Facts:

The case involved a writ petition brought by Kudrat Sandhu against the Union of India.

The Supreme Court had issued a clarification on 20 March 2018 regarding the tenure of Members and Chairpersons of Tribunals.

There was confusion regarding the age of superannuation of Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

Issues:

The interpretation of the Supreme Court's clarification regarding the tenure and age of superannuation of Members and Chairpersons of various Tribunals.

Held:

The Court clarified that Members of the ITAT would continue until the age of 62 years, and Presidents until the age of 65 years.

Similarly, Members of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) would continue until the age of 62 years, and Presidents until the age of 65 years.

Members of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) would hold office until the age of 65 years, while former Judges of the Supreme Court serving as Chairpersons would hold office until the age of 70 years.

The old rules/provisions would continue to apply in the case of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The Union government was directed to provide a status report within two weeks regarding the position of each Tribunal, including vacancies and the stage of the selection process.

Facts: An arbitral proceeding took place between Kohinoor Transporters (Appellant) and the State of Uttar Pradesh (Respondent) under the Arbitration Act 1940, originating from a contract dating back to 1980 for civil works. The arbitral award, dated 20 July 1984, was made a Rule of the Court on 30 August 1986 by the Civil Judge, Dehradun. During execution proceedings, the respondent deposited a portion of the decretal debt. Subsequently, the Executing Court directed the respondent to deposit a further amount, which was contested. The High Court, during the course of the proceedings, ordered the appointment of a Chartered Accountant to review the financial details.

Issues:

Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant in the execution proceedings?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had indeed exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant. It emphasized that questions regarding the discharge or satisfaction of a decree must be determined by the Executing Court under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The Court ruled that the High Court's directive for the appointment of a Chartered Accountant was inappropriate at that stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order.

It directed the High Court to dispose of the Civil Revision expeditiously, within three months from the date of the Supreme Court's order. No costs were awarded in the matter.

Facts:

The appellant, a 29-year-old employed driver, sustained severe injuries resulting in 75% permanent disability due to a motor vehicle accident.

The accident occurred when a Maruti Car collided with the appellant's motorcycle, causing multiple fractures and permanent disabilities.

The appellant appealed for enhancement of compensation after the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 7,00,000.

Issues:

The adequacy of the compensation awarded to the appellant, considering the extent of his permanent disability and its impact on his earning capacity and quality of life.

The method used for determining compensation, particularly the departure from the multiplier method by the MACT, was also in question.

Held:

The Court emphasized the principle of "just compensation," ensuring fair and equitable principles are applied in determining compensation.

The court noted that compensation should cover not only physical injuries but also non-pecuniary losses suffered by the appellant.

Considering the appellant's permanent disability significantly affected his earning capacity and quality of life, the court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 20,29,000.

The breakdown of compensation included loss of future income, actual income, medical expenses, attendance and conveyance charges, special diet and nutrition, loss of amenities in future life, and pain and suffering.

The court directed the respondents to pay the compensation along with simple interest at 9% per annum within twelve weeks from the date of the judgment.

The Civil Appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over ancestral land measuring approximately 164 Kanals 1 Marla.

Pritam Singh, the father, sold the land to Tara Singh and Ajit Singh.

Kehar Singh, the son, contested the sale, claiming it was invalid due to lack of consent and legal necessity.

Legal proceedings ensued, including litigation in trial and appellate courts, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the sale of ancestral land by Pritam Singh was justified by legal necessity, and if so, whether it was valid and binding on the plaintiff.

Additionally, the court needs to determine the rights of co-coparceners in challenging such sales under Hindu law.

Held:

The High Court found that the sale was justified by legal necessity, which included the payment of debts and the need for agricultural land improvement.

The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, stating that the defendants had successfully proven legal necessity for the sale.

As a result, the plaintiff, being a co-coparcener, did not have the right to challenge the sale.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the sale of ancestral land to the defendants.

Facts:

The appeals arose from judgments of the High Court of Kerala concerning writ petitions filed by workers' unions against the Food Corporation of India (FCI).

The petitions sought the implementation of an award (Ex.P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Chennai, which directed the regularization of workers' services after the abolition of the contract labor system.

The appeals pertained to employees working in FCI depots in Kerala, while previous appeals dealt with employees in the Chennai branch office.

Issues:

Whether the benefits of the Industrial Tribunal award should be extended to workers in FCI depots in Kerala.

Whether there are significant differences between the present appeals and previous appeals that would warrant a different decision.

Held:

The Court upheld the decision of the High Court of Kerala, dismissing the appeals. It found no justifiable reason to overturn the High Court's decision, as there were no significant differences between the cases. Technical issues raised by FCI did not alter the fundamental aspects of the case. Moreover, previous judicial orders against FCI in similar matters were considered, leading to the conclusion that the benefits of the award should be extended to workers in Kerala depots. Thus, the appeals were dismissed.

Facts:

The dispute arose between the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and around 955 employees regarding their regularization.

The employees claimed to be regularized as FCI employees, while FCI contended they were employees of a contract laborers' society.

The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government of India for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Industrial Tribunal and subsequent courts ruled in favor of the employees, holding that they were entitled to regularization as FCI employees.

Issues:

Whether the employees were entitled to be regularized as FCI employees.

Whether FCI failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the claims of the employees.

Held:

The Court, after examining the evidence and findings of the lower courts, upheld the decisions.

The Industrial Tribunal correctly concluded that the employees were entitled to regularization based on various factors, including the nature of their work, direct payment of wages by FCI, and the lack of evidence presented by FCI.

FCI's failure to provide evidence to prove their case resulted in adverse inference against them.

The findings of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were based on sufficient evidence adduced by the workers' Union and were not legally unsustainable.

Similar cases involving FCI branches had been adjudicated similarly, with the courts ruling in favor of the workers' Union.

The appeals filed by FCI lacked merit and were accordingly dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.

Facts:The appeals concern assessees who established manufacturing units in specified areas, including Himachal Pradesh, and claimed exemption at 100% under Section 80-IC for the first five assessment years. They sought continued exemption at the same rate for the subsequent five years based on substantial expansion.

Issues:

Whether assessees, after availing 100% exemption for the initial five years under Section 80-IC, are entitled to claim the same rate of exemption for the next five years due to substantial expansion.

Held:

The Court rejected the assessees' claim and ruled in favor of the Revenue. It held that once the initial assessment year commences and the assessee starts enjoying deduction under Section 80-IC, there cannot be another initial assessment year within the 10-year period, even with substantial expansion. The Court emphasized the clear provisions of sub-sections (3) and (6) of Section 80-IC, limiting the deduction to 100% for the initial five years and 25% (or 30% for companies) for the subsequent five years, with a total cap of 10 years.

The Court distinguished this case from previous judgments where assessees claimed deductions under different provisions. It clarified that in this case, the assessees had initially claimed deductions solely under Section 80-IC. Therefore, the Court held that after availing deduction for the initial five years at 100%, the assessees are entitled to deduction for the remaining five assessment years at the rate of 25% (or 30% for companies), as per the provisions of Section 80-IC.

The appeals were allowed, and the Court directed the Assessing Officer to carry out fresh assessments and pass appropriate orders accordingly. No costs were awarded in the case.

Facts:

In a writ petition filed by the appellants against the State in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the appellants sought ad-interim stay during the pendency of the writ petition regarding a land matter. The High Court declined to grant the ad-interim stay, citing that the required land was vacant.

Issues:

The High Court's refusal to grant ad-interim stay during the pendency of the writ petition.

Held:

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The Court found two main reasons for remand: Firstly, the impugned order lacked adequate reasons for not granting the stay. Secondly, the reason provided by the High Court did not justify the rejection considering the nature of the controversy involved in the writ petition.

The Court emphasized the need for justifiable reasons to support either the grant or rejection of the stay application. Therefore, the case was remanded to the High Court to reconsider the ad-interim prayer made by the appellants or consider disposing of the writ petition itself based on merits and in accordance with the law.

Facts:

The dispute arose between Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd., a registered broker with the National Stock Exchange, and Girdhar Sondhi, its client, regarding transactions in securities and shares. The respondent initiated an arbitration proceeding against the appellant, claiming an amount of Rs. 7,36,620/-, which was rejected by the Sole Arbitrator through an Arbitration Award dated 08.12.2009. The agreement between the parties contained clauses related to abiding by the Depositories Act, 1996, SEBI Regulations, and bye-laws of CDSL, as well as provisions for arbitration and jurisdiction, with an exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction to the courts in Mumbai.

Issues:

The interpretation of the exclusive jurisdiction clause and the procedural requirements for setting aside arbitral awards under Section 34(2)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Held:

The Court clarified that Section 34 proceedings aim to provide a summary procedure for setting aside arbitral awards, with minimal court interference.

The court emphasized that applications under Section 34 do not require oral evidence and should be disposed of expeditiously, typically within one year. The record before the Arbitrator is generally sufficient to furnish proof under Section 34(2)(a), and additional evidence may only be brought through affidavits if necessary. Therefore, the court reinstated the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, which rejected the Section 34 application filed in Delhi due to the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court and emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution of arbitral disputes.