Facts:

The appellant is a society running educational institutions, including a non-Governmental Educational Institution.

The employees were engaged on a temporary basis and were terminated due to the abolition of posts in light of financial losses faced by the institution.

Issues:

Whether the removal of employees due to the abolition of posts falls under the purview of Section 18 of the Act?

Whether the decision of the Managing Committee to abolish posts was arbitrary or mala fide?

Held:

The Court examines the applicability of Section 18 of the Act and Rule 39 of the 1993 Rules in cases of removal due to the abolition of posts.( Paragraph 9)

Reference to the decision in Shri Maheshwari Senior Higher Secondary School vs. Bhikha Ram Sharma (1996) 8 SCC 22, emphasizing that in cases of termination due to the abolition of posts, no enquiry under the Rules is required.( Paragraph 11)

The Court discusses the State's communication, stating no approval is needed for removal if the posts were not aided and appointments were not approved by the Education Department.( Paragraph 13)

Critique of the Division Bench's observation that the issue was raised for the first time, highlighting the consistent stand of the Management on the applicability of Section 18. The present appeals are allowed. ( Paragraph 14)

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between a husband (respondent No. 1) and his two wives (appellant and respondent No. 2) arising from a matrimonial suit. The High Court, in its order dated 09.08.2011, disposed of the appeal filed by the first wife against the husband under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of CPC. The second wife (appellant) was not made a party to the appeal, and the High Court did not consider the consequences of the marriage between the appellant and the husband.

Issues:

The appellant not being made a party to the appeal.

The High Court not considering the consequences of the marriage between the appellant and the husband.

Held:

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the case to the High Court for deciding the miscellaneous appeal afresh on merits. The need for remand arose as the appellant was not made a party, and the High Court's directions were deemed incapable of due performance. The impugned order was considered without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. The Court requested the High Court to implead the appellant in the appeal and encouraged the parties to settle amicably before deciding the appeal on its merits.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute over the ownership of properties, with the plaintiffs claiming a 3/4th share in the suit properties. The properties were purchased by the father-in-law in the name of his wife (defendant no.1), leading to allegations of benami transactions.

Issues:

Whether the lower courts erred in shifting the burden to the defendants to prove that the sale transactions were not benami.

Whether the payment of part sale consideration alone is sufficient to determine a transaction as benami.

Whether the surrounding circumstances, relationships, motives, and subsequent conduct were adequately considered in determining the intention behind the transactions.

The impact of the Benami Amendment Act, 2016 on the case.

Held:

The trial court and the High Court erred in shifting the burden to the defendants without the plaintiffs proving, by cogent evidence, the intention of the father-in-law to purchase the properties in the name of his wife (defendant no.1). The reasoning and findings of the lower courts were not in line with the established circumstances by the Supreme Court.( Para 8.4, 9)

The payment of part sale consideration cannot be the sole criterion for deeming a transaction benami. The intention behind the contribution of purchase money must be assessed based on various factors, including the relationship between the parties.( Para 9.1)

The stamp duty at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed alone cannot establish a transaction as benami. Insufficient consideration of other documentary evidence by the lower courts.( Para 9.2)

The Release Deed executed by defendant no.1, on payment of Rs.10,000, was misinterpreted as evidence of joint family properties. Defendant no.1 clarified that it was to avoid future litigation, not an acknowledgment of joint family properties.( Para 9.3)

Defendant no.1's Will and subsequent revocation indicated her consistent belief that the properties were self-acquired, purchased from Stridhana and the sale of jewelry.( Para 9.4)

Plaintiffs claimed that the properties were purchased from funds received by selling ancestral properties, but the timing of transactions contradicts this. The properties were acquired before the sale of ancestral properties.( Para 10, 11)

The Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and its 2016 amendment were discussed. The court rejected the argument that the amendment affects the presumption of transactions in the name of the wife or children being for their benefit.( Para 12)

Once established that the Sale Deeds were not benami transactions, plaintiffs have no share in the suit properties (except specified ones). The judgments granting 3/4th share to the plaintiffs were quashed and set aside.( Para 12.1, 13)

Facts:

The appellants, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, challenged the selection process for the limited departmental examination for the promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) in the Police Department of Uttar Pradesh. The examination was conducted by the UP Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, and the appellants alleged that the selection process was undertaken without applying the Reservation Policy.

Issues:

Whether the selection process was conducted in accordance with the Reservation Policy.

Whether the criteria for securing 50% marks should be reckoned subject-wise or paper-wise.

Held:

The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the merit-based selection process and upheld the requirement of a minimum of 50% marks in each subject.( Para 13)

The Court rejected the reliance on a previous order, stating that it did not decide the current controversy and could not serve as a precedent.( Para 14)

The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellants did not fulfill the criteria of obtaining 50% marks in each subject.( Para 15)

Facts:

Expulsion of 27 members, including the alleged contemnors, from the Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited.

Challenge to expulsion upheld by the Supreme Court in 2010, directing readmission of the expelled members.

Subsequent litigation regarding unauthorized occupation and allotment of flats by newly inducted members.

Registrar Cooperative Societies' order directing re-admission of expelled members and setting aside the allotment to the alleged contemnors.

Issues:

Violation of Supreme Court orders by alleged contemnors who failed to vacate and hand over possession.

Conflict between the rights of expelled members and newly inducted members.

Possibility of constructing a new tower within the society.

Held:

The Court, considering equities and practicalities, directed:

Alleged contemnors to vacate by 31.08.2019, allotting apartments to re-admitted members.

Alleged contemnors deposit L 10 lakhs each for a new apartment, to be re-admitted upon deposit.

Administrator to seek permission for new building construction; Municipal Corporation to consider within a month.

Administrator to initiate new member admissions and draw lots for 18 apartments in the new building.

Alleged contemnors to find temporary accommodation at their own cost.

Facts:

The original RAE Suit No. 1681 of 2006 was filed by Shantaben Purushottam Kakad, claiming eviction of the appellants under Section 16(i)(c), 16(i)(e), and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Allegations included non-user of the premises, nuisance caused by the business activities, and illegal subletting.

Issues:

Whether the conduct of the tenants amounted to nuisance under Section 16(i)(c).

Whether illegal subletting was established.

Whether there was non-user justifying eviction under Section 16(1)(n).

Held:

On Nuisance (Section 16(i)(c)): The Court found the evidence of nuisance insufficient. Lack of testimony from neighbors, vague details of the alleged nuisance, and absence of the original plaintiff's evidence led to the conclusion that the ground of nuisance was not justified.

On Illegal Subletting: The Court rejected the finding of illegal subletting, emphasizing the lack of details regarding the alleged subletting to Mr. Raja. The Court also noted that the pleaded case of subletting to a third party did not find support in the evidence.

On Non-User (Section 16(1)(n)): The Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, establishing non-user. It considered the registration certificate under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act and observed the gap in registration during the relevant period, supporting the conclusion of non-user for the purpose for which the premises were let.

Facts:

The case involves M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd. challenging the demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the retrospective escalation of excise duty based on an escalation clause.

Issues:

Whether interest is payable under Section 11AB on the retrospective differential excise duty.

When price is revised upward with retrospective effect, and the excise duty is paid immediately on a future date, is interest payable under Section 11AB from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid.

Held:

The scheme of the Central Excise Act and Rules constitutes a separate code. Section 11A deals with recovery, and Section 11AB is attracted in case of non-levy, non-payment, short-levy, or short-payment under Section 11A. The liability for interest arises when duty, determined or paid under Section 11A, becomes recoverable. The interest clock starts ticking from the date as provided in Rule 8 read with Section 11AB.( Para 35-36)

Section 11A must be read with Section 11AB, and interest under Section 11AB is applicable when duty is not levied or paid, or is short-levied, short-paid, or erroneously refunded. The liability for interest arises from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which duty ought to have been paid.( Para 43, 45-47)

Goods become exigible to duty on removal, and assessment is done by the assessee through self-assessment. Provisional assessment triggers interest liability from the first day of the month succeeding the month for which the amount is determined, as per Rule 7(4).( Para 49-51)

Short-levy can overlap with non-payment, and short-payment may occur despite full levy. Short-levy involves incorrect application of components like rate of duty, valuation, and quantity. In a case of retrospective escalation of price, Section 11A read with Section 11AB applies.( Para 58)

If short-levy is understood as a case where assessment is not full, taking into account correct parameters, it could be classified as a case of short-levy. In a case of retrospective escalation, differential duty becomes payable, triggering Section 11A read with Section 11AB.( Para 59)

Even if the statutory authority labels it as a case of short-levy, Section 11A read with Section 11AB is attracted, and interest calculation starts from the date provided in Rule 8.( Para 60)

The second explanation of Section 11A(2)(b) contemplates voluntary payment by the assessee without a notice under Section 11A. Interest under Section 11A(2)(b) applies to any of the four amounts: non-levy, non-payment, short-levy, or short-payment.( Para 62)

The appeals will stand dismissed.

Facts:

The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority (appellant) appealed against a judgment by the High Court related to construction activities in notified CRZ areas. The appellant authority is empowered to handle environmental issues in CRZ, and construction activities in these areas require consultation and concurrence with the appellant authority.

Issues:

Whether construction activities in notified CRZ areas comply with CRZ notifications and regulations.

The role of local self-governments and competent authorities in obtaining building permits for CRZ areas.

Held:

The Court, after hearing the appeals and considering expert opinions, found that the construction activities in CRZ-III were in violation of relevant statutory provisions and CRZ notifications. The Committee established to evaluate the matter concluded that the area fell within CRZ-III, where construction is strictly restricted. The Court held that the constructions were impermissible and unauthorized within the prohibited area. It ordered the removal of all structures within one month.

The appeals are, accordingly allowed with aforesaid direction. Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.