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:

The respondent, Col Ran Singh Dudee, faced General Court Martial proceedings, which were later quashed by the court.

After reinstatement, Col Dudee received promotions but contested the promotion of a junior officer to the rank of Brigadier, claiming unfair treatment.

Issues:

Whether Col Dudee was entitled to promotions based on comparative merit and selection.

Whether the Selection Board's decision regarding Col Dudee's promotion was valid.

Held:

The court clarified that while benefits such as loss of salary and emoluments were compensable due to the court martial proceedings, promotions were not automatically guaranteed.

Promotions based on comparative merit and selection were not necessarily entitled to the officer, as per previous rulings (K.D. Gupta case).

The Selection Board found Col Dudee unfit for promotion to the rank of Colonel after considering various parameters, including disciplinary history. The court found this decision valid and not perverse.

The Selection Board's consideration of Col Dudee's disciplinary record, including a reprimand, was consistent with the Selection Policy and not illegal.

Despite sympathy for Col Dudee's nine years of service loss and imprisonment due to the court martial, the court upheld the decision of the Selection Board and rejected his challenge to the promotion of a junior officer.

Facts:

The respondent, Janakdhari Prasad, was elected to the post of member in the Panchayat Samiti.

The Election Commission disqualified the respondent on the grounds that he was deemed to be in the service of the State Government due to his appointment as an Assistant Government Advocate and receiving fees for cases conducted by him from the Government.

The High Court set aside the Election Commission's order, and the Division Bench upheld the same.

Issues:

Whether the respondent can be considered to be in the service of the State Government, thereby being disqualified under Section 139(1)(c) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

Held:

In Section 139(1)(c) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, there is a postulate that a person shall be disqualified if such a person is in the service of Central or State Government or any local authority.

The respondent was treated as disqualified based on the foundation that he was in the service of the Government. However, the appointment letter issued by the Government of Bihar, Legal Department, to the District Magistrate, only mentioned the appointment of the respondent to the post of Assistant Government Advocate without specifying any fixed remuneration.

The legislature has not used the term "office of profit" in the relevant provision. Therefore, the determination of whether the respondent held an office of profit is not necessary. The absence of such a provision possibly includes persons from different fields as long as they are not in service under the government.

The existence of a master-servant relationship between the State and a person holding a post under it is crucial. However, in this case, there was no master-servant relationship between the respondent and the State Government.

The absence of essential aspects required to establish a relationship of master and servant indicates that the respondent could not have been treated to be in service under the State Government.

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, ruling that the respondent was not in service under the State Government and therefore not disqualified from holding the position in the Panchayat Samiti.

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 New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, along with other authorities and the Commissioner of Income Tax, appealed against a judgment by the Delhi High Court. The case involved the non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act by a private limited company engaged in real estate activities, which had entered into a long-term lease with Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.

Issues:

Whether Noida and Greater Noida are considered "local authorities" under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act.

Whether the income of Noida and Greater Noida is exempt from tax deduction at source under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f).

Whether the circular dated 30.01.1995 applies to exempt Noida and Greater Noida from tax deduction at source under Section 194-I.

Held:

The Court held that Noida and Greater Noida are not considered "local authorities" under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002. The Court also affirmed that Noida's income is exempt under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) by virtue of a notification. However, the circular dated 30.01.1995, which exempted government and certain statutory authorities from tax deduction at source, is not applicable due to subsequent amendments in the law.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the Delhi High Court's judgment that tax deduction at source is applicable on lease rent payments to Greater Noida under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act.

Facts:

Appellant lent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondent for business purposes, with a promise of repayment within a month.

Respondent issued a post-dated cheque of Rs. 2,00,000 to the appellant, but it bounced twice due to insufficient funds.

After receiving a notice demanding payment, the respondent accused the appellant of stealing the cheque.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to set aside the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was justified.

Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Act was correctly applied and rebutted.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court found that:

The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by setting aside the conviction.

The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rightly raised against the respondent, and the respondent failed to rebut this presumption with evidence.

Mere denial of the existence of debt or liability by the accused is insufficient to rebut the presumption. The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the trial court, affirming the conviction of the respondent.

Facts:

The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, decided to extend certain benefits to officers in service in the North Eastern Region, including Special (Duty) Allowance.

Respondents, pharmacists in CRPF, were posted in different places in India, including the North Eastern Region.

A letter dated 31.03.1987 extended the benefit of Special (Duty) Allowance to CRPF personnel posted in the North Eastern Region, provided their headquarters were in that region.

The respondents filed an application claiming the allowance but were denied due to their headquarters being outside the North Eastern Region.

An Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2005 clarified the allowance would be admissible to personnel actually working in the North East Region.

Issues:

Whether the respondents were entitled to Special (Duty) Allowance from the date of their posting in the North Eastern Region or only from 03.08.2005 when the Office Memorandum was issued.

Held:

The Court held that the purpose of granting Special (Duty) Allowance was to attract and retain competent officers in the North Eastern Region. The denial of this allowance to personnel posted in the region, but with headquarters outside, was found unjustified and against the purpose of the allowance. The classification made in the Government Order dated 31.03.1987, differentiating between personnel based on the location of their headquarters, did not pass the test of valid classification under Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the subsequent clarification in the Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2005, allowing the allowance to all personnel posted in the North Eastern Region, irrespective of the location of their headquarters, was considered corrective of this error. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment of the High Court, and directing the grant of Special (Duty) Allowance to the respondents for the period they were actually posted in the North Eastern Region.

Facts:

Devidas Loka Rathod, the appellant, was accused of assaulting individuals with a sickle, resulting in injuries and the death of one person. The trial court and the High Court rejected Rathod's defence of unsoundness of mind. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's defence of unsoundness of mind was valid.

Whether there were gaps in the prosecution's case regarding the appellant's mental state.

Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exception under Section 84 of the IPC.

Whether proper care and support should be provided to the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Held:

The Court examined the evidence and found gaps in the prosecution's case regarding the appellant's mental state. It concluded that there was sufficient doubt about the appellant's mental condition at the time of the offence based on medical evidence and other factors.

Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exception under Section 84 of the IPC. As a result, the Court acquitted the appellant of all charges and directed his release from custody.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the need to provide the appellant with proper care and support in accordance with his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Facts:

The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenged the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and Vigilance Commissioner (VC) on grounds of alleged illegality and violation of principles of 'impeccable integrity' and 'institutional integrity'.

Allegations were made against the appointees regarding their conduct, including meetings with other officials, handling of specific cases, and accusations of fabricating/forging reports.

Issues:

Whether the appointments of the CVC and VC were influenced by extraneous considerations or made in breach of statutes or rules.

Whether the allegations against the appointees were substantiated and affected their integrity.

Held:

The court clarified that judicial review is limited to examining the integrity of the decision-making process. It can set aside decisions influenced by extraneous considerations or made in violation of statutes or rules. However, the court does not have the authority to interfere with the government's choice of appointees.

The court found the allegations against the CVC regarding meetings with other officials and handling of specific cases unsubstantiated. It noted that no wrongdoing or impropriety was found in the actions of the CVC.

Similarly, allegations against the VC regarding fabricating/forging reports were examined. The court found no formal findings against the VC in this regard and concluded that his integrity was not affected.

Emphasizing the importance of thoroughly examining complaints, the court stated that allegations alone cannot be taken as serious aspersions on integrity. It declined to interfere with the appointments based on the findings presented.

Decision: The court upheld the appointments of both the CVC and VC, concluding that the integrity of the decision-making process was not compromised, and no illegality was found in the appointments.