Facts:

Mangla Ram, the claimant, was involved in a road accident where he was driving a motorcycle and was hit by a jeep driven by respondent No. 2. This resulted in severe injuries to the claimant, including the amputation of his right leg above the knee.

Issues:

The determination of negligence, the quantum of compensation, and the liability of the insurance company.

Held:

The Tribunal, despite not fully accepting the testimony of certain witnesses, concluded that the accident was caused by the jeep driven by respondent No. 2. The High Court erred in disregarding this finding and failing to consider the evidence supporting the claimant's version of events (Para 14, 20, 21).

The High Court's assumption that the claimant was driving on the wrong side of the road based on the spot where the motorcycle was found after the accident was flawed. There was no evidence to support contributory negligence on the part of the claimant (Para 23, 24).

The claimant, due to the amputation of his right leg, was entitled to enhanced compensation, including future medical expenses for a prosthetic leg. The Tribunal's failure to consider this aspect warranted an adjustment in the compensation amount (Para 25).

Despite the absence of a valid insurance policy for the offending jeep, the principle of "pay and recover" was invoked to ensure the claimant received compensation, considering the cover note obtained from the insurance company's former development officer (Para 26).

Facts:

The case involves land initially held by Krishna Pada Supai (KPS) and later transferred to Jitendra Lal Paul and Golap Bala Saha Mondal in 1962. Legal proceedings ensued regarding the vesting of this land and subsequent actions under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The matter went through various legal actions, including challenges in the High Court and Tribunal.

Issues:

The validity of proceedings initiated under Section 44(2a) of the Acquisition Act.

Ownership and rights over the land in question.

Compliance with principles of natural justice in legal proceedings.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, dismissing the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice and due process in legal proceedings, ensuring all affected parties have the opportunity to be heard. The dismissal of the appeal meant that the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for further proceedings, including giving respondents No. 1 and 2 an opportunity to be heard.

The court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the High Court's decision, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Facts:

Nayabha Mapbha Ker died in a motor accident on July 18, 1993.

The accident occurred when Nayabha was traveling in a jeep, and it was hit by a truck driven by the respondent.

Nayabha's heirs filed a claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jamnagar.

The MACT awarded compensation, which was appealed to the High Court of Gujarat.

The High Court allowed additional compensation but reduced the interest rate awarded by the MACT.

The appellants challenged the High Court's judgment before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the High Court properly considered future prospects in calculating compensation.

Whether the reduction of the interest rate by the High Court was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to adequately consider future prospects in calculating compensation, as established by the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi. It adjusted the calculation accordingly, increasing the compensation to Rs. 12,67,000, inclusive of conventional heads.

The Court upheld the High Court's decision to reduce the interest rate from 12% to 9% per annum.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 12,67,000, with interest payable at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. No order regarding costs was made.

Facts:

The appellant initiated a process for the procurement of power from Grid Connected Solar Energy.

The respondent was selected for the project but faced difficulties in land procurement, leading to a request for a change in location, which was granted by the appellant.

The appellant terminated the contract due to delays in project completion, imposing a penalty on the respondent.

The High Court set aside the termination but maintained the invocation of the bank guarantee.

Issues:

Whether the termination of the contract by the appellant was justified due to delays in project completion.

Whether the invocation of the bank guarantee was in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that while the contract allowed for the imposition of a penalty for delays, the termination of the contract by the appellant was deemed arbitrary and was rightly set aside by the High Court.

The Court upheld the invocation of the bank guarantee as per the terms of the contract. The appellant was directed to pay the amount covered by the bank guarantee, which they complied with during the legal proceedings.

The respondent was ordered to pay the penalty amount imposed by the appellant within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Facts:

Maya Devi filed an application against Nonihal Singh under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, citing default in rent payment.

Rent Tribunal and Rent Appellate Tribunal ruled in Maya Devi's favor.

Nonihal Singh challenged these rulings via a writ petition in the High Court.

High Court permitted Nonihal Singh to continue occupying the premises until April 30, 2019, subject to certain conditions, including depositing arrears of rent and mesne profits.

Nonihal Singh failed to deposit the arrears within the specified time.

Nonihal Singh later deposited the arrears and mesne profits, albeit belatedly.

High Court rejected Nonihal Singh's applications for extension of time and condonation of delay without considering these deposits.

Nonihal Singh appealed against these orders to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in rejecting Nonihal Singh's applications for extension of time and condonation of delay.

Whether the subsequent deposits made by Nonihal Singh should have been considered by the High Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's orders rejecting Nonihal Singh's applications were erroneous.

The Court found that Nonihal Singh had indeed deposited the arrears and mesne profits as per the High Court's order, albeit belatedly. The Court observed that the High Court should have considered these deposits before rejecting the applications.

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and directed Nonihal Singh to be put back in possession of the premises within a week. Nonihal Singh was instructed to continue depositing mesne profits as per the High Court's order, with Maya Devi having the option to take appropriate action in case of default.

Facts:

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking investigation into known and reported cases of adulteration by independent agencies and the direct transfer of cash subsidy for kerosene oil to beneficiaries' bank accounts. The petition contained specific allegations against an individual, Devender Agrawal, regarding the ownership of multiple petroleum product dealerships.

Issues:

Whether an investigation by independent agencies into reported cases of adulteration is warranted.

Whether the direct transfer of cash subsidy for kerosene oil to beneficiaries is feasible.

Whether the allegations against Devender Agrawal regarding ownership of multiple dealerships merit investigation.

Held:

The court found that determining whether an individual owns multiple dealerships in violation of regulations falls under the purview of oil companies. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the claims and left them to be determined in accordance with the law.

Regarding the adulteration issue, the court noted steps taken by public sector oil companies to ensure the quality and quantity of petroleum products. However, the court did not express any opinion on the merits of the claims and left them to be determined in accordance with the law.

The court disposed of the petition without further investigation.

Facts:

The State of Maharashtra had issued a notification on 10.01.2018, prescribing eligibility criteria for admission to Postgraduate Medical/Dental Courses in unaided Private Educational Institutions in the State.

Respondents filed a writ petition challenging one of the conditions in the eligibility criteria, which required the candidate to be a domicile of Maharashtra.

Similar conditions imposed by the State Government for the academic year 2017-18 had been stayed by the High Court in a previous case.

Issues:

Whether the condition requiring candidates who had obtained a graduate degree to also be domiciled in the State of Maharashtra was permissible under the law.

Held:

The High Court accepted the challenge to the condition, ruling that it was impermissible to require candidates with a graduate degree to be domiciled in the State of Maharashtra. This decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, including the cases of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) and Vishal Goyal v. State of Karnataka (2014).

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, noting its recent judgment in a similar matter involving the State of Karnataka.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) conducted a selection process for filling up government posts in Karnataka.

Allegations of malpractices and irregularities, including bribery demands from candidates, surfaced during the selection process.

The State Government intervened and annulled the evaluation of both the written examination and personality tests.

Legal challenges ensued, with successful candidates initially obtaining a favorable decision from the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which was subsequently overturned by the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the annulment of the selection process by the State Government was justified.

Whether the High Court's decision to set aside the Tribunal's order was appropriate.

Whether the selection process was tainted by irregularities, warranting its annulment.

Held:

The annulment of the selection process by the State Government was justified to maintain the integrity of the selection process.

The High Court's decision to set aside the Tribunal's order was appropriate, considering the evidence of irregularities and the importance of maintaining the rule of law in government appointments.

The selection process was tainted by various irregularities, including uniformity in marks awarded during interviews and evidence of pre-determined outcomes.

The Supreme Court allowed for the possibility of re-evaluating the written examination if parties raised the issue before the High Court within two weeks. The High Court was given discretion to decide on the validity of the written examination and subsequent selection process.

Facts:

The petitioners, who completed their MBBS/BDS degrees in Karnataka and cleared the NEET-PG 2018 examination with high merit, challenged Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin issued by the Karnataka authorities, which imposed domicile requirements for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental Courses in the state.

Issues:

The validity of Clause 4.1 under Article 14 of the Constitution and its conformity with the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin was invalid to the extent that it disqualified candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS degrees in Karnataka from competing for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental Courses. This decision was based on the precedent set in the case of Vishal Goyal v. State of Karnataka, where a similar clause was declared unconstitutional.

The Court emphasized that admission to post-graduate courses should be based on merit alone, without any consideration of domicile or institutional preference. The State of Karnataka and the concerned authorities were directed to modify the Information Bulletin accordingly and complete the admission process within the stipulated timeline.