Facts:

The case involves the interpretation of the role of the Chief Justice of India in allocating cases and constituting benches in the Supreme Court.

Issues:

The extent of the administrative authority of the Chief Justice in preparing rosters for case allocation.

Whether the expression 'Chief Justice' in the Supreme Court Rules should be interpreted as 'Collegium' of the first five Judges.

Held:

The Chief Justice, in his individual capacity, is recognized as the Master of the Roster, possessing the prerogative to constitute benches and allocate subjects to them.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly define the role of the Chief Justice; however, legal conventions and practices affirm his administrative authority, which is enshrined in the Supreme Court Rules.

The Chief Justice's role encompasses both exercising judicial power on par with other judges and assuming responsibility for the administration of the Court, including the distribution of judicial workload.

The power of the Chief Justice to allocate cases stems from Article 145 of the Constitution and is reflected in the Supreme Court Rules.

Once a case is assigned to a particular bench, that bench holds complete authority over it, free from interference from the Chief Justice or others.

The Chief Justice's primary functions are to exercise judicial power and administer the Court, including determining the distribution of judicial workload.

Decision: The Chief Justice, acting as the Master of the Roster, retains the authority to allocate cases and constitute benches. This prerogative is upheld based on constitutional provisions, legal precedents, and established conventions.

Facts:

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 376 and 342 IPC and sentenced accordingly. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the High Court. The victim's identity was disclosed in the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court, which is inconsistent with Section 228-A of the IPC.

Issues:

Whether the petitioner's conviction and sentence should be upheld.

Whether the disclosure of the victim's identity in the judgments is in accordance with the law.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant. However, it noted the disclosure of the victim's identity in the judgments and directed the High Court Registry to make appropriate changes to protect the victim's identity in compliance with Section 228-A IPC.

Facts:

The disputed land was proposed for acquisition for construction purposes by the Divisional Controller, MSRTC Corporation, Amravati in 1985.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award regarding compensation payable to the appellant.

The appellant received notice of the award but did not receive the certified copy until later.

The appellant filed a reference against the awarded compensation for enhancement under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

The Reference Court partly allowed the reference, and both parties filed cross-appeals before the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the reference for enhancement of compensation was filed within the limitation period as per the Land Acquisition Act.

Held:

The Court held that the notice of the award, dated December 4, 1987, was not accompanied by the award itself, which affected the appellant's ability to effectively exercise the right to seek reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the reference for enhancement was not barred by limitation. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order on the limitation issue and remanded the matters back for fresh consideration on the merits of the case, particularly the quantum of compensation.

Additionally, the Supreme Court urged the High Court to expedite the disposal of the matter due to its long pendency.

Facts:

The N.C. Medical College and Hospital faced repeated deficiencies in infrastructure, teaching faculty, and other facilities as assessed by the Medical Council of India (MCI). Despite recommendations and disapprovals by the MCI and the Central Government, the college was permitted to admit students for the academic year 2016-17. Subsequent assessments continued to find deficiencies, leading to the college's debarment from admitting students for two academic sessions.

Issues:

The correctness of the High Court's interim order allowing the medical college to proceed with admissions for the academic session 2018-19.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court was not justified in passing interim directions. It emphasized the need for caution in granting such relief, considering the potential adverse consequences, including the jeopardy faced by admitted students if deficiencies were found later. The Court referred to previous cases where similar interim orders were questioned, highlighting the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting the interests of students.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. It clarified that it did not address the factual controversy of the case, leaving it to be considered purely on its merits in the pending writ petition.

Facts:

The Medical Council of India (MCI) recommended against renewing permission for a medical college due to deficiencies found during inspections.

The Central Government initially granted renewal for the second batch but declined renewal for the third batch after further inspections revealed persistent deficiencies.

The medical college filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan, which, in an interim order, directed the Central Government to allow the college to admit students for the third batch pending the final hearing.

Issues:

Whether the interim order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan was justified.

Whether the matter should be heard and decided finally rather than through interim directions.

Held:

Based on the reasoning provided in various precedent cases cited in the judgment, the Supreme Court found no justification for the interim direction given by the High Court. The Court emphasized that such interim orders could cause prejudice to students and that the matter should be heard and decided finally rather than through interim directions.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim order of the High Court. The Court stressed that the pending matter should be considered purely on its merits during the next hearing before the High Court.

Facts:

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract and alternative relief of refund of advance amount and permanent injunction against the defendants.

The suit involved unregistered agreements to sell and a registered Power of Attorney.

The Trial Court had admitted the documents as evidence, subject to proof and relevancy, while leaving open other issues regarding their validity and applicability.

The High Court reversed the Trial Court's decision, declaring the agreements inadmissible as evidence.

Issues:

Whether the suit agreement, which was unregistered, could be admissible as evidence for specific performance.

Other issues included the admissibility of the Power of Attorney and whether the documents were hit by the provisions of relevant Acts.

Held:

The Court held that the unregistered suit agreement could be admitted as evidence under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, but it would have no effect for the purposes of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to admit the documents as evidence, subject to proof and relevancy, and directed the Trial Court to decide other issues concerning their validity and applicability.

The Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Facts:

Adesh Kaur, the appellant, acquired 903 equity shares in Eicher Motors Limited in 1994-95.

In 2012, an impersonator fraudulently changed the address of the shares to Mumbai, obtained duplicate share certificates, and transferred them to a third party.

Adesh Kaur discovered the fraud and sought revalidation of her shares, but Eicher Motors Limited did not provide relief.

Adesh Kaur filed a Company Petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which ruled in her favor, directing rectification of the share register.

On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the NCLT's decision, directing Adesh Kaur to pursue her remedy through a civil suit.

Issues:

Whether the procedural irregularities in issuing duplicate share certificates and the fraudulent transfer of shares warrant rectification of the share register.

Held:

The Court reinstated the order of the NCLT, finding the fraud evident and the procedural requirements for issuing duplicate shares not followed. The Court directed Eicher Motors Limited to rectify its share register and the concerned depository to rectify demat records accordingly. The Court allowed the appeals and disposed of any pending applications.

Facts:

Disputes arose between M/s Raveechee and Co. (Appellant) and Union of India (Respondent) regarding a contract for quarrying, stacking, and loading stone ballast.

Arbitration proceedings commenced on 26.09.1988, and the award was passed on 22.03.2001.

Arbitral Tribunal awarded interest pendente lite at 12% on the award for damages excluding security deposits amounting to Rs. 44,92,800/- from 26.09.1988 to 22.03.2001.

High Court partly allowed the appeal of Union of India and quashed part of the award related to Claim No. 12.

Issues:

Whether Clause 16(3) of the General Contract Clauses restricted the power of the arbitrator to award interest pendente lite?

Held:

The clause did not specifically bar the arbitrator from awarding interest pendente lite.

The liability for interest pendente lite arises during the determination of losses or damages due to the claimant, not from the contract terms.

Unless specifically barred, an arbitrator has the power to award interest pendente lite.

The clause in the agreement does not extend to binding an arbitrator; hence, the arbitrator has the power to award interest pendente lite where justified.

The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of Claim No. 12 was restored.

Facts:

The accident occurred during blasting operations conducted in a field for digging a well using a tractor. A stone fell on a person, leading to his death. The tribunal treated the accident as a vehicular accident and entertained the claim. The High Court, however, ruled that the claim petition was not maintainable since the battery, detached from the vehicle during the accident, was not part of the vehicle.

Issues:

The court was the maintainability of the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in light of the circumstances surrounding the accident.

Held:

The tribunal correctly treated the accident as a vehicular accident based on the evidence presented. Contrary to the High Court's ruling, the tractor was actively involved in the blasting operation, and the battery, though detached, was still part of the vehicle during the accident.

Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that a claim for compensation can be adjudicated if the accident arises out of the use of a motor vehicle. The tractor, being involved in blasting operations, fulfilled the criteria of "use" under the Act.

The term "use of the vehicle" under the Act extends to situations where the vehicle is stationary or static, provided there is a causal relationship between the violation and the accident caused. The court emphasized the need for some causal relation or relevance between the incident and the act.

Given the circumstances, it was erroneous to argue that the tractor was not in use as stipulated under Section 165. Therefore, the High Court erred in its decision.

The insurer argued that the tractor's commercial use for blasting operations breached the insurance policy, relieving them of liability. However, the High Court failed to analyze the terms and conditions of the policy and related evidence.

Reiterating the tractor's agricultural insurance coverage, the court noted that the High Court did not adequately address the policy's terms and conditions, necessitating further analysis to determine liability.

Decision: The appeals were partly allowed, and the case was remanded to the High Court to determine liability based on a thorough analysis of the insurance policy and relevant evidence. Until then, the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation determined by the tribunal to the claimants.