Facts:

Sukh Sagar Medical College & Hospital was granted an Essentiality Certificate in 2014 to establish a medical college.

The Conditional Letter of Permission was granted for the academic year 2016-17.

However, renewal permissions were not issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI) for three successive academic sessions due to significant deficiencies.

As a result, the Essentiality Certificate was cancelled by the State Government, which the appellant challenged.

Issues:

Whether the State Government had the power to revoke or cancel the Essentiality Certificate.

Whether the appellant misrepresented the State Government and played a constructive fraud by failing to meet the minimum benchmark of standards specified by the MCI.

Held:

The Court agreed that issuing an Essentiality Certificate is a quasi-judicial function and that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be invoked to revoke or cancel the Certificate without express provisions in the IMC Act or 1999 Regulations.

However, the State Government has the authority to revoke the Certificate in exceptional cases, such as when there is fraud, loss of substratum, or other valid grounds.

In this case, the appellant failed to fulfill its commitments and misrepresented the State Government, which amounted to constructive fraud.

The Court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the appellant's appeal and allowed the State to withdraw the Certificate.

The term "established" was discussed, and it was clarified that the appellant was not a well-established and running medical college, just at the threshold stage.

The duty of the State Government under Article 47 of the Constitution is to ensure good public health and create conditions for proper access to medical colleges and hospitals.

FACTS:

The arbitral award was made on 16.09.2009 in favor of B.B.M Enterprises for a total sum.

The respondent challenged the award through a Section 34 petition after the execution of the award was delayed.

The first round of litigation resulted in the dismissal of the Section 34 petition by the learned District Judge.

The Division Bench set aside the District Judge's judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.

In the second round of litigation, the District Judge found no valid grounds to challenge the award under Section 34.

The respondent appealed the District Judge's decision to the High Court, claiming inadequate reasoning in the judgment.

The High Court remanded the matter again and directed the District Judge to dispose of the petition within six months.

ISSUES:

Whether the High Court was correct in remanding the matter due to alleged inadequate reasoning in the District Judge's judgment.

Whether there were valid grounds to challenge the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

HELD:

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning and found that the District Judge's order contained sufficient and adequate reasons to dispose of the Section 34 petition. The High Court's order was set aside, and the District Judge's judgment was affirmed.( Para 4)

The appellant's appeal to reduce the rate of interest imposed after the expiry of four months from the date of the award was granted. The interest rate was reduced from 18% to 15% to serve the interest of justice. Additionally, the respondent was allowed three months to pay the balance amount under the award.( Para 9)

The appeals are disposed of.

REFERRED CASES:

Narayan Prasad Lohia vs. N. Kunj Kumar Lohia reported in (2002) 3 SCC 572

Union of India vs. Kalinga Construction Company, reported in AIR 1971 SC 646

Facts:

The appellant, Shree Choudhary Transport Company, had contracted with a consignor company to transport goods (cement). To fulfill this contract, the appellant engaged truck operators and paid them for their services. The Revenue disallowed the deduction of payments made to truck operators exceeding Rs. 20,000/- without TDS (tax deducted at source) under s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Authority, Appellate Tribunal, and High Court upheld the disallowance.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's case falls within the scope of s. 194C, obliging them to deduct tax at source while making payments to truck operators?

Whether disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) is limited only to outstanding amounts or also applies to amounts already incurred and paid by the assessee?

Held:

The appellant's contract with the consignor company for transporting goods necessitated a contract with the truck operators. Thus, the truck operators can be considered "sub-contractors" under s. 194(2), making s. 194C applicable to the appellant. Therefore, they were obliged to deduct tax at source.

Disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) is not limited to outstanding amounts but applies equally to amounts already incurred and paid by the assessee. The provision is intended to ensure strict compliance with TDS requirements.

The amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 made it applicable from and for the assessment year 2005-2006. The provision was not limited to the financial year 2005-2006.

The appellant's attempt to seek relief under the amendment of s. 40(a)(ia) by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 was baseless, as the amendment was specifically applicable only from the assessment year 2015-2016.

Decision: The payments made by the appellant to truck operators without deducting tax at source were rightly disallowed while computing the total income of the appellant.

Facts:

The four appellants in the case were the original applicants before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. They belonged to the Hindu Nadar community, which was included in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) in Kerala. The Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, provided 1% reservation to the Hindu Nadar Community with retrospective effect from November 21, 2009. The Kerala Public Service Commission issued a notification inviting applications for the post of Medical Officer (Homeo) on December 15, 2012. A rank list was published on August 3, 2015, where the names of the appellants appeared at Sl. Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the list of Hindu Nadar community.

Issues:

whether the vacancies arising after the provision of reservation for the Hindu Nadar community on November 21, 2009, should be filled from the succeeding rank list or not.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the circular and explanation issued by the Commission only applied to the shortfall of vacancies occurring between November 21, 2009, and the date of the amendment of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958. It did not mean that the vacancies arising after the amendment should not be filled as per the merit in the succeeding rank list. The court found that the posts available for the Hindu Nadar community after November 21, 2009, were required to be provided to them. The Commission had not considered vacancies arising after that date while making appointments from the rank list published on August 3, 2015.

The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's order and reinstating the Tribunal's order. The Kerala Public Service Commission was directed to fill up the shortfall in the vacancies reserved for the Hindu Nadar Community from the succeeding rank list issued on August 3, 2015.

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a single lady with a young boy as her tenant, attempted to entice a minor girl (the prosecutrix) into engaging in illicit intercourse with the tenant boy. The appellant allegedly pushed the prosecutrix into the room occupied by the tenant boy and locked it from outside. After five minutes, the door was unlocked with the prosecutrix's father standing outside, and the boy escaped. The matter was reported only after the appellant threatened to harm the prosecutrix's brother if anyone was informed.

Issues:

The significance of the five-day delay in registering the FIR considering the prosecutrix's father was an eyewitness to a part of the occurrence.

The credibility of the prosecution's case, given the contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, particularly between the prosecutrix (PW1) and her father (PW2).

The validity of the alternate version provided by the appellant during her examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein she claimed that there was no male tenant and that she was falsely implicated.

Held:

The Court highlighted the importance of considering the five-day delay in registering the FIR. It expressed difficulty in understanding why the prosecutrix's father would wait for a second incident before reporting the matter to the authorities. The Court emphasized that sweeping assumptions concerning delays in FIR registration for sexual offenses send problematic signals to society and may create opportunities for abuse by miscreants. It urged courts to analyze the facts and parties' behavior in each individual case before drawing conclusions about the reason and effect of delay in FIR registration.( Para 11)

The Court acknowledged that ordinarily, it should not re-appreciate evidence. However, in exceptional circumstances where the lower courts have dealt with the material-on-record in a cavalier or mechanical manner likely to cause gross injustice, re-appraisal of evidence may be justifiable. The Court observed that numerous contradictions existed between the testimonies of the two star witnesses (PW1 and PW2), which were fatal to the prosecution's case. Important links of the story were missing, such as what happened during the crucial five minutes when the girl was locked inside the room or how the male tenant reacted.( Para 16)

The Court noted that once a plausible version is put forth in defense at the Section 313 CrPC examination stage, it is for the prosecution to negate such defense plea. The appellant's alternate version that there was no male tenant at all and no one except her child and mother lived with her, and that she was falsely implicated as vengeance for filing a previous rape complaint, could not be lightly brushed aside. The trial Court's analysis of the appellant's defense ought to have been deeper before concluding it as false or untrustworthy.( Para 21)

Given the doubts surrounding the common testimony of PW1 on both charges, the Court found it unwise to rely solely on it to convict the appellant for criminal intimidation without any other corroboration. The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt under sections 366A and 506 beyond reasonable doubt.( Para 25)

Facts:

The case involves a Show Cause Notice issued to a Company and its Directors for alleged contravention of Sections 8(3) read with 8(4) and 68 of FERA, 1973. One of the Directors, the appellant in this case, claimed to be a part-time, non-executive Director and stated that he was not responsible for the conduct of the Company's business during the relevant time.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's plea in his reply was an afterthought and deserved to be considered by the authorities.

Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant-Director was justified.

Whether the appellant can be held liable for contravention of the provisions of FERA, 1973.

Held :

The High Court erred in considering the appellant's plea as an afterthought since the reply was given only by the Company Secretary, not by any of the Directors. The appellant's representation during the personal hearing required due consideration, as it did not contradict the earlier reply.( Para 16)

The affidavit of the Company Secretary, stating the appellant's role as a part-time, non-executive Director, was on record and should have been considered. The High Court wrongly ignored this material.( Para 17-20 & 22)

The penalty was imposed on the appellant without establishing that he was responsible for the contravention of Sections 8(3), 8(4), and 68 of FERA, 1973. The Appellate Tribunal's general observation that Directors are held guilty for the management of the Company is not sufficient to justify the penalty.( Para 25-26)

Section 68 of FERA, 1973 creates a legal fiction of guilt, but for proceeding against a Director, the necessary ingredient is that the Director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the Company's business during the relevant time.( Para 37-38)

In proceedings under Section 51 of FERA, 1973, the person to be proceeded with must be made aware of the allegations constituting the offence to enable them to make an effective representation.( Para 39)

An earlier order had accepted the appellant's status as a part-time, non-executive Director. The adjudicating officer's contradictory view in the present order required justification.( Para 42)

The penalty imposed on the appellant was erroneous and was wrongly affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court.( Para 43)

Facts:

The appellant was a passenger on a bus owned by the respondent-State Corporation. The bus collided with a stationary lorry, causing injuries to multiple passengers, including the appellant. The appellant suffered grievous injuries, resulting in a disability of 31.1% of the whole body. She filed a claim petition under s. 166 of the MV Act r/w. 3(1) of the Rules, 1989 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The MACT found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and quantified the compensation at Rs. 35,24,288/- along with interest at 7.5% p.a. payable by the respondent State Corporation. The High Court later reduced the compensation to Rs. 25,00,000/-, primarily disputing the application of the multiplier method for loss of earning power.

Issues:

Whether the multiplier of '17' applied by the MACT was incorrect and should have been '18' based on the appellant's age?

Whether future prospects on advancement in life and career should be considered while applying the multiplier method for compensation calculation?

What should be the appropriate interest rate for the awarded compensation?

Held:

The Court examined the application of the multiplier and held that in the age group of 15-25 years, the correct multiplier should be '18', considering the extent of disability. This was in line with the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (Para 7(a)).

The Court further observed that future prospects on advancement in life and career should be taken into consideration when applying the multiplier method. In the appellant's case, with a permanent disability of 31.1%, the quantification of loss of earning capacity should be 50% of the actual salary, based on the principles mentioned in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (Para 7(b)).

The appellant claimed an interest rate of 12%, but during the course of the hearing, the claim was limited to 9% in line with judicial pronouncements. The Court accepted the 9% interest rate for the awarded compensation (Para 7(c)).

Decision: The appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- along with simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment (Para 8).

Facts:

Various individuals working as Record Clerks and Office Assistants in Erode District sought promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff without insisting on the educational qualification of passing SSLC. They relied on a previous High Court order dated 22.07.2009 and the fact that vacancies arose before the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.

Issues:

Whether the previous High Court judgment from 2009 remains relevant after the enactment of the 2016 Act.

Whether the petitioners can claim promotion without fulfilling the prescribed essential qualification.

The impact of Section 68 of the 2016 Act on the applicability of Special Rules.

Held:

The Court noted that after the implementation of the Shetty Commission and the Tamil Nadu V Pay Commission recommendations, claiming promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff without the prescribed qualifications was not permissible (Para 13).

The petitioners could not rely on the government's failure to amend Statutory Rules or the previous High Court judgment of 2009. Changes in nomenclature and pay scales had occurred since the judgment, and these changes could not be ignored (Para 14).

The argument that vacancies arose in 2015, before the enactment of the 2016 Act, was not relevant. The 2016 Act replaces the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services but does not override Special Rules. Section 68 of the Act clarifies that Special Rules prevail if inconsistent with the Act (Para 18).

The Court pointed out that both the petitioners and the High Court overlooked Section 68. The reliance on Section 20(2) of the 2016 Act was not fully correct, as it merely explains the concept of "minimum general educational qualification" in Special Rules (Para 19).

FACTS:

The appeal arises from an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dated 7 October 2016. The Union of India, through the Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and Safdarjung Hospital challenged the order of the NCDRC. The complaint alleged medical negligence against Sarvodaya Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital.

ISSUES:

Whether Safdarjung Hospital's treatment falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Whether NCDRC has the authority to reverse the finding on maintainability.

Whether Safdarjung Hospital was negligent in its treatment of the complainant's child.

HELD:

The Court emphasized that whether a hospital's services are truly "free of charge" under the Consumer Protection Act requires a factual foundation. Safdarjung Hospital did not adequately challenge the factual basis of the finding in the lower courts regarding its liability.( Paras 9-12)

The Court questioned whether NCDRC can exercise certain powers in revisional proceedings that are normally reserved for appellate courts.( Para 13)

The Court upheld the NCDRC's judgment due to the relatively small compensation amount but clarified that the judgment should not be treated as precedent for future cases involving Safdarjung Hospital. The question of Safdarjung Hospital's "free of charge" status is left open for an appropriate case.( Para 14)

DECISION: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the NCDRC's judgment. The payment of Rs 2 lakhs in compliance with the NCDRC's order shall be made to the original complainant within two months from the date of this order.

REFERRED CASES:

Indian Medical Association vs. V P Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651.