Facts:

The appellant was driving a car involved in a road accident, resulting in severe injuries and the death of a Cabinet Minister.

The appellant suffered permanent disabilities, including hemiplegia.

The appellant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

Issues:

Determination of compensation for the appellant's injuries and disabilities.

Liability of the insurance company in light of the drivers not having valid licenses.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and subsequently enhanced by the High Court was insufficient considering the severe disabilities suffered by the appellant. The Court increased the compensation to:

Loss of future earnings: Rs. 32,40,000/-

Hospitalization and medical expenses: Rs. 7,50,000/-

Future medical expenses and attendant charges: Rs. 10,00,000/-

The total compensation awarded was Rs. 50,90,000/-. The insurance company was directed to pay this amount within 12 weeks, with the right to recover it from the owners/drivers of the offending trucks.

Facts:

The appellant, Pradeep Ram, was subject to a legal proceeding where further cognizable and non-bailable offenses were added. The investigating agency sought the arrest of the accused after the addition of these offenses. The accused was already on bail in connection with another case.

Issues:

The permissibility of arresting an accused who is on bail after the addition of graver and non-cognizable offenses.

The appropriate sections under which an accused can be remanded during and after the investigation.

The re-registration of an FIR after the addition of offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The legitimacy of further investigation by the National Investigation Agency.

Held:

The court clarified that under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., the arrest of an accused already on bail is permissible after the addition of serious offenses. The court has the discretion to order arrest without canceling the earlier bail, and the addition of serious offenses is a valid circumstance for such action.( Paragraph 21)

The judgment emphasizes that the re-registration of the FIR after the addition of offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is not considered a second FIR, especially when these offenses were not part of the initial charges.( Paragraph 42)

The court supports the permissibility of further investigation by the National Investigation Agency, stating that such investigation is valid when offenses under the 1967 Act were not added during the framing of charges in the previous FIR.( Paragraph 44)

The court distinguishes between the remand of an accused during investigation (Section 167(2)) and after cognizance has been taken (Section 309(2)), clarifying that in the present case, remand could only have been under Section 309(2).( Paragraph 63)

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the validity of the arrest, re-registration of FIR, and NIA's jurisdiction for further investigation.

Facts:

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 issued notice inviting tenders for two works at Kochi.

The petitioner, "The Silppi Constructions Contractors," submitted its bid, which was later rejected based on technical grounds.

The petitioner appealed, and when rejected again, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the rejection.

Issues:

Rejection of the technical bid without sufficient reasons.

Validity of adverse remarks against the sister company affecting the petitioner's bid.

Eligibility criteria for tendering, especially related to Class 'SS' MES Contractors.

Held:

The Court emphasized that in administrative decisions regarding tendering, detailed reasons are not mandatory. Giving reasons at every stage would impede the State's commercial activities.( Paragraph 25)

The Court recognized that an award in favor of the sister company in another contract holds weight, and such findings cannot be used against the petitioner.( Paragraph 29)

Adverse remarks against the sister company, unchallenged and accepted, could be considered against the petitioner.( Paragraph 30)

The Court clarified that only companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, are eligible for enlistment in 'SS' Class Contractors.( Paragraph 32)

The petitions were dismissed as the petitioner failed to meet eligibility criteria and other contractual obligations.( Paragraph 34)

Facts:

The petitioner sought an extension of approval and an increase in seats from the AICTE.

While approval for existing seats was granted, the request for increased seats was rejected by the AICTE.

Despite lacking permission for additional seats, the petitioner admitted students beyond the sanctioned number.

The AICTE imposed a penalty of Rs. 23,10,00,000/- for the excess admissions.

Issues:

The petitioner challenged the rejection of the request for increased seats and the imposition of the penalty.

The AICTE contended that the excess admissions violated regulations.

Held:

The Court acknowledged that the AICTE's decision might be disputable, but the petitioner had no right to admit students beyond the sanctioned number without legal recourse.

The penalty of Rs. 23,10,00,000/- was deemed appropriate under Clause 3.1 of Chapter IV of the Approval Process Handbook.

The deposited amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- was to be adjusted towards the penalty, and the petitioner was directed to pay the remaining Rs. 19,10,00,000/- within 8 weeks.

The Court emphasized that students who had paid large sums should not suffer and directed the awarding of degrees to them.

Facts:

The petitioners, representing a society of educational institutions, sought an extension of time for counseling for postgraduate medical courses. The request was based on the existence of a significant number of vacant seats in various colleges and universities.

Issues:

Whether a general extension of time for counseling should be granted based on the existence of vacant seats without any specific difficulties faced by individual institutions.

Held:

The court highlighted that the petitioners sought a general extension without demonstrating any particular difficulty faced by individual institutions. It noted that the majority of vacant seats were in non-clinical subjects, and the absence of specific details regarding the remaining seats was a crucial factor.( Paragraph 6)

The court acknowledged the prescribed schedule, which included three rounds of counseling. It stated that if seats remained vacant after the mop-up round, it could not be helped. The refusal to grant an extension was based on the principle that mere vacancy was not a sufficient justification.( Paragraph 7)

The court found no merit in the petition and, consequently, dismissed it. The decision was based on the importance of adhering to the schedule and the lack of substantial justification for granting an extension.( Paragraph 8)

Facts:

The victim and her sister were married to two brothers.

The victim died of burn injuries after 3 years of marriage.

Allegations of dowry harassment and demand for money were raised by the complainant (victim's father).

The trial court convicted the respondents, but the High Court acquitted them based on weak evidence.

Issues:

Proximity between the demand for dowry and the act of cruelty or harassment leading to the victim's death.

Reliability of evidence presented by the prosecution.

Held:

The High Court found discrepancies in the complainant's evidence, considering it hearsay.

Lack of direct evidence and weak evidence overall.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a proximate connection between dowry demand-related cruelty and the victim's death.

Section 304B requires proving harassment or cruelty related to dowry soon before death.

The appeal was dismissed.

FACTS:

Shri Amardeo Tiwari, a government servant, retired on 30.6.1995.

Writ petition filed by respondent no.1 for post-retiral benefits.

High Court's order on 21.9.2004 directed authorities to redress grievances.

Provisional pension and gratuity sanctioned based on Junior Engineer position.

Contempt application filed by respondent no.1 alleging non-compliance.

ISSUES:

Compliance with the High Court's order on post-retiral benefits.

Basis for calculating provisional pension and gratuity.

Alleged violation leading to contempt proceedings.

HELD:

The appellants argued modification of the original order, citing Rule 58(a) of the Bihar Service Code. The court disagreed, stating that the High Court enforced its earlier order, directing finalization of dues based on Assistant Engineer salary. The court found no grounds to interfere, dismissing the appeal.

FACTS:

On October 1, 2018, the Central Government filed a petition under Sections 241 and 242 before the Tribunal, alleging mismanagement by the Board of IL&FS.

Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and Registrar of the Companies conducted investigations, revealing mismanagement, financial irregularities, and fraudulent accounting practices.

The Tribunal suspended the IL&FS Board and appointed a new Board to oversee operations.

The Central Government subsequently filed a petition under Section 130 of the Companies Act, seeking to reopen and recast the financial statements of IL&FS and its group companies.

ISSUES:

Whether the conditions precedent for invoking Section 130 were satisfied.

The interplay between Section 130, Sections 241/242, and Sections 211/212 of the Companies Act.

Compliance with the proviso to Section 130 concerning notice and representation.

HELD:

The Tribunal, satisfied with mismanagement and fraudulent accounting findings by SFIO and ICAI, passed the order under Section 130. The word "or" in the section allows action if either condition precedent is met. Considering the larger public interest and substantial public funds, the Tribunal's decision was deemed justified.( Para 10-11)

Observations made under Sections 241/242 are relevant for Section 130. The Tribunal's order highlighted mismanagement and fraudulent accounts, supporting the invocation of Section 130.( Para 12)

Compliance with the proviso to Section 130 necessitates notice to relevant authorities and consideration of representations. In this case, the suspended directors' opposition did not violate principles of natural justice.( Para 13)

The order suspending directors on October 1, 2018, remains unchallenged and operational, reinforcing the validity of subsequent actions.( Para 15)

Considering a subsequent RBI report and the ongoing public interest, the Tribunal's order under Section 130 stands justified, meeting the conditions precedent and ensuring financial transparency.( Para 18)

Final Result : Dismissed

REFERRED CASES:

Calcutta Discount Company Vs. Income Tax Officer, (1961) AIR(SC) 372

Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board Vs. K. Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614

Mannalal Khetan Vs. Kedar Nath Khetan, (1977) 2 SCC 424

Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC 405

Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 664

T.P. Senkumar Vs. Union of India, (2017) 6 SCC 801

Facts:

Criminal complaints were filed against the appellants for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted the appellants, sentencing them to imprisonment and a fine. The appellants, dissatisfied with the order, appealed, seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail.

Issues:

The applicability of the amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, introduced by Amendment Act No. 20/2018, to appeals filed against convictions initiated prior to the amendment.

Held:

The Court held that the amended Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is applicable to appeals against convictions under Section 138, even in cases where complaints were filed before the amendment. The Court interpreted "may" as "shall" when directing the appellant to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. The Court noted the need to prevent delay tactics in cheque dishonour cases and emphasized the procedural nature of the amendment.