Facts:

A contract dated 07.02.2006 included an arbitration clause referring disputes to three arbitrators.

The contract specified a fee schedule for arbitrators based on a 2004 policy circular of NHAI.

Disputes arose, and arbitration was invoked by the appellant in 2017.

The respondent referred to a 2017 NHAI circular, seeking a change in arbitrators' fees.

Issues:

Dispute over the applicable fee schedule for arbitrators.

Application under Section 14 to terminate arbitrators' mandate based on alleged disregard of the agreement.

Held:

The fee schedule in the 2017 NHAI circular would operate, and arbitrators were entitled to charge fees accordingly, not as per the Fourth Schedule to the Arbitration Act.

The application to terminate the arbitrators' mandate was disingenuous; arbitrators did not become de jure unable to perform functions for following the law laid down by the Delhi High Court.

The change in language of Section 31(8) and Section 31A dealt with costs, not arbitrators' fees. The Fourth Schedule did not directly govern contracts with a pre-agreed fee structure.

Facts:

The appellant sought promotion from Scale III to Scale IV for the year 2014-2015.

Grievance arose due to non-disclosure of entries in the APAR for 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Appellant's gradings in APARs were provided.

Reliance on previous court decisions like Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India.

Issues:

Whether the non-communication of entries in the APAR for certain years violates established legal principles?

Whether the appellant's grading in the APARs affected the promotion process?

Compliance with Promotion Policy for Officers 2006.

Held:

The Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh, emphasizing the necessity to communicate every entry in the ACR within a reasonable period.

The Union of India had issued directives for compliance with these principles, making the respondent duty-bound to follow the court's precedents.

The non-communication of entries for 2010-11 and 2011-12 constituted a legitimate grievance for the appellant.

The Court directed the respondent to communicate the uncommunicated entries, allowing the appellant to submit objections and representations.

The competent authority was instructed to consider the representation fairly and, if necessary, modify the promotion decision for the year 2014-15.

The judgment set aside the High Court's decisions, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant.

Facts:

The appellant, R. Lakshmikantham, and the respondent, Devaraji, were parties to an agreement to sell dated 22.09.2002, specifying a sale price and conditions.

Dispute arose when the respondent allegedly failed to fulfill obligations under the agreement.

The appellant sent registered letters reminding the respondent of the payment and requesting compliance.

The trial court granted specific performance, but the High Court reversed this decision, asserting that time was of essence, and the appellant was not ready and willing.

Issues:

Interpretation of clauses in the agreement related to the sale price, payment, and transfer of title documents.

Determination of whether time was of essence in the agreement.

Assessment of the appellant's readiness and willingness to perform the agreement.

Held:

The High Court's decision was set aside, and the judgments of the lower courts were restored. The Supreme Court held that:

Time was not of essence in the agreement, emphasizing the interplay of clauses 3, 5, and 8.

The registered letters sent by the appellant were deemed served on the respondent, as per legal norms.

The appellant demonstrated readiness and willingness, and the delay in filing the suit was not a valid ground for refusal.

The property value assertion by the High Court was refuted, emphasizing negotiations between the parties.

Citing Mademsetty Satyanarayana case, the Court reiterated that delay cannot be a ground for refusing specific performance if the suit is filed within the statutory limitation period.

Facts:

The case involves the bifurcation of the unified State of Madhya Pradesh into the reorganized State of Madhya Pradesh and the new State of Chhattisgarh under the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. The issue revolves around the applicability of sales tax exemptions or deferments to industrial units after the reorganization when engaging in inter-state transactions.

Issues:

The central issue pertains to whether industrial units, previously granted sales tax exemptions in the unified State of Madhya Pradesh, would continue to enjoy such benefits when conducting inter-state transactions between the reorganized State of Madhya Pradesh and the new State of Chhattisgarh.

Held:

The second part of Section 78 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act introduces a deeming fiction, indicating that the laws of the unified State of Madhya Pradesh would continue to apply to the areas forming part of the new State of Chhattisgarh and the reorganized State of Madhya Pradesh. However, this deeming fiction does not imply that the territories, post-reorganization, would remain part of the other state. It serves the limited purpose of enforcing laws as they existed in the unified State of Madhya Pradesh to the new State of Chhattisgarh.

Section 79 provides for the adaptation or modification of earlier laws in the unified State of Madhya Pradesh by the governments of the reorganized State of Madhya Pradesh and the new State of Chhattisgarh. The court emphasizes the need for interpretation in a manner facilitating the application of laws to the successor states, even if not modified within the stipulated period. Section 85 of the Reorganisation Act gives primacy to its provisions over any other law, subject to the legal and constitutional effects envisaged by the Constitution.

As per Article 286 of the Constitution (before amendment on 16th September 2016), states are not competent to enact legislation related to the taxation of inter-state sales. The expression "inter-state" trade has a specific legal connotation, referring to the movement of goods from one state to another. The judgment asserts that the creation of two separate states does not alter the legal and constitutional impact regarding the inter-state character of transactions.

Referring to an analogous case involving the Bihar Reorganisation Act, the court underscores that the legal fiction created by such acts ensures the continuity of laws in the new state without implying that the new state lacked political or constitutional existence. The judgment overrules previous observations, emphasizing the need to give full legal effect to the creation of a new political state.

Facts:

Dispute over the termination of the Head Mistress's services after a disciplinary enquiry.

Charge sheet issued on 15 January 1998 with 53 charges, including misappropriation.

Enquiry Committee formed under Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

Combined report submitted on 29 June 1998, with one member expressing a dissenting view.

Employee's services terminated on 3 July 1998.

Issues:

High Court set aside the termination, citing a breach of Rule 37(6) due to lack of evidence of Committee members' assembly and deliberation.

Employee had already retired and later died on 26 September 2013.

High Court directed the management to pay 50% of arrears of salary from 3 July 1998 until August 2009, but family pension was denied.

Held:

The Supreme Court examined the records and found that the requirements of Rule 37(6) were fulfilled. The Court set aside the High Court's decision, concluding that the basis for allowing the writ petition was misconceived. The Court closed the proceedings since the employee had passed away, and the legal representatives were pursuing the case. The appellants agreed to make an ex gratia payment of Rupees one lakh fifty thousand to the respondents in full and final settlement. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.

Facts:

The case involves the construction of a multi-storey building by respondent Nos.4 and 5 after the demolition of an old structure, with approval from the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC). The construction was halted by NDMC, directing the builders to obtain permission from ASI due to the proximity of the plot to the ancient monument Jantar Mantar. Legal proceedings ensued, including a suit against NDMC and a writ petition for the protection of Jantar Mantar.

Issues:

The alleged violation of the Supreme Court judgment dated 16.1.2012 by the Director General of ASI and others. The subsequent events, including the granting and revocation of renovation permissions, are central to determining compliance with the court's orders.

Held:

On the date of the Supreme Court judgment (16.1.2012), the builders had completed the ground floor plus four upper floors, with finishing work pending. The court had not provided specific directions regarding the existing structure's status.(Para 17)

A later inspection revealed no vertical or horizontal expansion of the building compared to 2003. The building was found habitable in 2018, contrasting with its non-habitability in 2003. NDMC took actions like cancellation of sanction plans and issuance of a show cause notice.(Para 17)

ASI initially granted permission for renovation, subsequently revoked, and later revived it. However, these permissions were for finishing work without structural expansion. (Para 18)

The court refrains from directing the demolition of the existing structure in these proceedings, emphasizing that the pending matters before the High Court must address issues related to permissions, their revocation, and the status of construction.(Para 19)

Decision: The contempt petition is closed as the court found no violation of its orders by the authorities. The court emphasized that the issues related to permissions and the status of construction should be considered in the pending matters before the High Court.

Facts:

The appellant, P. Ramesh, was convicted for the murder of his wife and an offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial, the prosecution sought to adduce the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, the minor children of the appellant and the deceased. However, the trial judge, based on the children's inability to identify the judge and lawyers, concluded that their testimony was unacceptable, leading to the appellant's conviction. The High Court, finding the trial judge's reasoning erroneous, remanded the case to assess the capacity of the child witnesses.

Issues:

Competency of child witnesses in criminal proceedings.

Appropriate judicial response to the trial judge's erroneous reasoning.

Held:

The High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, exercised its powers under Section 386 of the CrPC to remand the case. The competency of child witnesses must be objectively assessed, and their evidence recorded in a child-friendly environment. The appellant has the right to cross-examine the witnesses. The decision to remand was justified, considering the erroneous approach of the trial judge, and the interests of justice. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal.

Facts:

The lease between Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited and Ajit Nain (Respondent) expired on May 31, 2014.

A meeting on May 20, 2014, discussed the lease renewal, but terms proposed by Bengal Chemicals were not agreed upon.

A letter on May 30, 2014, proposed new terms for renewal, including increased rent.

Respondent did not agree to the terms and has not paid rent since June 1, 2014, except for a deposit made in compliance with a court order.

Estate Officer issued a notice on May 23, 2018, under the Public Premises Act.

High Court quashed the Estate Officer's order, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

Issues:

Validity of the proposed lease renewal terms.

Non-payment of rent by the respondent.

Legality of the Estate Officer's order and subsequent High Court decision.

Held:

The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, directing the respondent to pay damages for use and occupation. Respondent is ordered to pay Rs. 2,50,000 per month as damages from June 2014 to May 2018 and Rs. 3,00,000 per month from June 2018 until the matter is disposed of afresh by the Estate Officer. Arrears are to be paid in three equal installments. The Estate Officer will determine the appropriate quantum of damages. Appellant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, and water supply is to be restored on the deposit of the first installment. Failure to deposit any installment may result in forfeiture of the right of defense, leading to an eviction order.