Facts:

Multiple rounds of litigations between the parties involving several suits.

Settlement agreement in Suit No. III 509 of 2001 between Ruias and MGG.

MHL filed Suit No. IV-2410 of 2008 challenging the settlement and claiming ownership of shares.

Appellants raised a preliminary issue of limitation under Section 9A CPC.

Dispute reached the Supreme Court in Nugen Machineries Limited vs. Minal A. Goswami & Anr.

Issues:

Whether Suit No. IV-2410 of 2008 filed by MHL is barred by limitation?

Effect of the settlement agreement between Ruias and MGG on the ownership of shares.

Held:

The judgment emphasized the repeal of Section 9A CPC (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1977, and the subsequent interpretations in Nusli Veville Wadia vs. Ivory Properties & Ors. (2019) 13 SCALE 620. The court held that the question of limitation should be considered along with other issues in Suit No. IV-2410 of 2008, and the trial should proceed independently on its merits. The orders of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench on the limitation issue were set aside.

Facts:

The appellant was appointed on an ad-hoc basis as a Junior Engineer in 1987. The appointment was made after a selection process and without the concurrence of the U.P. Public Service Commission. The appellant possessed the required degree, and despite various representations seeking promotion, the promotion was denied. The issue revolved around the relaxation of the service condition and the appellant's entitlement to promotion.

Issues:

Validity of the appellant's appointment without the concurrence of the U.P. Public Service Commission.

Entitlement of the appellant to promotion based on the relaxation of the service condition and possession of the required degree.

Held:

The Court held that the appellant's appointment, while irregular, was not illegal. It emphasized the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments. The irregularity did not bar the appellant from being considered for promotion. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment, stating that continuous officiation after appointment must be considered for determining seniority. The relaxation provided in the office memorandum dated 11.03.1994 was crucial, and the appellant was entitled to promotion immediately after its issuance. The Court declared the appellant's entitlement to promotion from the date his junior with the required degree was promoted.

Provides the final order allowing the appeal and quashing the previous orders.

Facts:

Appellants were appointed on an ad-hoc basis in the Ambedkar Nagar Judgeship.

Initial appointment for a period of three months extended from time to time.

Advertisement for direct recruitment in 2001 led to writ petitions and a subsequent selection process.

Selection process canceled, appellants continued in service on an ad-hoc basis.

Committee recommended regularization in 2012, and the District Judge regularized appellants' services.

Successor District Judge annulled regularization orders in 2014, leading to termination in 2017.

Issues:

Validity of the regularization of ad-hoc appointments.

Cancellation of regularization orders by the successor District Judge.

Violation of principles of natural justice.

Applicability of amended Rules in 2016 with a cut-off date of 31.12.2001.

Held:

The appellants are entitled to regularization under the exception carved out in the Umadevi case.

The cancellation of regularization orders without giving an opportunity of being heard violates principles of natural justice.

The amended Rules in 2016 with a cut-off date of 31.12.2001 should have been considered by the High Court.

The appellants are entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service, but not entitled to back wages.

Facts:

There were 72,825 vacancies for the post of Assistant teachers.

43,077 were appointed, and 15,058 were undergoing training.

In pursuance of interim orders, a total of 66,655 teachers were appointed.

Contempt Petitions filed in 2018 alleged non-compliance with State representations.

Issues:

Discrepancy in the State Government's calculation of 66,655 appointments.

Alleged violation of Supreme Court orders in not appointing Contempt Petitioners.

Incorrect representation by the State regarding qualified persons' appointments.

Held:

The exercise of selecting eligible candidates resulted in 12,091 individuals, subject to verification.

The list of these 12,091 candidates, including Contempt Petitioners, was published.

Out of 12,091 candidates, only 391 were appointed due to various reasons, as detailed in the Affidavit dated 01.10.2016.

The State published additional advertisements to consider any candidates left out.

The reasons for not appointing all 12,091 candidates were on record from October 2016 onwards.

No grievance was raised until the matter was disposed of in July 2017, granting permanency to those appointed.

The grievances were raised almost a year after filing the contempt petitions.

The court observed that the challenge was raised more than a year after the final Judgment.

The State Government clarified that no fresh appointments were made after 2016, and all appointments adhered to the court's orders.

Decision: The Contempt Petitions were directed to be closed, as the court found nothing wrong in the process undertaken by the State Government in compliance with various interim orders passed by the Supreme Court.

Facts:

Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a pharmaceutical supplier, participated in a tender process initiated by the State of U.P. to supply pharmaceutical products to various hospitals. Despite winning the bid, the State, on the basis of a criminal case against the former director, Mr. Surender Chaudhary, issued an order directing a halt to local purchases from Daffodills.

Issues:

Legality of the State's decision to stop local purchases from Daffodills.

Violation of principles of natural justice in not providing Daffodills with an opportunity to be heard before the decision.

Held:

The court identified the impugned order as a debarring and preventing directive against Daffodills for an indefinite duration, surpassing the typical finite lifespan of blacklisting orders.( Paragraph 13)

Citing precedents, the Court emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing before proposing drastic adverse actions like debarring or blacklisting.( Paragraph 14)

The Court criticized the State's assumption of complicity by Daffodills and stressed that unilateral action without giving an opportunity of hearing was a violation of principles of natural justice.( Paragraph 15)

The Court acknowledged the limited scope of judicial review in public contract matters but highlighted the flagrant violation of natural justice by the state's action.( Paragraph 16)

Considering the time elapsed since the impugned order, the Court quashed the directive and set aside the High Court's judgment in the overall interest of justice.( Paragraph 17)

Facts:

The Respondent, a Grade II Police Constable, tendered her resignation on 1 June 2017, accepted on 12 June 2017.

The Respondent attempted to withdraw the resignation on 13 July 2017.

The Director General of Police rejected the withdrawal, relying on Rule 35A of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services.

High Court allowed a writ appeal, setting aside the dismissal of the writ petition, directing the State to reinstate the Respondent with continuity.

Issues:

Validity of the acceptance of resignation.

Interpretation of Rule 35A regarding the withdrawal of resignation after acceptance.

Applicability of the provisions of Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.

Held:

Rule 35A clearly outlines that resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance. Once accepted, withdrawal is not permitted. The appointing authority can accept the resignation from a date before the expiry of the notice period.( Para 8)

The acceptance of the resignation on 12 June 2017 was valid. The withdrawal attempt on 13 July 2017, a month later, was legally inconsequential.( Para 9)

The High Court's conclusion allowing withdrawal within the notice period was contrary to Rule 35A.( Para 10)

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment. No costs were awarded.( Para 11)

The Respondent was allowed to apply afresh for appointment in the future, subject to selection and in accordance with the law.( Para 12)

Facts:

The appellant poured kerosene on his wife, subsequently setting her ablaze.

Accused questioned her fidelity without provocation, leading to the brutal act.

Accused claimed being under the influence of liquor during the incident.

Issues:

Whether the accused's act qualifies as culpable homicide under Section 300 IPC.

The role of intoxication as a defense and the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Held:

The Court rejected the defense of intoxication, emphasizing the accused's conscious and deliberate actions. The act of pouring kerosene, followed by setting the victim ablaze, was held as a conscious act intending to cause death. Even if the accused lacked specific intent, the act fell under Section 300 fourthly, as it caused injuries imminently dangerous to life. The subsequent act of pouring water was deemed an attempt to cloak guilt, not a mitigating factor. Dismissal of the appeal based on the above analysis.

Facts:

The appellant sought reservation in the sports and game category for admission into the MBBS course. Despite submitting the necessary material, the appellant was denied due priority in admission. The appellant promptly approached the High Court.

Issues:

Whether a meritorious candidate, who diligently pursued their legal right without delay, could be denied admission due to the cut-off date of 30th September being passed.

Held:

Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds no fault on the candidate's part and the fault lies with the authorities, the court can, in rare cases, direct admission in the same year by increasing seats. However, this should not exceed one or two seats and must occur within one month from the cut-off date. No admission should be ordered beyond 30th October. The court may cancel the admission of a candidate at the bottom of the merit list after giving an opportunity for a hearing. If no admission relief can be granted in the same year, the court can direct admission in the next academic year, possibly by increasing the number of seats.

Decision: The right to equal and fair treatment, a component of Article 14, is crucial. Denial of admission to a meritorious candidate, even without fault on their part, violates fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21. The court rejected the view that compensation is the only remedy and affirmed the possibility of admission relief in exceptional circumstances. The court emphasized the importance of prioritizing and expeditiously disposing of such cases.

Facts:

The case involves a matrimonial dispute where the husband, a U.S. citizen practicing as a Dentist, filed for custody of the children after the wife, also a U.S. citizen and a Dentist, refused to return to the U.S. with the children from India.

Issues:

The jurisdiction of Indian courts in guardianship matters, the habitual residence of the children, and the best interests of the children.

Held:

The Family Court held that the Indian Courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Guardianship Petition due to the parties being U.S. citizens, and the children residing in India in breach of immigration laws.( Paragraph 4.7)

The High Court, in Habeas Corpus proceedings, directed the wife to return to the U.S. with the children, emphasizing the children's right to be brought up by both parents in the U.S.( Paragraph 5.1)

The parties agreed to the following directions, including joint application for U.S. passports, the wife's return to the U.S., shared parenting, and financial support by the husband.( Paragraph 7)