Facts:

Appellant, a developer, entered into a development agreement with the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents for constructing a building on the respondents' land.

Respondents denied execution of the agreement.

Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the respondents.

Issues:

Whether the conditions stipulated in Section 14(3)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are fulfilled for maintaining a suit for specific performance against the owner.

Interpretation of Section 14(3)(c)(iii) in the context of suits by developers against property owners.

Held:

The Court examined the conditions laid out in Section 14(3)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

It found that the agreement between the parties lacked clarity regarding the extent of work and obligations, failing to fulfill the conditions of Section 14(3)(c)(i).

The Court also analyzed the requirement under Section 14(3)(c)(ii) and observed that the alleged losses incurred by the developer could be quantified and compensated with money, thus not satisfying this condition.

Regarding the interpretation of Section 14(3)(c)(iii), the Court noted an anomaly arising from a literal interpretation and advocated for a purposive interpretation to ensure equitable application of the provision.

By giving a purposive interpretation to Section 14(3)(c)(iii), the Court aimed to rectify the anomaly and ensure that both owners and developers could avail of the remedy of specific performance under the Act.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the developer failed to satisfy the conditions for specific performance as stipulated under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Facts:

The Government of India, after a hearing, decided to debar the college due to deficiencies.

The Supreme Court directed the Medical Council of India (MCI) to consider the college's application for renewal of permission for the academic year 2017-18.

MCI conducted another inspection and found gross deficiencies, recommending against renewal for the academic year 2018-19.

Despite the college filing successive writ petitions, no fresh inspection was requested.

The High Court directed the Central Government to make a decision within a specified timeframe.

Issues:

The interpretation of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) and whether the college should be granted further opportunities for compliance despite gross deficiencies being found.

Held:

The Court clarified that its previous order intended for a fresh inspection but did not imply bypassing Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) in case of gross deficiencies.

The college, being aware of its deficiencies and the regulatory provisions, was not entitled to further opportunities for compliance.

Given the nature of deficiencies and the college's history, no further indulgence was warranted, especially in view of Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) .

The High Court's decision was set aside, and the order of the Government of India not to grant renewal for the academic year 2018-19 was upheld.

Decision: The judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside, and the order of the Government of India not to grant renewal for the academic year 2018-19 is upheld.

Facts:

The appellant, an employee of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU), was accused of demanding an illegal gratification for facilitating the installation of an electric connection.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 4000 from the complainant and directed him to pay the money to a co-accused.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act based on the testimony of a shadow witness.

The appellant appealed to the High Court, which upheld the conviction. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the appellant.

Whether the acquittal of the co-accused from conspiracy charges extends to the appellant.

Held:

The prosecution failed to establish both the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the appellant.

Since the charge of conspiracy against the appellant and co-accused was not proved, and the co-accused was acquitted of all charges under the PC Act, the appellant should also be acquitted.

The appellant's conviction under the PC Act was not legally sustainable.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Facts:

The appellant, Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt Ltd, was an assignee of debt by the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd (IFCI) for the outstandings of M/s. Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd (MPL).

The appellant sought substitution as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, but the Company Judge rejected the application.

The appellant then filed for recall/review of the order, contending that they only desired to be adjudged as a transferee of an actionable claim under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act (T.P. Act).

The recall/review application was also rejected by the Company Judge.

Issues:

Whether the appellant was entitled to substitution as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act.

Whether the appellant's request for recall/review of the order was justified.

Held:

The Court held that the appellant initially sought substitution as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, as evidenced by their own submissions and pleadings before the Company Judge. The Court found that the appellant's attempt to shift their stance after the rejection of their claim was impermissible. The Court cited legal precedents emphasizing that a litigant cannot take contradictory stands in the same case.

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision. The appellant's request for substitution was found to lack merit.

Facts:

Hindustan Antibiotics Limited (HAL), a Government of India Undertaking, is engaged in manufacturing life-saving drugs, including PenicillinG.

HAL entered into a joint venture with a foreign company for manufacturing PenicillinG, but the venture failed, leading to rehabilitation under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Protection) Act, 1985.

HAL owns land in Pune, some of which is unused. Disputes arose between HAL and the State, represented by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), regarding the disposal of this land.

HAL filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking directives regarding the disposal of specific portions of the land.

The High Court dismissed HAL's writ petition, suggesting that the proper remedy for HAL would be to file a suit in the civil court rather than pursuing the matter through a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Issues:

Whether HAL's remedy lies in filing a suit in the civil court or pursuing the matter through a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Held:

The Supreme Court intervened to promote an amicable resolution to the disputes between HAL and MHADA regarding land ownership and disposal. The Court decided to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes. The decision is outlined in the following paragraphs:

Since all parties to the appeal are either Public Undertaking or/and the State and its agencies (MHADA), the matter should be amicably settled by the parties concerned sitting across the table rather than to drag the dispute(s) in the Court.

We are of the considered opinion that the various disputes which have arisen between the parties including the one which is the subject matter of the writ petition/appeal be referred to the sole Arbitrator for his decision.

We, accordingly, request Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran former Judge of this Court to act as a sole Arbitrator for deciding the dispute(s), which have arisen between the parties to this appeal.

The appeal stands accordingly disposed of.

Facts:

The case involved ArcelorMittal India Private Limited (AMIPL) and its resolution plan, along with that of Numetal, being challenged under Section 29A(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issues:

Whether the resolution plans submitted by AMIPL and Numetal were affected by Section 29A(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Held:

The Court noted that both resolution plans submitted by AMIPL and Numetal were indeed affected by Section 29A(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, as neither entity had cleared their respective non-performing assets (NPAs).

The Court, considering the interest of complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, granted both resolution applicants an additional opportunity to clear the NPAs of their related corporate debtors within two weeks from the date of the judgment.

If the NPAs were paid within the specified period, both resolution applicants were permitted to resubmit their resolution plans to the Committee of Creditors. The Committee of Creditors was given eight weeks from the date of the judgment to accept, by the requisite majority, the best among the resubmitted plans, including the resolution plan submitted by Vedanta.

However, if none of the plans received the requisite majority approval from the Committee of Creditors, the corporate debtor, i.e., ESIL, would proceed into liquidation.

Decision:The appeals were disposed of based on the directives mentioned above.

Facts:

The case revolves around the allocation of subordinate judicial officers between the newly formed states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh after the reorganisation of Andhra Pradesh.

Initially, the Union of India proposed guidelines for allocation, which were later modified by the High Court to consider factors such as seniority and preference for the state in which the district of service falls.

Issues:

The validity and fairness of the guidelines for the allocation of subordinate judicial officers between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

The case also addressed the interpretation of relevant sections of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and the constitutional provisions regarding domicile-based preferences in public employment.

Held:

The court emphasized that final allocation orders for judicial officers were to be issued by the Central Government after consultation with the High Court, as per the provisions of Sections 77 and 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.

It was reiterated that guidelines for allocation should ensure fair and equal treatment to all affected individuals, in line with constitutional principles of equality.

The court clarified that domicile-based preferences may not apply to appointment of judicial officers, as per the constitutional scheme and the express provisions of Article 371D.

The right of option for judicial officers to choose their cadre state was upheld, with seniority being a significant factor in accepting such options.

The modified guidelines aimed to balance the right of option for judicial officers while ensuring fairness in allocation.

After reviewing the options exercised by judicial officers and finding that all officers from Telangana had opted for Telangana, the court concluded that the modified guidelines were legally sound and directed their implementation.

Decision: The court concluded that the modified guidelines for the allocation of judicial officers between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh were acceptable and ordered the finalization of options for all judicial officers as per these guidelines.

Facts:

The appellant, employed as a Peon in a bank, was accused of misappropriating funds entrusted to him.

He allegedly made fake credit entries, forged signatures, and pocketed money from depositors.

The prosecution relied on confession statements made by the appellant during a preliminary enquiry conducted by senior bank officials.

The appellant contested the voluntariness of these confessions, alleging coercion and inducement.

Issues:

Whether the confession statements made by the appellant were voluntary.

Whether there was evidence of coercion or inducement by investigating officers.

The admissibility and evidentiary value of confession statements in the case.

Held:

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the confession statements and found no evidence of coercion or inducement.

Mere allegations of threat or inducement are not sufficient; there must be evidence of reasonable belief in the accused's mind.

The court confirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409 and 477-A of the IPC.

However, considering the passage of time and the circumstances of the case, the court reduced the appellant's sentence of imprisonment under Section 409 IPC from five years to three years.

The conviction and sentences under other sections were upheld.

The appeals were partly allowed, confirming the appellant's convictions but reducing the sentence. The appellant was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

Facts:

The case arose from a contract for the planning, design, development, construction, and maintenance of a Monorail system in Mumbai.

Disputes emerged between Larsen and Toubro Limited, along with SCOMI Engineering Bhd (the Consortium), and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), leading to an arbitration petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petition cited Section 2(1)(f)(ii) of the Act, which deals with arbitration involving parties incorporated in different countries.

Issues:

Whether the Consortium should be treated as separate entities or an unincorporated association for arbitration purposes.

Whether central management and control were exercised in India, making the dispute ineligible for international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) of the Act.

Held:

The Court considered arguments presented by both parties, including a previous judgment by the Bombay High Court regarding the Consortium's treatment as a single entity.

The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 2(1)(f)(iii) and the rationale behind the deletion of the phrase "a company or" from the provision.

It concluded that the dispute did not qualify as international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act.

The Court dismissed the arbitration petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue the matter in the relevant court without considering it as a case of international commercial arbitration.