Facts:

The suit for partition was filed in 1982.

The appeal was pending in the Supreme Court since 2009.

The appellant raised substantial issues on facts and law.

The appellant argued that crucial documents were not exhibited during the trial.

Issues:

The High Court's judgment needed proper attention under Section 96 of CPC.

The appellant's concerns about non-exhibited crucial documents required examination.

The first appellate court (High Court) should analyze the entire evidence and express an opinion uninfluenced by previous observations.

Held:

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the case to the High Court for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that the first appellate court must analyze all evidence and express its opinion without being influenced by previous observations. The High Court was directed to consider the entire evidence and arrive at conclusions as permissible by law. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the controversy and requested the High Court to dispose of the remanded appeal expeditiously.

Facts:

The dispute originated from an agreement dated May 1, 2014, between the applicant and respondent no.1 for the printing of labels. The applicant contended that the arbitration agreement was an integral component of this agreement. Respondent no.2, a non-signatory party, was later involved in the arbitration proceedings as the parent/holding company of respondent no.1.

Issues:

Whether respondent no.2, being a non-signatory to the agreement, could be subjected to the proposed arbitration proceedings. Additionally, the applicant needed to establish respondent no.2's intention to consent to the arbitration agreement.

Held:

The court emphasized that the burden rested on the applicant to prove respondent no.2's intention to be a party to the arbitration agreement. The applicant's assertion that 'FR' acted on behalf of respondent no.2 collapsed, as respondent no.2 refuted any association with 'FR' and clarified that 'FR' was solely an employee of respondent no.1. Consequently, respondent no.2 was neither a signatory to the arbitration agreement nor had any causal connection with the negotiation process, rendering it not a party to the stated agreement.( Para 9)

The court determined that respondent no.2 was not involved in the negotiation process concerning the agreement dated May 1, 2014. The application against respondent no.2 failed, preventing the provisions for making reference to the sole arbitrator, assuming an international commercial arbitration, from proceeding. However, the applicant was advised to pursue domestic commercial arbitration against respondent no.1.( Para 10)

Decision: The application against respondent no.2 was disposed of, holding that respondent no.2 could not be subjected to the proposed arbitration proceedings. The applicant was directed to pursue arbitration against respondent no.1 as a domestic commercial arbitration.

Facts:

The Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) communicated the fee structure for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19. Respondent institutions challenged it, leading to a remand by a Single Judge, escalations granted, and subsequent challenges. The High Court redetermined the fee structure, contested by the State and TAFRC.

Issues:

The jurisdiction and extent to which the court could examine TAFRC's fee structure determination through the lens of judicial review.

Held:

The jurisdiction of the court to scrutinize TAFRC's fee structure determination was considered. TAFRC, being a statutory body with a quasi-judicial decision-making process, is subject to judicial review to ensure adherence to constitutional principles of reasonableness, fairness, and the law under Article 14.( Para 16)

Judicial review, as clarified, pertains to the decision-making process, not the decision's merits. Grounds for review include violation of natural justice, ultra vires powers, consideration of irrelevant materials, exclusion of relevant materials, or decisions no reasonable person would make.( Para 17)

Complex executive decisions in economic matters are empiric, requiring a certain measure of freedom. The court should only interfere with palpably arbitrary decisions, and the recommendation of a statutory body accepted by the government should be spared unless it suffers from arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity, or violates the law.( Para 19)

The Constitution is the supreme law, and judicial restraint is emphasized, especially in matters involving domain experts. The court should avoid substituting its judgment for that of experts.( Para 20)

None of the grounds set out by the High Court warranted usurpation of TAFRC's decision-making jurisdiction. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with TAFRC's recommendation.( Para 25)

Facts:

Private respondents' lands acquired for MRTS Railway Project by the Government of India (Railways).

The High Court directed the State Government to consider providing alternative housing sites to the affected private respondents.

State Government rejected the private respondents' request for alternative housing sites.

Private respondents challenged the rejection through writ petitions.

Issues:

Whether the private respondents are entitled to alternative housing sites for lands acquired for the MRTS Railway Project.

Held:

The High Court's direction was based on an erroneous assumption that the State Government was obligated to provide alternative housing sites despite the absence of any policy or legal obligation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The cited Supreme Court decisions were distinguished as inapplicable to the present case, where the acquisition was for a Central Government project, not for the development of housing schemes.

The Court held that the private respondents had been duly compensated under the 1894 Act and were not entitled to further relief from the State Government or Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

The policy regarding alternative housing site discretionary power of the State Government was discontinued from 2011, and the private respondents' claim should be decided based on the policy as it existed at the relevant time.

The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

FACTS:

Appellants, Rotarians, traveling from Giridih, Jharkhand, to Patna, Bihar, for a Rotary Club meeting.

Vehicle stopped at Rajauli Check Post, Bihar, for routine check.

Appellants subjected to a breath analyzer test, alcohol found.

Arrested under Section 53(a) of Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.

ISSUES:

Whether a private vehicle can be considered a "public place" under Section 2(17A).

Interpretation of the term "consumes liquor" under Section 53(a).

Applicability of the offense when consumption occurs outside Bihar.

HELD:

The definition of "public place" under Section 2(17A) includes any place accessible to the public, even a private vehicle on a public road.

The word "consumes" in Section 53(a) requires liquor consumption within the State of Bihar for the offense to apply.

Introduction of Section 37(b) in Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 allows charges if found drunk in Bihar, even if consumption occurred outside.

The court cannot decide if consumption occurred in Bihar; appellants given liberty to file a discharge application before the Magistrate.

Decision left to the Magistrate based on materials on record.

REFERRED CASES:

Confederation of India Alcoholic Beverage Companies & Anr. vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors., (2016) 4 PLJR 369

Manikandan vs. State of Kerala, (1999) 2 KLT 592

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.