Facts:

The case involves a dispute between the Kerala State Electricity Board (appellant) and Kurien E. Kalathil (respondent) regarding a contract for the construction of a dam. The appellant terminated the contract while a writ petition filed by the respondent was pending. Various petitions were filed by both parties, leading to conflicting claims over payments and interest.

Issues:

The method of appropriation of payments received by the respondent from the appellant.

Entitlement to subsequent interest on the amounts claimed by the respondent.

Validity of the reference to arbitration made by the High Court.

Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Held:

The court analyzed the method of appropriation of payments made by the appellant to the respondent. It observed inconsistencies in the respondent's approach to adjusting payments towards principal and interest. The court held that payments should be strictly appropriated according to the original agreement, towards the principal first. The direction of the High Court to make further payments under Ex.P20 was set aside.

Regarding subsequent interest, the court noted that there was no direction in the decree for future interest, thus deeming it refused. The respondent's claim for subsequent interest was dismissed as not sustainable.

The court addressed the validity of the reference to arbitration made by the High Court. It emphasized the necessity of written consent from both parties for arbitration reference, which was absent in this case. Therefore, the reference to arbitration was deemed invalid.

In exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the court found the findings of the High Court to be causing loss to the appellant and therefore, it did not decline to interfere. The impugned judgment was set aside.

Regarding the quantum of payment, the court directed the appellant to pay the respondent a certain amount as per the agreement, with adjustments for excess payments made by the appellant. It also clarified that the amount claimed under certain sections would not carry subsequent interest.

Facts:

The appellant, Ummer, filed an appeal against a decision of the Family Court.

The appeal was delayed by 554 days.

Ummer cited health issues and mental disturbance as the reasons for the delay, supported by medical documents.

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding insufficient cause shown by Ummer.

Issues:

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned considering the appellant's health issues and mental disturbance.

Held:

The cause shown by the appellant for condoning the delay was a "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The High Court should have taken a liberal view in the matter and condoned the delay.

The earlier view requiring an explanation for each day of delay had been diluted by later decisions of the Court.

The appellant's health issues and mental disturbance, supported by medical documents, constituted sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was deemed to have been filed within the limitation period.

A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the appellant to be paid to respondent No. 1.

The High Court was instructed to decide the appeal on its merits expeditiously.

Facts:

The appellants filed a writ petition challenging an order related to a land dispute, which was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court. Subsequently, they filed an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench, which allowed them to withdraw the appeal and file a review petition. However, the review petition filed by the appellants had defects according to the Registry of the High Court, and they were directed to cure these defects. Despite the direction, the appellants did not address the defects, leading to the review application being listed before the Registrar (Judicial-1).

Issues:

The dismissal of the appellants' application by the High Court on grounds of delay and non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and restoring the review application for hearing by the appropriate Bench.

The Court emphasized the importance of procedural laws as facilitators of justice, rather than instruments of punishment, citing the observations made in Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425. It urged for a liberal interpretation of procedural laws, particularly in cases where substantial justice is at stake.

Consequently, the Court condoned the delay in filing the application before the High Court and granted the appellants one month's time to rectify the defects in their review application, directing it to be placed before the appropriate Bench for further proceedings.

Facts:

The appellant contested in the 14th Kerala Legislative Assembly elections and was declared elected. Subsequently, the respondents filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices under Section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1950. The appellant raised objections regarding the timeliness of the petition and certain defects therein.

Issues:

Whether the election petition was filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

Whether the defects in the election petition could be cured after the period of limitation.

Whether the production of documents in sealed covers violated the provisions of the Representation of People Act.

Whether the copies supplied to the appellant were sufficient.

Held:

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the lower court. The Court found that the minor corrections allowed by the court were within its jurisdiction and did not violate the provisions of the Representation of People Act. Additionally, it held that the issues raised regarding the supply of copies and the production of documents in sealed covers were matters for trial and did not warrant dismissal of the petition at that stage.

Facts:

The respondents, M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., provided various services and received payments for both the services rendered and reimbursable expenses incurred during service provision. The service tax was paid only on the amounts received for the services rendered, excluding the reimbursed expenses.

Issues:

Whether Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, which includes reimbursable expenses in the valuation of taxable services for service tax purposes, is in accordance with the provisions of sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Whether the value of free supplies of diesel and explosives could be included in the assessment of service tax for the service of 'Site Formation and Clearance Service'.

Held:

The Court held that Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, extends to reimbursable expenses, which are reimbursed by clients, in the valuation of taxable services. However, this inclusion goes beyond the mandate of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, pertains to the value of taxable services, which are actually rendered, for the purpose of calculating service tax. The Court emphasized that service tax is levied only on the consideration paid for providing taxable services. Therefore, any amount not calculated for providing taxable services cannot be included in the valuation for service tax purposes.

The Court noted that the Legislature amended the Finance Act, 1994, in 2015 to include reimbursable expenses in the valuation of taxable services, indicating that such expenses were not originally intended to be included.

Regarding the issue of free supplies of diesel and explosives for the service of 'Site Formation and Clearance Service', the Court held that such supplies cannot be treated as part of the consideration for rendering services and should not be included in the assessment of service tax.

Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals and disposed of the transferred writs in accordance with the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014 and other connected matters.

Facts:

Synthetic woolen rags were imported in containers, which were destuffed in the Cochin Port Trust premises for Customs examination. However, due to inadequate storage space, the destuffed cargo was not promptly cleared by the consignees. Consequently, the goods remained idle in the port premises for an extended period, leading the port trust to impose ground rent charges on the steamer agents/owners of the containers.

Issues:

The determination of liability for ground rent charges on containers unloaded at Cochin Port but not cleared by the consignees or importers.

Specifically, whether such charges could be imposed on the vessel/steamer agents beyond the 75-day period fixed by the Tariff Authority of Major Ports.

Held:

In view of inconsistencies in previous judgments regarding liability for port charges, the matter was referred to a larger bench for resolution. The following issues needed clarification:

The interpretation of Section 2(o) of the Major Port Trust Act, considering the relevance of the title of goods and the point at which title passes to the consignee in determining liability.

Whether a consignor or steamer agent is relieved of responsibility to pay charges once the Bill of Lading is endorsed or a delivery order is issued.

The extent to which a steamer agent can be held liable for storage charges/demurrage for uncleared goods if a delivery order hasn't been issued.

Determining the principles for the port trust to recover its dues from either the steamer agent or the consignee.

Examining any statutory or contractual obligations for the port trust to de-stuff containers and return them to shipping agents.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of clause 20 of a settlement agreement between the Corporation and its workers.

The appellant, initially employed as a "Badali Kamdar" in 1999, sought benefits from the date of his initial appointment.

The Corporation maintained that benefits should be granted from the date of absorption into the permanent cadre, as per clause 20 of the settlement.

The Industrial Tribunal ruled in favor of the employees initially, but the High Court sided with the Corporation.

Issues:

Interpretation of clause 20 of the settlement agreement.

Determination of the date from which benefits should be granted to employees.

Held:

The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, affirming that the settlement agreement between the Corporation and the workers was binding on both parties.

The Court held that benefits should be granted from the date of absorption into the permanent cadre, as specified in clause 20 of the settlement. The Court emphasized that the settlement recognized the rights of "Badali Kamdars" subject to fulfilling specified conditions, which were found to have been satisfied in the appellant's case.

The Court declined to reassess the evidence presented in the case, as it was not within the scope of appeals filed under Article 136 of the Constitution. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, thereby upholding the decision of the High Court.

Facts:

The appellant, Dwarike Prasad, acted as a guarantor for a loan granted to another individual, secured by an equitable mortgage on certain immovable property. The appellant failed to repay the loan, leading to the initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by the bank. These proceedings culminated in the sale of the mortgaged property through auction.

Issues:

Whether the appellant had the right to redeem the mortgaged property after the sale?

Whether the appellant complied with the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act?

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, which rejected the appellant's plea for redemption rights. The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. The appellant failed to fulfill the requirements of the provision by not tendering the full amount due along with costs and expenses before the date fixed for sale or transfer. Consequently, the right to redemption stood extinguished upon the execution of the registered sale deed, as per the principles laid down in Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar.

However, the Court acknowledged the appellant's entitlement to a refund of the amount deposited by him during the proceedings. It directed the bank to refund the deposited amount with interest at 9% per annum within 8 weeks.

Facts: The appellant, Bharati Reddy, was elected to the post of Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat. A writ petition was filed before the High Court alleging that Reddy played fraud on the government by submitting a false affidavit for the issuance of an Income and Caste Certificate.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of quo warranto directing Reddy to vacate the office of Adhyaksha.

Whether the Income and Caste Certificate issued to Reddy was valid.

Whether the discrepancies in Reddy's affidavits warranted her disqualification from holding the office.

Held:

The post of Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat is a public office for which a writ of quo warranto can be issued if the incumbent is ineligible or incurs disqualification (Para 13).

The High Court erred in issuing the writ of quo warranto without first determining the validity of the Income and Caste Certificate issued to Reddy. The certificate's validity was to be determined by the Caste Verification Committee (Para 22).

Discrepancies in Reddy's affidavits and the expedited issuance of the certificate did not automatically invalidate it. The Caste Verification Committee was tasked with investigating these matters (Para 20-21).

The High Court's decision to leave the question of the certificate's validity to the Caste Verification Committee was correct. The Committee should expedite its inquiry (Para 37).

Decision: The decisions of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were set aside. The Caste Verification Committee was directed to expedite its inquiry into the validity of the Income and Caste Certificate issued to Reddy and conclude the same preferably within a stipulated period (Para 38).

Referred Cases in the Judgment:

Decided on : 06-03-2018

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226

Counsel for Appearing Parties

H. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate, for the Appellants; S-Legal Associates, for the Respondents