Facts:

The complainants booked apartments in a project titled "DLF Valley, Panchkula." The developer failed to hand over possession within the agreed-upon time, leading to various complaints.

Issues:

Compensation for delayed possession, and the entitlement of heirs in the case of a deceased original allottee.

Held:

The entitlement of heirs in the case of a deceased original allottee cannot be determined at this stage and must be left to a competent court. However, 3/4 of the sum is directed to be made over to the widow for herself and on behalf of two children, while the remaining 1/4 shall be made over to the mother.

In all refund cases, interest at the rate of 9% is awarded from the day of deposit till the date of refund. In cases of possession sought, the compensation period is after the expiry of three years from the date of the agreement, with interest at the rate of 9%.

Facts:

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issued on 19.05.2008.

Declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 26.05.2008 for 136 acres of land.

Award declared on 21.12.2009, granting compensation @ 25,00,000/- per acre.

Petitioner (M/s. Reliance Haryana SEZ Limited) holding about 15 acres did not prefer any application under Section 18 of the Act for reference.

Reference Court raised compensation to Rs. 41,81,500/- per acre on 16.11.2011.

Petitioner applied for redetermination under Section 28-A(1) of the Act on 01.2.2012.

Application allowed on 06.03.2014, granting the petitioner benefits similar to the Reference Court's order.

High Court enhanced compensation on 24.05.2016 to Rs. 2,80,00,000/- per acre for comparable lands.

Petitioner filed CWP No. 23688 of 2016 on 15.11.2016, challenging the order dated 06.03.2014 and seeking redetermination based on the High Court's judgment.

Issues:

Whether the Collector's disposal of the petitioner's application under Section 28A was in line with legal principles.

Whether the petitioner, a limited company, is entitled to relief under Article 226 considering the delay in filing the writ petition.

Held:

The Collector proceeded under the assumption that no further challenge was pending, and the matter had attained finality.

The petitioner did not bring to the Collector's notice the pendency of appeals challenging the compensation.

The petitioner approached the High Court only after the compensation was enhanced by the High Court.

The explanation provided by the petitioner for the delay is not satisfactory.

The profile of the petitioner, a limited company, disentitles it from claiming relief under Article 226.

The High Court was justified in rejecting the petition.

Special Leave Petition dismissed.

FACTS:

Gorden Wapshare died intestate on 18.01.1991.

Appellant obtained a Succession Certificate in O.P. No. 17 of 2005.

Respondent, claiming to be the daughter of Beatrice, applied to revoke the Succession Certificate under Section 383.

Respondent's lineage questioned; she was not a lineal descendant of Gorden Wapshare.

ISSUES:

Validity of the revocation application under Section 383.

Lineal descent and entitlement to Gorden Wapshare's estate.

HELD:

Succession Certificate can only be revoked under Section 383 for specific grounds (a to e), none of which applied in this case.Respondent was not a lineal descendant; had no familial connection with the Wapshare family.( Para 9)

Respondent's application described her as the daughter of Beatrice, omitting Edward Wapshare, establishing no lineal connection.Gorden Wapshare dying intestate meant his property passes to widow and lineal descendants under Section 33(a).Appellant being the only living lineal descendant, the respondent had no legal standing. ( Para 10)

The High Court erred in not considering all grounds; set aside the judgment and restored the Sub-Judge's decision.( Para 11)

Facts:

The State of Maharashtra issued a tender for the supply of ready-to-cook food to Anganwadi centers. The petitioner challenged the eligibility conditions, arguing that they favored large corporates over local Mahila Mandals. The contested conditions included mandatory use of extrusion technology, Mahila Mandals having automated production units, a turnover of Rs. 1 crore or more, among others.

Issues:

The reasonableness of the tender conditions, specifically the mandatory use of extrusion technology and the alleged favoring of large corporates over local Mahila Mandals.

Held:

The Court clarified that the imposition of conditions in the tender, such as the mandatory use of extrusion technology, was not in line with the spirit of the National Food Security Act, 2013, and the policies set by the Government of India. The observations in a previous case were based on misrepresentation. The tender notice was struck down, and fresh tenders were directed to be invited within the stipulated period.

The Court acknowledged that it was misled in a previous decision regarding the mandatory specifications in the recipes. After the decision, new policies were framed, and the Act of 2013 was enacted, rendering some earlier observations obsolete.

Various recipes were prescribed, but the Court emphasized that it is for the States/UTs to decide based on local requirements. The Court urged that terms and conditions of tenders should not exclude self-help groups/Mahila Mandals from participating meaningfully.

The Court highlighted the changes in legislation and rules, including the deletion of provisions for energy-dense food fortified with micronutrients. The Government of India launched the POSHAN Abhiyaan to address nutritional challenges comprehensively.

The National Council of India discussed issues related to hot cooked meals and Take Home Ration (THR) for specific age groups. Policies were based on nutritional norms, the Act of 2013, and Supplementary Nutrition Rules, 2015.

The tender conditions imposed by the Government of Maharashtra, especially the 25% turnover condition, were deemed arbitrary and not in line with the spirit of the Act. The tender notice was declared invalid, and fresh tenders were directed to be invited.

Fixing unit areas as districts effectively ousted smaller players. The Court recommended forming groups at smaller levels, like panchayats, to fulfill the real intention of the policy. The existing system of supply was restrained during the interregnum period.

Facts:

Show cause notices dated 08.10.2015 and 30.09.2015 issued by the appellants to the respondents.

Dispute regarding the classification of service as "cargo handling service" or "goods transport agency."

Respondents' reliance on circulars dated 06.08.2008 and 05.10.2015 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC).

Issues:

Maintainability of the writ petition filed under Article 226 at the stage of show cause notices.

Classification dispute - Whether the service falls under "cargo handling service" or "goods transport agency."

Held:

The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition at the show cause notice stage.

No absolute prohibition for maintaining the petition under Article 226 at the show cause notice stage.

The classification dispute should be addressed through the alternative remedy provided under the statute.

The respondents should have responded to the show cause notices and presented material supporting their stand.

The judgment in Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Anr. v. Sushil and Company (2016) 13 SCC 223 distinguished.

Circulars' applicability to be considered by the competent authority upon receipt of explanations.

No finding on contentious issues to avoid prejudice; factual disputes and applicability of circulars in dispute.

Judgment of the High Court set aside, and the appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The suit property originally belonged to 'PG,' who executed a will in 1971, bequeathing life interest to his sons 'K' and 'B,' and subsequently to the male heirs of his sons. 'B,' on behalf of himself and his minor son 'P,' sold a portion of the property to the defendants-respondents in 1981-82.

Issues:

The plaintiffs filed a suit in 1992, challenging the authority of 'B' to execute sale deeds on behalf of his minor son 'P,' contending that the deeds were void. The defendants raised the defense of limitation, arguing that the suit should have been filed within three years from the death of 'P' in 1986.

Held:

The judgment clarifies that Article 60(b)(ii) of the Limitation Act is applicable in cases where a ward dies before attaining majority, and the limitation to avoid an instrument made by the guardian of the ward is three years from the ward's death.

The period of limitation under Article 65 is relevant when seeking possession of immovable property based on title. However, since the sale deeds were voidable and not void, Article 60 governs the limitation for the suit, and it was rightly held as time-barred.

Sale deeds executed without the court's permission, in violation of Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, are voidable. The suit, lacking a prayer for setting aside these deeds, was improperly framed and couldn't be decreed.

The release deed executed in 1986 does not repudiate the sale deeds by 'B' on behalf of the minor, and Section 8(3) of the 1956 Act allows the minor or their legal heirs to avoid such alienations.

Decision: Dismissing the appeal, the court affirmed that the sale deeds executed by 'B' were not repudiated or avoided within the prescribed limitation period, rendering the suit time-barred.

Facts:

Five individuals were tried for the murder of Kaushalya Devi in 1992.

Kanhai Prasad Chourasia was convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentenced to life imprisonment.

The other four were acquitted of murder but convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Appeals were filed by Kanhai Prasad Chourasia (Criminal Appeal No. 112/1994) and the other four collectively (Criminal Appeal No. 77/1994).

The High Court, under a misconception, treated all accused as convicted under Section 302/149 IPC, leading to a common judgment convicting all five.

Issues:

Misinterpretation by the High Court regarding the nature of convictions.

Imposition of Section 302/149 IPC without appeal by the State or notice of enhancement.

Failure to consider the acquittal under Section 149 IPC by the trial court.

Absence of sentencing for those convicted under Section 302/149 IPC.

Held:

The Division Bench found fundamental errors in the High Court's judgment.

The misconception of all accused being convicted under Section 302/149 IPC was identified as a primary error.

The High Court failed to consider the acquittal under Section 149 IPC and imposed Section 302/149 IPC without any appeal by the State.

The Bench, invoking Article 136, decided to set aside the entire impugned order against all accused.

Emphasized that an order based on wrong factual premises cannot be perpetuated against non-appealing accused.

Remanded the case to the High Court for re-hearing, directing separate consideration for each accused.

Noted that the appellant, Deep Narayan Chourasia, had already served a significant portion of the sentence and granted bail pending the High Court's decision.

FACTS:

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (Appellants) vs. Adani Power Ltd. (Respondent).

Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) dated 07.08.2008 and 02.02.2007 between the parties.

Change in law due to withdrawal of exemptions by notifications dated 06.04.2015 and 16.02.2016.

Adani Power filed a petition before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) seeking compensation for change in law.

ISSUES:

Interpretation of Article 13 of the PPAs regarding compensation for change in law.

Applicability of restitutionary principles in determining compensation.

Claim for carrying costs under Article 13.

HELD:

Article 13.2 establishes a restitutionary principle, compensating the affected party to restore them economically.Two periods defined for compensation: Construction Period and Operation Period, each governed by specific criteria.( Para 7)

Compensation during the Construction Period is subject to proof of increase/decrease in Capital Cost, resolved through dispute resolution mechanism.( Para 8)

Compensation during the Operation Period is determined by the Appropriate Commission, subject to a threshold limit.Monthly tariff adjustment effective from the date of the change in law under Article 13.4.1(i).( Para 10)

Carrying cost claimed by Adani Power falls within the restitutionary principle of Article 13.2 and is specifically provided in the PPAs.The claim is not based on general principles of equity but is governed by the terms of the PPA.( Para 11)

The judgment dismisses the appeals, affirming the Appellate Tribunal's decision in favor of Adani Power.( Para 16)

REFERRED CASES:

All India Power Engineer Federation and Ors. v. Sasan Power Ltd. and Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 487

Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors., (2017) 14 SCC 80

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 161

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 648

Facts:

Respondent No. 1 migrated to the USA after completing studies in India.

Respondent No. 1 and 2, an Indian couple, returned to India in 2016 after a decade in the USA.

Respondent No. 2 became a US citizen during their stay in the USA.

The couple, unable to conceive, planned to adopt an Indian child upon returning to India.

They submitted an application on 19.07.2016 for in-country adoption as Indian prospective adoptive parents.

While waiting for a referral, Respondent No. 1 was granted US citizenship on 06.12.2016.

A second application was submitted on 05.11.2017 for inter-country adoption after acquiring US citizenship.

Issues:

Whether the acquisition of US citizenship by Respondent No. 1 affects their eligibility for in-country adoption?

Should the offer of the child for adoption to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be based on their first application or the subsequent application after acquiring US citizenship?

Held:

The High Court upheld the decision to consider the application based on the first registration dated 19.07.2016.

The Court set aside the judgments directing consideration on the basis of the first application and upheld the decision communicated on 15.03.2018.

The competent authority was directed to notify the child for adoption within one week.

If the child is not adopted by Indian prospective adoptive parents within sixty days, adoption to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in inter-country adoption was allowed.