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 respondent-assessee, engaged in executing civil works contracts, sought guidance on the rate of tax applicable for the execution of civil works contracts under the KVAT Act. The AAR initially held that, since there was no specific entry providing for the rate of tax on works contracts up to March 31, 2006, tax on goods used in the execution of works contracts should be levied in accordance with the rate of tax applicable to the sale of goods under the KVAT Act 2003.

ISSUES:

Interpretation of Section 4(1)(c) and (b) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Applicability of the uniform rate of tax to goods involved in works contracts before April 1, 2006.

HELD:

Section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, imposes a liability to pay taxes and prescribes the rate of tax. The specific rates of tax for goods falling within the Second, Third, and Fourth Schedules were outlined in Section 4(1)(a). "Other goods" attracted a rate of 12.5% under Section 4(1)(b).

It would be far-fetched to assume that Section 4(1)(b) intended to prescribe a uniform rate of tax for goods incorporated in a works contract before April 1, 2006. The KVAT Act did not provide a uniform rate of tax before April 1, 2006, on goods involved in the execution of works contracts. The amendment introducing Section 4(1)(c) in 2006 mandated a uniform rate of tax on goods involved in works contracts as provided in the Sixth Schedule.

The interpretation of the provisions of the Act before April 1, 2006, is consistent with the plain meaning of the words used by the legislature. Section 4(1)(b) did not provide a uniform rate of tax for goods involved in works contracts.

The dispute arose from proceedings before the AAR seeking guidance on the applicable rate of tax until March 31, 2006. The decision clarifies the issue of interpretation, emphasizing that issues of a factual nature will be adjudicated in the course of assessment proceedings.

The State legislature could provide uniform rates of tax on goods involved in works contracts, and the Karnataka legislature did so with effect from April 1, 2006.

REFERRED CASES:

Decided on : 06-03-2018

Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Section 4(1)(a), Section 4(1)(b), Section 4(1)(c)

Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 - Rule 3(1)(c)

Counsel for Appearing Parties

V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates, for the Appellants; Vikas Upadhyay, Advocate, for the Respondent

Cases Referred

Balabhagas Hulaschand Vs. State of Orissa, (1976) 2 SCC 44

Bansal Wire Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 545

Bharat Forge and Press Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, (1990) 1 SCC 532

Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 241

Gannon Dunkerly & Co Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1993) 1 SCC 364

HPL Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE, (2006) 5 SCC 208

M/s Durga Projects Inc Vs. State of Karnataka, STA 72 of 2010. D/d. 29.9.2012

Facts:

The case revolves around an election to the post of Chairperson of a Municipal Corporation, challenged through an election petition.

Issues:

Interpretation of Rule 3(5)(d) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009 regarding the requirement of a treasury challan accompanying the election petition.

Application of Rule 7(3) of the same rules concerning the dismissal of petitions for non-compliance.

Held:

The Court held that Rule 3(5)(d) mandates that the election petition must be accompanied by a treasury challan, indicating that the petition and the challan must co-exist or go along together. There cannot be a separation or segregation between the two.

The Court clarified that there is no rule prescribing the filing of the treasury challan before the Election Tribunal when presenting the election petition. Any necessary permission may be sought earlier.

Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009, mandates the dismissal of the petition for non-compliance. Therefore, the deposit of the treasury challan at the time of presenting the election petition is mandatory. If no valid election petition is presented due to non-compliance, the Election Tribunal is bound by law to reject the petition.

Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the requirement for the treasury challan to accompany the election petition, and the consequent dismissal of the petition for non-compliance with Rule 7.

Facts:

The appellant, Singh Ram, appealed against the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which found that the insured did not hold a valid driving license at the time of the accident.

The Tribunal directed the insurer to pay compensation to the claimant and recover it from the owner of the offending motorcycle.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the precedent set in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh.

The appellant, as the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, appealed against the decision.

Issues:

Whether the Tribunal and the High Court erred in imposing liability on the appellant and granting a right of recovery to the insurer?

Held:

The Court referred to the precedent set in Swaran Singh and highlighted that the holder of a driving license has a 30-day period after its expiry to renew it. The burden of proof lies on the insurer to establish breach of policy conditions, such as the absence of a valid driving license, to avoid liability.

However, the breach must be fundamental and contribute to the cause of the accident. In the present case, the owner failed to depose in evidence and produced a fake license. Another license he attempted to produce had expired before the accident and was renewed well after the prescribed period.

The Court concluded that the owner had failed to take reasonable care and upheld the direction of the Tribunal and the High Court to pay and recover the compensation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and no order was issued regarding costs.

Facts:

The appellant, Jagdish, was injured in a motor accident on November 24, 2011, resulting in severe injuries.

The accident occurred when Jagdish, riding a motorcycle, was hit by a dumper, causing 90% permanent disability.

Issues:

The appellant sought an enhancement of compensation on several grounds, including loss of future prospects, computation of disability, and increase in monthly income.

Held:

The Court determined that the appellant's claimed monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- was reasonable and allowed it for computation.

Considering the severity of disability, the Court held that the disability was 100% and increased the compensation accordingly.

The total compensation awarded to the appellant was Rs. 25,38,308/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

The Court directed the amount to be deposited before the Tribunal within a specified period.

The appeal was allowed, and no order was made regarding costs.

Facts:

The case involves a claim for compensation arising from a fatal road accident. The claimant's husband died in a collision with a truck, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded compensation. The High Court later enhanced the compensation.

Issues:

The liability of the insurance company, which the Tribunal absolved based on the classification of the vehicle and the driver's license.

Held:

In reference to the previous judgment in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Court clarified that a transport vehicle falling within the light motor vehicle category, with a gross weight not exceeding 7500 kg, can be driven by a driver with a license for a light motor vehicle, without requiring a separate endorsement. Therefore, the liability of the insurer cannot be absolved solely based on the classification of the vehicle and the driver's license.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order absolving the insurer from liability. It held that the liability shall be jointly and severally fastened on the insurer, owner, and driver.

Facts:

The claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident and sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Initially awarded Rs. 22,85,322/- by the Tribunal, the amount was reduced to Rs. 12,00,000/- by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and computations to determine the appropriate compensation.

Issues:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and subsequently reduced by the High Court was appropriate.

Whether the claimant's disability was temporary or permanent, affecting the quantum of compensation.

Held:

The Court found discrepancies in the Tribunal's computation of the claimant's income and identified errors in considering the disability as permanent. Consequently, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was deemed excessive. The Court recalculated the compensation, awarding Rs. 5 lakhs for loss of income, Rs. 2 lakhs for trauma, pain, and suffering, and retaining Rs. 2,09,622/- for medical expenses, totaling Rs. 9,10,000/-. Interest at 9% per annum was also awarded from the date of filing the petition. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.

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