Facts:

The petitioner, D. Sudhakar, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and with a physical handicap, claimed unfair treatment in the selection process for the IAS.

Despite being shortlisted, the petitioner was not selected for the IAS, invoking Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which provides for 3% reservation for persons with disabilities in every establishment under the appropriate Government.

Issues:

Interpretation of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, in conjunction with the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, and the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954.

Validity of the petitioner's claim for inclusion under the physically handicapped quota.

Held:

The Tribunal partly allowed the original application, setting aside the shortlisting of 15 candidates but rejecting the petitioner's inclusion under the physically handicapped quota.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the prospective nature of an amendment to the Office Memorandum dated 29th December 2005.

The Supreme Court granted leave, considering the interlinked issues with pending Civil Appeals, and tagged the appeal with other related cases for a comprehensive decision.

Referred Cases:

H.C. Sharma Vs. N.D.M.C., (2014) 211 DLT 462

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Manoj Gupta, (2010) 171 DLT 600

Union of India Vs. National Federation of the Blind, (2013) 10 SCC 772

Facts:

Appellant societies provided loans to Tasgaonkar Sugar Mills Ltd., which took over the business of Daulat Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Financial difficulties led to unpaid dues to cane growers, resulting in an order for the release of a substantial amount under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966.

Collector, Kolhapur, authorized to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, leading to the attachment of sugar stocks, some of which were pledged to the appellant societies.

High Court directed auction of attached sugar stocks, and disputes arose regarding the priority of payments.

Issues:

Dispute over the priority of claims to attached property, specifically pledged sugar stocks.

Appellant societies claimed precedence as secured creditors due to the pledged sugar.

Collector prioritized payment of Provident Fund and dues to cane growers over claims of appellant societies.

High Court dismissed writ petitions, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 218 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the rights of the appellant societies over the pledged sugar had precedence over other claims, as established in the Central Bank of India v. Siriguppa Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. case. The Court noted that the earlier orders of the High Court, recognizing the appellant societies' right of precedence, had attained finality. The appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the authorities were directed to disburse the amount with precedence given to the claims of the appellant societies.

Referred Cases:

Central Bank of India Vs. Siriguppa Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 353

Facts:

On June 2, 2014, the State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into two separate states, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, as per the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. The Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSC) was constituted under Section 3 of the APSC of Higher Education Act, 1988, to advise the State Government on matters related to Higher Education.

Issues:

The dispute arose when the State of Telangana claimed ownership over the entire funds and assets of the erstwhile APSC, leading to a legal challenge against the freezing of APSC's bank accounts.

Held:

The Constitution of India grants the power of forming new states to the Parliament under Article 3. Bifurcation of states is a sensitive matter, and legislative care is essential to ensure a smooth division of assets, liabilities, and funds. The court emphasized the need for equitable treatment of successor states to protect the interests of citizens.

The court held that the complete takeover of assets by Telangana was not the legislative intent behind the Reorganisation Act, 2014. The freezing of APSC's bank accounts by banks was deemed untenable in law. The court allowed the appeals by the State of Andhra Pradesh and APSC.

The court directed that the assets of APSC be divided between the two successor states in the population ratio of 58:42, as per Section 2(h) of the Reorganisation Act, 2014. If the states cannot agree, the Central Government may constitute a committee to facilitate an agreement within two months.

Referred Cases:

Electricity Employees Union Vs. Union of India, (2000) 7 SCC 339

H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior Vs. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 85

Prakash Kumar@ Prakash Bhutto Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409

Raja Ram Pal Vs. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184

S.R. Bommai Vs. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1

Facts:

A writ petition was registered under the caption "Suo motu cognizance of appointment of Lokayukta and failure to constitute Meghalaya State Human Rights Commission."

The High Court, by the impugned order, referred to Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014, and questioned the eligibility criteria for the Chairperson.

Issues:

The High Court's suo motu scrutiny of the eligibility criteria for the Chairperson under the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014.

Stay order on the provision related to the eligibility criteria.

Direction regarding the appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Meghalaya State Human Rights Commission.

Held:

The Court sets aside the part of the order dealing with the provisions of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014. The judgment emphasizes that the High Court could not suo motu proceed to test the validity of the provision without a challenge to its constitutional validity. The Court does not express any opinion on the validity of the Act's provisions.

The Court directs that the State Human Rights Commission should become functional by the end of June 2016. It refrains from imposing a fixed time frame for the operationalization of the Lokayukta institution but underscores the executive's responsibility to ensure its timely establishment.

Referred Cases:

Budhadev Karmaskar 1 Vs. State of W.B., (2011) 11 SCC 538

Census Commissioner Vs. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796

Indian Bank Vs. Godhara Nagrik Coop. Credit Society Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 541

Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441

Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar, (2008) 9 SCC 54

Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re, (2012) 5 SCC 1

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K. Jayaraman, (1974) 2 SCC 738

State of Haryana Vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 12 SCC 673

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kartar Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1135

Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651

Union of India Vs. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 223

Facts:

The judgment is a review of a previous decision dated 13th May, 2015, passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2003, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 197 of 2004, and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 302 of 2012.

The exception allowing the publication of photographs of the President, Prime Minister, and Chief Justice of the country, subject to their decision, is extended to Governors and Chief Ministers of the States.

Alternatives are suggested for the publication of photographs of the Prime Minister and Chief Minister.

Issues:

Whether the exception outlined in paragraph 23 of the judgment dated 13th May, 2015, should be extended to include Governors and Chief Ministers of the States.

Whether alternatives for the publication of photographs of the Prime Minister and Chief Minister are appropriate.

Held:

The exception in paragraph 23 of the judgment dated 13th May, 2015, allowing the publication of photographs of the President, Prime Minister, and Chief Justice, subject to their decision, is now extended to Governors and Chief Ministers of the States.

In lieu of the Prime Minister's photograph, the photograph of the Departmental (Cabinet) Minister/Minister In-charge of the concerned Ministry may be published, if desired.

Similarly, in the States, the photograph of the Departmental (Cabinet) Minister/Minister In-charge may be published in lieu of the Chief Minister's photograph, if desired.

All other observations and directions in the judgment dated 13th May, 2015, will continue to remain in force, subject to the above modifications.

Disposes of the review petitions in accordance with the terms mentioned.

Facts:

Application filed for admission for the academic year 2016-17.

Request for admission based on the Common Entrance Test conducted by the APDMC.

Similar prayer made in a previous application (I.A. No. 74 of 2014) for the academic year 2015-16, which was dismissed on 12th February 2015.

No mention of the earlier application in the present one.

Issues:

Lack of averment regarding the dismissed earlier application.

No request for an examination for admission for the academic year 2016-17.

Violation of Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000.

Held:

The court found no mention of the dismissed earlier application and noted the absence of a request for an examination for the academic year 2016-17.

No examination had been conducted as required by regulations, and the last date for the examination had passed.

Despite a plea to extend the examination date, the court found it impractical.

The interim arrangement permitted medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh to admit 50% of students based on the applicant association's examination and 50% based on the state's recommendation.

The court allowed the applicants to select candidates for the 2016-17 batch from the successful candidates in the All India Examination.

The state was responsible for counseling, and collected fees were to be paid to the medical colleges by the state.

Interlocutory Application No. 83 of 2015 was disposed of.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute subject to arbitration, and the arbitration agreement is governed by the provisions of Section 3 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The relevant clauses in the First Schedule of the Act outline the framework for the appointment of arbitrators, time limits for passing awards, and other procedural aspects.

Issues:

The power of an arbitrator to award pendente lite interest, especially when the contract may contain explicit provisions barring such awards.

Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act grants the arbitrator the authority to award interest pendente lite unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

Held:

Elucidates the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1940, emphasizing that the arbitration agreement includes the provisions contained in the First Schedule unless a different intention is expressly stated.

The definition of "Court" in Section 2(c) is explained, making a clear distinction between the court and the arbitrator. The arbitrator derives authority from the agreement and does not possess all the powers of a court.

Sections 29 and 34 of the Act are highlighted to illustrate the court's power to award interest and draw a parallel with Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act, which emphasizes the significance of the contract between the parties.

The grant of pendente lite interest is contingent on various factors, as explained in paragraphs 6, 7, 16, 23. Factors include the language used in the agreement, clauses conferring arbitration powers, the nature of the claim, and the specified items for which interest may be excluded.

Decision: The court holds that if a contract expressly bars the award of interest pendente lite, the arbitrator cannot grant such interest. However, the court cautions against readily inferring an express bar solely based on a delay payment provision, emphasizing the need to consider various relevant aspects.

Referred Cases:

Ashok Construction Company Vs. Union of India, (1971) 3 SCC 66

Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta Vs. Engineers-De-Space-Age, (1996) 1 SCC 516

Executive Engineer Irrigation Balimela Vs. Abhaduta Jena, (1988) 1 SCC 418

Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa Vs. N.C. Budharaj D by L.Rs., (2001) 2 SCC 721

Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan Vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore, AIR 1967 SC 1030

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1992) 4 SCC 217

Madnani Construction Corporation P Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 549

Nachiappa Chettiar Vs. Subramaniam Chettiar, AIR 1960 SC 327

Raipur Development Authority Vs. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors, (1989) 2 SCC 721

Satinder Singh Vs. Amrao Singh, AIR 1961 SC 908

Sayeed Ahmed & Co. Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 12 SCC 26

Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa Vs. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508

Seth Thawardas Pherumal Vs. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 468

Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions Vs. Divisional Railway Manager Works, Palghat, (2010) 8 SCC 767

State of M.P. Vs. M/s. Saith and Skelton Pvt. Ltd., (1972) 1 SCC 702

State of Orissa Vs. B.N. Agarwalla, (1997) 2 SCC 469

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction P Ltd., (2009) 12 SCC 1

State of U.P. Vs. Harish Chandra & Co., (1999) 1 SCC 63

Superintending Engineer Vs. B. Subba Reddy, (1999) 4 SCC 423

Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited Vs. Jai Prakash Associates Limited, (2012) 12 SCC 10

Union of India Vs. Bright Power Projects India Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 695

Union of India Vs. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 1032

Union of India Vs. Krafters Engineering & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 7 SCC 279

Facts:

Ajay Arjun Singh, the returned candidate, filed a petition seeking the dismissal of an election petition. The ground for dismissal was that the affidavit filed with the petition did not conform to Form 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The election petitioner contended that the affidavit in Form 25 was included in pages 394 and 395 of the petition and asserted that two affidavits were filed.

Issues:

Whether the affidavit filed was in conformity with Form 25.

Whether one or two affidavits were filed along with the election petition.

Jurisdictional issue related to Rule 13(2) of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008.

Held:

The High Court's casual handling of the matter was criticized. The finding of no affidavit in Form No.25 was recorded without examining the existence or content of the affidavit claimed to be annexed to the petition.( Para 20)

The objection raised by the returned candidate regarding the jurisdiction of Rule 13(2) of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, was rejected. Section 80A(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, was held to govern the jurisdiction of election petitions.( Paras 29 and 31)

The argument regarding the subsequent and conflicting finding was rejected. The principle of res judicata was found inapplicable as the specific issue was not directly and substantially in issue in a former proceeding.( Para 35(1), 37(i))

The High Court's failure to examine whether two affidavits were filed along with the petition in the OR VII R 11 petition was highlighted. The order was deemed casual and lacking in examination of facts.( Paras 35(II), 37(ii))

Non-compliance of Rule 6(4) by the Registrar was noted, but it was held not fatal to the election petition as the act or omission of the Court should not harm any party.( Para 37(c, d))

The question of whether the election petitioner filed the second affidavit was considered a pure question of fact, but it was not directly in issue during the OR VII R 11 petition.( Para 37(e))

The returned candidate's objection in the OR VII R 11 petition was clarified to be about the format and content of the affidavit, not the date of filing.( Para 39)

The election petitioner's filing of another affidavit pursuant to the order dated 25.8.2014 was deemed irrelevant to the question of the existence of a second affidavit initially.( Paras 40, 43)

Referred Cases:

Banarsi Vs. Ram Phal, (2003) 9 SCC 606

Banku Chandra Bose Vs. Marium Begum, AIR 1917 Cal. 546

G.M. Siddeshwar Vs. Prasanna Kumar, AIR 2013 SC 1549

Hardevinder Singh Vs. Paramjit Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 261

P.A. Mohammed Riyas Vs. M.K. Raghavan, (2012) 5 SCC 511

State of Punjab Vs. Krishan Niwas, (1997) 9 SCC 31

FACTS:

Trust property admeasuring 3343.53 sq. meters in Girgaun area, Mumbai.

Trustees resolved to sell the property due to low rents and protection issues under the Bombay Rent Act.

Sale proposed under Development Control Regulation 33(7) for re-development of cessed buildings.

ISSUES:

Challenge to the Charity Commissioner's order granting permission to sell the property.

Single Judge set aside the order, directing the trustees to invite bids for redevelopment.

HELD:

The Supreme Court directed the Trust to issue a fresh advertisement for redevelopment.

Two offers received from Ramee Construction and Raunak Corporation.

Ramee Construction increased its offer to Rs. 10 crores during proceedings.

Considering circumstances, the Court found it beneficial for the Trust to accept Ramee Construction's increased offer.

The appeals were allowed, setting aside the Division Bench's order, and the case was disposed of with no orders as to costs.