Facts:

The respondent was appointed as a contract conductor by the appellant corporation.

Following a departmental inquiry, the respondent's services were terminated due to misconduct.

The respondent approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Single Judge of the High Court directed the corporation to reengage the respondent in service and grant continuity of service.

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's order.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to grant continuity of service to the respondent was justified.

Whether the High Court properly considered the individual facts of the case.

Held:

The Court ruled that continuity of service cannot be granted unless the termination order is set aside. It emphasized the importance of ensuring there is no gap in service.

Granting continuity of service to an employee found guilty of misconduct would place them on the same footing as other contractual employees with a clean record.

The Court found that the High Court failed to properly consider the individual facts of the case and erred in issuing a common order for all cases.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of both the Division Bench and the Single Judge.

Facts:

The respondent, A.U.M. Rao, was employed as a driver on contract by APSRTC in February 2007.

Following a disciplinary inquiry, his services were terminated, but he was later re-engaged on contract after a departmental review.

A.U.M. Rao approached the High Court seeking continuity of service and consequential benefits under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issues:

Whether continuity of service could be granted to the respondent without challenging the termination or fresh appointment?

Whether the judgment of the High Court was erroneous in granting continuity of service based on an earlier judgment?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the grant of continuity of service without challenging the termination or fresh appointment was incorrect. The Court emphasized that continuity of service could only be granted if the termination order was set aside. The judgment of the High Court was found to be erroneous as individual case facts were overlooked while deciding the batch of cases together.

The Court allowed the appeal and directed that the respondent's seniority should be counted from the date of his fresh appointment. The appeals were disposed of without costs.

Facts:

Capt. Paul Nadar Bennet Singh applied for the position of Pilot Officer at Tuticorin Port Trust and was appointed on a regular basis subject to conditions.

His appointment was terminated by the appellants citing regulations related to temporary service.

Capt. Singh challenged the termination, leading to the High Court's decision in his favor.

The appellants contended that Capt. Singh's certificate of competency as Master, issued by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, was not recognized by the Government of India.

Issues:

Whether Capt. Singh's termination was valid due to the alleged invalidity of his certificate of competency.

Whether the High Court's decision to reinstate Capt. Singh with back wages was justified.

Held:

The Court found no substance in the appellants' contention regarding the invalidity of Capt. Singh's appointment based on his certificate of competency.

The Court noted that the advertisement for the Pilot Officer position did not specify recognition by the Government of India, and the appointment letter did not raise any objections to Capt. Singh's certificate.

The Deputy Nautical Advisor clarified that while the certificate issued by Singapore was not recognized under Indian law, the port trust could be guided by its own regulations.

Capt. Singh had passed the examination for the pilot license, and his appointment was on a regular basis, which further supported the validity of his appointment.

Therefore, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to reinstate Capt. Singh with back wages, modifying the back wages to 40% from 2012 until the date of joining.

This judgment was passed based on the specific facts of the case and was not intended as a precedent for future cases.

Facts:

Dispute arose between STC and GSHL regarding non-payment of outstanding dues under a tripartite agreement.

Parties decided to settle disputes through conciliation proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Two settlement agreements were entered into between the parties, but GSHL failed to fully comply with them.

STC filed an Execution Petition in the Delhi High Court seeking to execute the settlement agreements, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

STC appealed against the Delhi High Court's decision to the Supreme Court.

Payments were made by the respondents during the pendency of the appeal, eventually discharging the entire liability till 10.11.2012.

The only remaining issue was the interest payable from 10.11.2012 onwards.

Issues:

Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to decide the interest payable and its rate.

Determination of the amount payable towards interest and the period within which it should be paid.

Held:

The Court held that it has jurisdiction to decide the interest payable and its rate, and decided to settle the matter by determining the interest payable and its rate.

The respondents are liable to pay interest on the principal sum of Rs. 1610 crores at a rate of 8% per annum from 10.11.2012.

The respondents were directed to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs. 600 crores towards interest within 12 weeks from the date of the order.

Upon payment of the specified amount, all claims arising from the settlement agreements would be finally settled, and all pending proceedings between the parties would be closed.

Failure to pay the specified amount by the deadline would amount to contempt of court, and STC would have the right to take appropriate legal action.

Facts:

Students admitted to the first year MBBS course at Respondent No. 5 College sought transfer to another institution due to concerns regarding the college's infrastructure and compliance with regulatory norms.

Issues:

Whether the students could be transferred to another institution to complete their MBBS course due to deficiencies in Respondent No. 5 College's infrastructure and compliance with regulatory norms.

Held:

The court directed Respondent No. 5 College to transfer its land, building, and assets to the State Government to address concerns regarding its infrastructure. The State Government would then apply for affiliation with Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna, Uttarakhand Medical University, Dehradun, and the university would decide on affiliation within four weeks.

Once the necessary infrastructure is set up, the State Government would apply to the Medical Council of India for permission under Section 10A of the Medical Council of India Act. If affiliation and permission are granted, students completing the first year course can sit for the first year MBBS examination conducted by the affiliating university.

The Director General of Police, Dehradun, was directed to seal the premises of Respondent No. 5 College immediately. Any future litigation regarding the college should be addressed only before the Supreme Court.

Facts: The appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash Charge Sheet No. 1 dated 07.05.2016 in Case Crime No. 441 of 2015 under Sections 420, 406, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appellants' application without referring to the factual aspects of the case, merely citing legal principles.

Issues: Whether the High Court's dismissal of the appellants' application under Section 482 of the CrPC was justified.

Held and Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, finding that it failed to consider the factual matrix of the case and only relied on legal principles. The Court remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits, instructing the High Court to consider both legal principles and factual findings. The Court emphasized the importance of providing reasoning in the order to enable higher courts to review the decision. The High Court was directed to reconsider the appellants' application after issuing notices to the respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh and another).

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits, with instructions to provide reasoned findings.

Facts:

The case revolved around the nominations made by the Central Government to the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Puducherry under Section 3(3) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963.

Issues:

Whether the Central Government is obligated to consult the Council of Ministers/Chief Minister of Puducherry and obtain their concurrence before making nominations.

Interpretation of the term "Central Government" in Section 3(3) of the Act.

Determination of whether nomination to the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry constitutes business of the Government of Puducherry.

Whether the nominations made by the Central Government violate principles of federalism.

The sustainability of recommendations made by the High Court in its judgment.

Held:

The court held that the Central Government is not required to consult the Council of Ministers/Chief Minister of Puducherry or obtain their concurrence before making nominations.

The term "Central Government" in Section 3(3) refers to the President and not the administrator, as clarified under the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Nominations to the Legislative Assembly of Puducherry do not constitute business of the Government of Puducherry, but rather fall under the purview of the Central Government.

The nominations made by the Central Government do not violate principles of federalism, as the Constitution itself empowers Parliament to create a legislative body for Union Territories.

The recommendations made by the High Court were deemed unnecessary, as there were already established rules and procedures for the Central Government to follow.

Facts:

The appellant, a contractor, entered into an agreement with the Union of India for the construction of permanent shelters in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Differences arose between the parties regarding the construction work, leading to arbitration.

The arbitrator made an award in favor of the appellant, directing the respondent to pay a certain sum.

The respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the arbitral award, but faced delays due to jurisdictional issues and administrative difficulties.

Issues:

Whether the delay of 514 days in filing the application under Section 34 can be condoned.

Whether the statutory provisions and precedents support the condonation of such a delay.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the delay of 514 days could not be condoned as it exceeded the strict timeline prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court analyzed the statutory provisions and precedents, emphasizing that the extension beyond the specified timeline of three months could only be granted for a further period of thirty days on showing sufficient cause, but not thereafter.

Despite considering the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which deals with the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting another civil proceeding, the Court found that there remained a delay of 131 days in filing the application. This exceeded the statutory limitation prescribed in Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act.

Therefore, the Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the petition under Section 34, ruling that it was barred by limitation.

Facts:

The case of Mahender Chawla & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2016) involved petitioners alleging threats from the accused if they testified against them. The petitioners contended that numerous witnesses had been attacked, and some had even been killed. The matter concerned the abysmal state of witness protection in India and its impact on the administration of criminal justice.

Issues:

The court was the inadequacy of witness protection measures in India, leading to witnesses facing intimidation and reluctance to testify truthfully.

The court needed to address the constitutional implications of failing to protect witnesses and the consequent denial of a fair trial.

Held:

The court recognized the indispensable role of witnesses in the judicial system, particularly in criminal cases where testimonies often determine factual findings.

Despite their significance, witnesses in India face dire circumstances, including threats and trauma, due to the lack of a comprehensive witness protection program.

The failure to provide adequate protection to witnesses results in many turning hostile, especially in cases involving influential or violent accused individuals.

Witness protection is crucial for ensuring fair trials and upholding the rule of law, as failure to hear material witnesses amounts to a denial of justice.

The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, prepared by the Union of India, was recognized as a temporary measure until suitable legislation is enacted. The scheme aims to identify threats to witnesses and ensure their safety during legal proceedings.

The court directed the States of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to provide adequate security to the petitioners.

It mandated the establishment of vulnerable witness deposition complexes in district courts across India within a year to facilitate secure testimony.