Decision: The Court quashed the State Government's order withdrawing the Essentiality Certificate and declared certain conditions imposed by the State ultra-vires the provisions of the IMC Act and Regulations.

Facts:

The accident occurred during blasting operations conducted in a field for digging a well using a tractor. A stone fell on a person, leading to his death. The tribunal treated the accident as a vehicular accident and entertained the claim. The High Court, however, ruled that the claim petition was not maintainable since the battery, detached from the vehicle during the accident, was not part of the vehicle.

Issues:

The court was the maintainability of the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in light of the circumstances surrounding the accident.

Held:

The tribunal correctly treated the accident as a vehicular accident based on the evidence presented. Contrary to the High Court's ruling, the tractor was actively involved in the blasting operation, and the battery, though detached, was still part of the vehicle during the accident.

Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that a claim for compensation can be adjudicated if the accident arises out of the use of a motor vehicle. The tractor, being involved in blasting operations, fulfilled the criteria of "use" under the Act.

The term "use of the vehicle" under the Act extends to situations where the vehicle is stationary or static, provided there is a causal relationship between the violation and the accident caused. The court emphasized the need for some causal relation or relevance between the incident and the act.

Given the circumstances, it was erroneous to argue that the tractor was not in use as stipulated under Section 165. Therefore, the High Court erred in its decision.

The insurer argued that the tractor's commercial use for blasting operations breached the insurance policy, relieving them of liability. However, the High Court failed to analyze the terms and conditions of the policy and related evidence.

Reiterating the tractor's agricultural insurance coverage, the court noted that the High Court did not adequately address the policy's terms and conditions, necessitating further analysis to determine liability.

Decision: The appeals were partly allowed, and the case was remanded to the High Court to determine liability based on a thorough analysis of the insurance policy and relevant evidence. Until then, the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation determined by the tribunal to the claimants.

Facts:

The deceased, aged 39 and employed with the Food Corporation of India, died in a road accident involving a Canter truck.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation based on the deceased's gross monthly salary and disregarded his income tax returns showing a higher income.

The High Court considered the income tax assessment and increased the compensation.

Issues:

Whether the income tax returns should be considered in determining the compensation for the deceased's family in a fatal accident case.

Held:

The Court held that both the salary certificate and the income tax returns should be considered in determining the compensation for the deceased's family. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's approach of solely relying on the salary certificate and upheld the High Court's decision to consider the income tax assessment. It was stated that the claimants provided reliable evidence of the deceased's income tax returns, which was not discredited. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment, and the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed.