Facts:

The petitioner, Bharatiya Janata Party West Bengal, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus.

They requested the West Bengal State Election Commission to issue nomination forms for their candidates for the upcoming panchayat elections and to provide police protection to them.

Instances of violence hindering their candidates from obtaining and filing nomination forms were cited, as reported in various newspapers.

Issues:

Whether the court should intervene in the conduct of the panchayat elections in West Bengal due to reported violence hindering the nomination process.

Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the precedents cited by the respondents.

Held:

The court acknowledged the initiation of the election process but expressed concern over reports of violence impeding the nomination process. It emphasized the responsibility of the State Election Commissioner to address grievances related to the election process.

The court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to political parties and candidates, including independents, to approach the State Election Commissioner with their grievances. It instructed the Commissioner to address these grievances promptly and in accordance with the law. The court expressed hope that steps would be taken to ensure fair and free elections, addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner and other candidates.

Facts:

Mangla Ram, the claimant, was involved in a road accident where he was driving a motorcycle and was hit by a jeep driven by respondent No. 2. This resulted in severe injuries to the claimant, including the amputation of his right leg above the knee.

Issues:

The determination of negligence, the quantum of compensation, and the liability of the insurance company.

Held:

The Tribunal, despite not fully accepting the testimony of certain witnesses, concluded that the accident was caused by the jeep driven by respondent No. 2. The High Court erred in disregarding this finding and failing to consider the evidence supporting the claimant's version of events (Para 14, 20, 21).

The High Court's assumption that the claimant was driving on the wrong side of the road based on the spot where the motorcycle was found after the accident was flawed. There was no evidence to support contributory negligence on the part of the claimant (Para 23, 24).

The claimant, due to the amputation of his right leg, was entitled to enhanced compensation, including future medical expenses for a prosthetic leg. The Tribunal's failure to consider this aspect warranted an adjustment in the compensation amount (Para 25).

Despite the absence of a valid insurance policy for the offending jeep, the principle of "pay and recover" was invoked to ensure the claimant received compensation, considering the cover note obtained from the insurance company's former development officer (Para 26).

Facts:

The appellant, Raghunath Prasad Pande, challenged a decision made by both a learned Single Judge and a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. The case centered around the interpretation of Sections 14(1) and 14(5) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, formerly known as the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961. The appellant had entered into a compromise deed with the respondents on 02.03.1970, permitting the appellant to resume possession of 4 acres of land. The compromise deed was submitted before the Munsiff/Tribunal, and possession of the land was handed over to the appellant as per the order dated 2.3.1970 passed by the Munsiff/Tribunal.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's possession of the land, as per the compromise deed, complied with the procedural requirements of Section 14(5) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Held:

The Court held that despite the procedural aspect not strictly adhering to Section 14(5) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the compromise deed, acted upon by handing over possession, fulfilled the substantive requirements of the law. The Court criticized the hyper-technical approach taken by the High Court and concluded that the appellant's possession of the land since 02.03.1970 was legal. The Court further noted that the land in question had already been acquired by the State Government, and the possession of 4 acres of land had been taken from the appellant for public purposes. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments, and disposed of any pending applications. No costs were awarded in the case.

Facts:

The State of Maharashtra had issued a notification on 10.01.2018, prescribing eligibility criteria for admission to Postgraduate Medical/Dental Courses in unaided Private Educational Institutions in the State.

Respondents filed a writ petition challenging one of the conditions in the eligibility criteria, which required the candidate to be a domicile of Maharashtra.

Similar conditions imposed by the State Government for the academic year 2017-18 had been stayed by the High Court in a previous case.

Issues:

Whether the condition requiring candidates who had obtained a graduate degree to also be domiciled in the State of Maharashtra was permissible under the law.

Held:

The High Court accepted the challenge to the condition, ruling that it was impermissible to require candidates with a graduate degree to be domiciled in the State of Maharashtra. This decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, including the cases of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) and Vishal Goyal v. State of Karnataka (2014).

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, noting its recent judgment in a similar matter involving the State of Karnataka.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking investigation into known and reported cases of adulteration by independent agencies and the direct transfer of cash subsidy for kerosene oil to beneficiaries' bank accounts. The petition contained specific allegations against an individual, Devender Agrawal, regarding the ownership of multiple petroleum product dealerships.

Issues:

Whether an investigation by independent agencies into reported cases of adulteration is warranted.

Whether the direct transfer of cash subsidy for kerosene oil to beneficiaries is feasible.

Whether the allegations against Devender Agrawal regarding ownership of multiple dealerships merit investigation.

Held:

The court found that determining whether an individual owns multiple dealerships in violation of regulations falls under the purview of oil companies. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the claims and left them to be determined in accordance with the law.

Regarding the adulteration issue, the court noted steps taken by public sector oil companies to ensure the quality and quantity of petroleum products. However, the court did not express any opinion on the merits of the claims and left them to be determined in accordance with the law.

The court disposed of the petition without further investigation.

Facts:

Maya Devi filed an application against Nonihal Singh under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, citing default in rent payment.

Rent Tribunal and Rent Appellate Tribunal ruled in Maya Devi's favor.

Nonihal Singh challenged these rulings via a writ petition in the High Court.

High Court permitted Nonihal Singh to continue occupying the premises until April 30, 2019, subject to certain conditions, including depositing arrears of rent and mesne profits.

Nonihal Singh failed to deposit the arrears within the specified time.

Nonihal Singh later deposited the arrears and mesne profits, albeit belatedly.

High Court rejected Nonihal Singh's applications for extension of time and condonation of delay without considering these deposits.

Nonihal Singh appealed against these orders to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in rejecting Nonihal Singh's applications for extension of time and condonation of delay.

Whether the subsequent deposits made by Nonihal Singh should have been considered by the High Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's orders rejecting Nonihal Singh's applications were erroneous.

The Court found that Nonihal Singh had indeed deposited the arrears and mesne profits as per the High Court's order, albeit belatedly. The Court observed that the High Court should have considered these deposits before rejecting the applications.

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and directed Nonihal Singh to be put back in possession of the premises within a week. Nonihal Singh was instructed to continue depositing mesne profits as per the High Court's order, with Maya Devi having the option to take appropriate action in case of default.

Facts:

The appellant initiated a process for the procurement of power from Grid Connected Solar Energy.

The respondent was selected for the project but faced difficulties in land procurement, leading to a request for a change in location, which was granted by the appellant.

The appellant terminated the contract due to delays in project completion, imposing a penalty on the respondent.

The High Court set aside the termination but maintained the invocation of the bank guarantee.

Issues:

Whether the termination of the contract by the appellant was justified due to delays in project completion.

Whether the invocation of the bank guarantee was in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that while the contract allowed for the imposition of a penalty for delays, the termination of the contract by the appellant was deemed arbitrary and was rightly set aside by the High Court.

The Court upheld the invocation of the bank guarantee as per the terms of the contract. The appellant was directed to pay the amount covered by the bank guarantee, which they complied with during the legal proceedings.

The respondent was ordered to pay the penalty amount imposed by the appellant within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Facts:

Nayabha Mapbha Ker died in a motor accident on July 18, 1993.

The accident occurred when Nayabha was traveling in a jeep, and it was hit by a truck driven by the respondent.

Nayabha's heirs filed a claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Jamnagar.

The MACT awarded compensation, which was appealed to the High Court of Gujarat.

The High Court allowed additional compensation but reduced the interest rate awarded by the MACT.

The appellants challenged the High Court's judgment before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the High Court properly considered future prospects in calculating compensation.

Whether the reduction of the interest rate by the High Court was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to adequately consider future prospects in calculating compensation, as established by the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi. It adjusted the calculation accordingly, increasing the compensation to Rs. 12,67,000, inclusive of conventional heads.

The Court upheld the High Court's decision to reduce the interest rate from 12% to 9% per annum.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 12,67,000, with interest payable at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition. No order regarding costs was made.

Facts:

The case involves land initially held by Krishna Pada Supai (KPS) and later transferred to Jitendra Lal Paul and Golap Bala Saha Mondal in 1962. Legal proceedings ensued regarding the vesting of this land and subsequent actions under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The matter went through various legal actions, including challenges in the High Court and Tribunal.

Issues:

The validity of proceedings initiated under Section 44(2a) of the Acquisition Act.

Ownership and rights over the land in question.

Compliance with principles of natural justice in legal proceedings.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, dismissing the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice and due process in legal proceedings, ensuring all affected parties have the opportunity to be heard. The dismissal of the appeal meant that the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for further proceedings, including giving respondents No. 1 and 2 an opportunity to be heard.

The court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the High Court's decision, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.