Facts:

TISCO, an industrial company operating in Jamshedpur, Bihar (now Jharkhand), received a demand notice from the State of Bihar for payment for water drawn from the Subarnrekha River, which was being used for industrial and domestic purposes.

TISCO filed a writ petition challenging the demand notice, arguing that it had riparian rights over the river and that the demand was illegal and unconstitutional.

The High Court declined to examine TISCO's claims of riparian rights and prescriptive rights, stating that such questions should be decided in a civil court and not in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issues:

Whether the demand made by the State for payment for water drawn from the Subarnrekha River is legal and constitutional.

Whether TISCO has riparian rights over the river, and if so, whether such rights are enforceable against the State's demand.

Held:

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remitted the matter back to the High Court for further examination. The Court held that the demand made by the State could be construed as a fee, and therefore, it required legislative authorization under Article 265 of the Constitution. The Court refused to entertain arguments regarding the applicability of specific Acts, as they were not properly pleaded or argued before the High Court. Additionally, the Court noted ambiguity regarding the existence of a concluded agreement between TISCO and the State regarding the payment for water usage. Therefore, the matter was sent back to the High Court for further examination, allowing the parties to file proper pleadings and argue their case.

Facts:

The Court constituted a committee to examine various aspects related to consumer fora's functioning, including infrastructural requirements, vacancy positions, administrative powers, service conditions, and other relevant factors.

Various directions were issued to the Union Government regarding framing model rules, regulations by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and addressing the vacancy in the post of Registrar.

The Union government was directed to file a comprehensive status report on compliance with the Court's directions.

Issues:

The infrastructural deficiencies in consumer fora, vacancy positions, administrative powers, service conditions, and the need for regulatory frameworks.

Held and Decision:

The Court held that proper infrastructure is essential for the effective functioning of consumer fora across the country. It directed the Union Government to frame model rules and regulations to address various aspects such as vacancy positions, administrative control, and service conditions.

The Court emphasized the importance of timely appointments and ensuring proper administrative control to streamline the functioning of consumer fora.

It directed the Union Government to file a comprehensive status report on compliance with the Court's directions within a specified period.

The Court's decision aimed to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of consumer dispute resolution mechanisms, ensuring access to justice for consumers.

The Committee's work was concluded, and the Court sought assistance from the Additional Solicitor General to formulate appropriate directions for ensuring proper infrastructure in consumer fora.

Facts:

The appellant was involved in a motorcycle accident with a mini lorry belonging to the Second and Third respondents.

The appellant suffered grievous injuries, including spinal injuries, and filed a compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The tribunal assessed the appellant's disability, income, and awarded compensation, deducting 40% for contributory negligence.

On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation but affirmed the finding of contributory negligence based on conjecture.

The appellant challenged the finding of contributory negligence.

Issues:

Whether the appellant was rightly held to be guilty of contributory negligence.

Whether the absence of a driving license automatically implies contributory negligence.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that:

The finding of contributory negligence was without basis and unjustified.

The absence of a driving license alone does not establish contributory negligence unless it is proven that it led to rash and negligent driving causing the accident.

The deduction of 40% for contributory negligence was set aside, and the appellant was entitled to additional compensation.

The respondent was ordered to pay an additional amount of Rs. 4,60,000 to the appellant, along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession against the respondent concerning a property in New Delhi. The respondent sought an amendment to the plaint, which was allowed. Subsequently, the appellant sought to amend the written statement to introduce additional averments regarding the ancestral nature of the property and the existence of coparcenary rights.

Issues:

Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the amendment to the written statement, and whether the High Court's interference under Article 227 was appropriate.

Held:

The Court held that the proposed amendments in the written statement were merely an elaboration of existing defenses and did not amount to the withdrawal of admissions made earlier. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring that inferior courts operate within their jurisdiction and does not entail a reassessment of evidence. Therefore, the High Court's interference was deemed unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the Trial Court's order permitting the amendment to the written statement was affirmed.

Facts:The petitioner, a visually disabled person, filed a writ petition seeking safe accessibility to roads and transport facilities, highlighting ten action points for providing proper access to public facilities for visually disabled persons. The petitioner's plea was based on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional guarantees. The issue at hand was the enforcement of accessibility measures for visually impaired individuals in public spaces.

Issues:

The ensuring proper access to public facilities for visually disabled persons, as mandated by the Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional provisions.

The court needed to determine the obligations of the State and public authorities in this regard and the deadlines for implementing accessibility measures.

Held:

The rights of visually impaired persons to proper access to public facilities are constitutionally guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) and are reinforced by international covenants and statutory recognition. It is the duty of the State and public authorities to establish norms for accessibility in public spaces, including roads, buildings, and transportation facilities. Failure to provide such accessibility constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights. The Disabilities Act, 1995 and its successor, the Disabilities Act, 2016, outline specific guidelines for creating a barrier-free environment, including provisions for transportation, buildings, and public places. It is the constitutional obligation of the State to safeguard the interests of disabled persons and provide non-discriminatory access by removing physical barriers.

The court issued directions for the effective implementation of accessibility measures, including deadlines for making government buildings, airports, railways, and public transport fully accessible. The central and state governments were directed to comply with these directives within specified time frames.

Decision: The court held that the prayers made by the petitioner were not adversarial but aimed at ensuring the rights of visually impaired persons. The court emphasized the commitment of the Central Government to addressing the needs of disabled persons and directed both central and state governments to take necessary measures for accessibility within prescribed deadlines.

Facts:

The case pertains to the misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes in Delhi, which was in violation of various laws including municipal laws, the master plan, and environmental laws. The Supreme Court had constituted a Monitoring Committee to seal such premises. Despite this, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) modified the master plan and enacted the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006. Subsequently, a notification was issued by the Central Government, providing for the restoration of sealed premises under certain conditions.

Issues:

The court was the constitutional validity of the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006, and the notification issued pursuant to it.

Additionally, the court needed to address the challenge posed by these legislative measures to the Supreme Court's orders and directions regarding the sealing of commercial premises.

Held:

The applicants expressed a clear intention to use the premises for residential purposes. Given this, formal appeals before the Appellate Tribunal would serve little purpose, especially considering the backlog of appeals already pending. Therefore, the court directed the premises to be de-sealed for residential purposes, subject to certain conditions. [Para 34]

The conditions imposed by the court aimed to ensure compliance with residential use and prevent further misuse for commercial purposes. These conditions included filing affidavits, payment of conversion charges, and compliance with directives from the Monitoring Committee. [Para 35]

The Monitoring Committee was entrusted with the responsibility to assess whether the premises should be de-sealed based on satisfaction with the conditions imposed. If unsatisfied, the applicants could approach the Supreme Court for appropriate orders. [Para 36]

The court clarified that its order applied only to premises misused for commercial (non-industrial) purposes and sealed at the instance of the Monitoring Committee. Any challenge to the Monitoring Committee's decision would lie before the Supreme Court. [Para 37]

Writ petitions transferred to the Delhi High Court for expeditious disposal were withdrawn and brought back to the Supreme Court due to significant delays in their resolution. [Para 39]

Decision: The Supreme Court directed the de-sealing of premises for residential purposes, subject to conditions, bypassing the need for formal appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. It clarified the procedure for compliance with the imposed conditions and reiterated the jurisdiction for challenges to the Monitoring Committee's decisions. Furthermore, it expedited the resolution of related writ petitions by withdrawing them from the Delhi High Court and bringing them back to the Supreme Court.

Facts:

The appellant, Prem Giri, filed an application for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with various offences under the Indian Penal Code. The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the bail application without providing adequate reasoning.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's rejection of the anticipatory bail application without proper reasoning was justified.

Whether the case warrants remand to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision lacked judicial reasoning and was passed in a casual manner, which is not acceptable in bail applications. Referring to established legal principles, the Court emphasized the need for courts to provide reasons for their decisions, especially in bail matters. The Court highlighted factors that should be considered before granting bail, such as the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses.

The Court also noted that if previous bail applications had been rejected, the court must justify granting bail in subsequent applications. Consequently, the Supreme Court decided to remand the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application.

The Supreme Court clarified that it did not assess the merits of the appellant's case but instructed the High Court to reconsider the bail application based on legal principles and without influence from the Supreme Court's observations on the case's merits. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on the bail application.

Facts:

The Institute of Nano Science and Technology, Mohali, issued a notice inviting tenders (NIT) for the construction of its campus.

The NIT specified eligibility criteria for bidders, including completion of similar works meeting certain cost and structure requirements.

Respondent No.1 submitted its bid but was deemed ineligible by expert committees due to non-compliance with the eligibility criteria.

The High Court allowed Respondent No.1's appeal, overturning the decision of the learned Single Judge.

Issues:

Whether the interpretation of tender documents by the tendering authority should be deferred to by the courts, barring evidence of malafides or perversity?

What is the scope of judicial review in tender matters, particularly regarding the interpretation of eligibility criteria in tender documents?

Held:

The Supreme Court, upon review, upheld the importance of deferring to the interpretation of tender documents by the tendering authority, unless evidence of malafides or perversity is present. The Court reinstated the judgment of the learned Single Judge, setting aside the High Court's decision, as it found no malafides or perversity in the expert committee reports.

The Court directed that the tender awarded to Respondent No.1 be set aside, and the tender be awarded to the Appellant, subject to the Appellant matching the offer of Respondent No.1.

The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The appellant, Madan Mohan, filed an application under Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a Sessions Trial, seeking the summoning of two additional accused persons. The Sessions Judge allowed the application and issued non-bailable warrants against the additional accused. The accused filed a Criminal Revision Petition in the High Court, challenging the order of the Sessions Judge. The High Court partly allowed the revision, setting aside the issuance of non-bailable warrants and directing the accused to surrender before the Trial Court and move for regular bail. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision.

Issues:

Whether the complainant should have been impleaded as a party to the criminal revision?

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to direct the Sessions Judge to "allow" the bail application of the accused?

What is the discretion of the Sessions Judge in deciding bail applications?

Held:

The Single Judge seemed to have passed the impugned order without application of judicial mind... Therefore, he should have been impleaded as respondent along with the State in the revision.

The High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the Sessions Judge to 'allow' the application for grant of bail.

It is the sole discretion of the Sessions Judge to find out while hearing the bail application as to whether any case on facts is made out for grant of bail by the accused or not.

We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the direction given by the High Court to the Sessions Judge to 'consider and allow' the bail application made by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in Sessions Trial Case No.44/2016 on the same day on which it was moved.

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside to the extent indicated. The Sessions Judge would now decide any bail application made by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on its merits and in accordance with the law.