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.

Facts:

In March 2006, the respondent floated a tender for a joint venture related to coal block development. The appellant, Parsa Kente Collieries Limited, was formed as a joint venture between the respondent and Adani Enterprises Limited. Disputes arose regarding various aspects of the agreement, leading to the invocation of arbitration by the appellant.

Issues:

The price adjustment/escalation, fixed costs, and the escrow account. The interpretation of relevant clauses in the Coal Mining and Delivery Agreement (CMDA) was a key point of contention.

Held

Price Adjustment/Escalation: The learned arbitrator interpreted the CMDA clauses, determining the date of commencement for price escalation. The High Court set aside the arbitrator's decision on this claim. The Supreme Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation was plausible, and the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction. The decision was restored.(Para 11.1)

Fixed Costs: The arbitrator awarded Rs. 78 crores to the appellant for fixed costs. The High Court set aside this award, citing lack of evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, stating that the evidence did not support the claim, and the award was rightly set aside.( Para 11.2)

Escrow Account: The arbitrator's decision regarding the escrow account was also set aside by the High Court. The Supreme Court concurred, emphasizing that the purpose of the escrow account, as per Ministry of Coal guidelines, was to ensure fulfillment of the contract. The High Court's interference was justified.(Para 11.3)

Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, restoring the arbitrator's decision on price adjustment/escalation while upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the awards on fixed costs and the escrow account.

Facts:

The appellants, involved in the import of aluminum waste for manufacturing aluminum alloy, contested the rejection of the declared transactional value by the customs authorities. The dispute arose when the authorities reevaluated the consignment value.

Issues:

The rejection of the declared transactional value and the compliance with Customs Valuation Rules, specifically Rules 3 and 12.

Held:

Transactional Value and Notional Value: The term 'payable' in Section 14(1) refers to the notional value, combining the declared transactional value and the amount added per Rule 10 of the 2007 Rules.

Section 14(2): Sub-section (2) of Section 14 is a non-obstante provision, applicable even when the Board issues notifications fixing tariff values. The second proviso to Section 14(1) deals with specific situations requiring valuation as per rules.

Customs Valuation Rules 2007: Rules 3 and 12 are pivotal. Rule 12 applies when the proper officer has a reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value. The doubt must be based on 'certain reasons,' which are detailed in the Explanation to Rule 12., 14]

Reasonable Doubt: The expression 'reason to doubt' necessitates a reasonable doubt, distinct from 'reason to believe.' This doubt should have a foundation in certain reasons, reflecting suspicion and apprehension.

Procedural Mandate: Rule 12 mandates a two-step verification and examination process. The importer must be given an opportunity to clarify doubts before rejecting the declared value. The doctrine of prospective application is invoked for this procedural mandate.]

Provisional Assessment: Section 18 allows provisional assessment in case of disputes. Compelling importers to forgo this right without reasonable doubt is incorrect.

Flawed Adjudication Order: The findings in the order-in-original were flawed and contrary to law as they didn't provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the declared transaction value.

Decision: The appeal is allowed, emphasizing the necessity of reasonable doubt before rejecting the declared value and invoking the procedural mandates of Rule 12.

Facts:

The case involved the adjudication of citizenship status in the State of Assam, with a specific focus on individuals declared as illegal migrants or foreigners by the Competent Authority.

Issues:

The primary conflict arose between Paragraph 3(2) and Paragraph 8 of the Citizenship Rules, dealing with the inclusion of certain individuals in the National Register of Citizens and their ability to claim citizenship based on residence in Assam.

Held:

Paragraph 3(2) categorically excludes individuals declared as illegal migrants from inclusion in the National Register of Citizens. Such individuals cannot claim Indian citizenship merely based on residence in Assam. On the other hand, Paragraph 8 provides an avenue for appeal when an individual, dissatisfied with the decision under the final list, can approach the designated Tribunal constituted under the 1964 Order. However, Paragraph 8 is applicable only in the absence of a prior adjudication by the Foreigners Tribunal.

Furthermore, Paragraph 8 does not envision a second round of litigation before the same authority (Foreigners Tribunal) post the preparation of the final list. Orders of the Tribunal and Registering Authority based on the Tribunal's opinion are subject to challenge through writ proceedings and operate as res judicata.

Decision: The Court held that the exercise of power under Article 142 does not extend to creating an appellate forum for citizenship disputes in Assam. Such a direction would encroach upon legislative prerogatives.

Facts:

Appellant no.1 booked office space in a project by the respondent.

Builder Buyer Agreement for possession within four years.

Appellants filed a complaint seeking refund due to non-possession.

Application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act filed for class action.

Issues:

Whether the case qualifies as a class action.

Interpretation of "sameness of interest" and "common grievance."

Held:

The National Commission initially dismissed the case as a class action, stating that the purpose must be solely for earning livelihood. However, the Supreme Court, relying on precedents, held that sameness of interest is akin to a common grievance against the same person. It emphasized that persons represented need not have the same cause of action but must have a common interest or grievance. The dismissal was set aside, and the case was restored to the file of the National Commission.

Facts:

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and certain individuals were involved in disputes over possession and refund related to flats in the DLF Valley project.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) had awarded compensation under various heads, leading to legal challenges.

Issues:

Arbitrariness in compensation awards

Principles governing interest as compensation

Multiple heads of compensation for the same default

Held:

The Court held that the grant of compensation under various heads by the NCDRC was not sustainable, emphasizing the need for a foundation based on judicially recognized principles rather than a rule of thumb.

The judgment referred to the principle laid down in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Others v. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508, stating that interest is compensation for the beneficiary deprived of the use of the investment made.

The Court modified the compensation awards, directing the appellant to send an occupation certificate, offer possession, and pay interest at a reasonable rate. The costs were capped at Rs. 50,000, and the judgment also addressed cases seeking refunds, modifying the interest rate to 9% per annum.

Facts:

The appellant, Girish Kumar, challenged the promotion of Respondent No. 3 to the post of Section Officer, contending that the latter did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of three years continuous service in the feeder cadre, as required by the Recruitment Rules, 1967. The dispute arose from the deemed date of promotion granted to Respondent No. 3 under Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules, 1982.

Issues:

Whether the deemed date of promotion under the Seniority Rules, 1982 can be considered for eligibility criteria under the Recruitment Rules, 1967.

Whether Respondent No. 3, granted the deemed date of promotion, fulfilled the three years continuous service requirement for the promotional post.

Held:

The court held that the Seniority Rules, 1982 and the Recruitment Rules, 1967 operate in different fields. While the deemed date of promotion is relevant for seniority, it does not automatically fulfill the eligibility criteria for promotion under the Recruitment Rules. The term "continuous service" in the Recruitment Rules was deemed to mean uninterrupted and unbroken service. Respondent No. 3, having been promoted as Office Superintendent on a deemed date, did not meet the continuous service requirement for eligibility. The High Court's decision was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was allowed. Respondent No. 3 was declared ineligible for promotion to the post of Section Officer.