Facts:

The case pertained to the challenge of an administrative circular issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) under Section 11(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.

Issues:

Whether appeals against administrative circulars issued by SEBI under Section 11(1) could be entertained by the Securities Appellate Tribunal under Section 15T of the Act.

Held:

The court noted that the Securities Appellate Tribunal is composed of members of the higher judiciary, indicating its role in hearing appeals against quasi-judicial orders.

Appeals can be filed against orders made by the Board or adjudicating officers under the Act, indicating the quasi-judicial nature of these orders.

The requirement to file appeals within a specified period from the date of receiving the order indicates that the orders subject to appeal are typically quasi-judicial in nature.

Orders made by the Appellate Tribunal are required to be sent to the Board, parties to the appeal, and the concerned adjudicating officer, further emphasizing the quasi-judicial nature of the proceedings.

The judgment emphasized the need to distinguish between quasi-judicial and administrative orders based on first principles.

It was clarified that while quasi-judicial orders made under specified sections of the Act and regulations are subject to appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal, administrative orders such as circulars issued under Section 11(1) fall outside the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction.

Decision: The appeal by National Securities Depository Ltd. was dismissed, while the appeal by SEBI was allowed.

Facts:

The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming ownership of a site (Site No.4307) allotted by VHBC Society. The respondent asserted that she acquired the property through a series of transactions and possessory acts, including possession certificates and allotment letters.

The appellants, however, contested the claim, asserting their ownership of the same property (Site No.690) through a different chain of transactions also involving the VHBC Society.

Issues:

The conflicting claims to the same property, both purportedly derived from dealings with the VHBC Society.

The trial court decreed in favor of the respondent in an ex-parte hearing, prompting the appellants to appeal.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, directing the appellants to initiate fresh proceedings.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal and directing the appellants to file a fresh suit. Instead, it was deemed appropriate to remit the matter back to the trial court for proper adjudication.

The Court emphasized that both parties claimed ownership based on transactions with the VHBC Society, necessitating a thorough examination. It directed the trial court to allow both parties to present their evidence, potentially appointing a commissioner to assess the disputed properties' physical features and location.

Additionally, the trial court was empowered to summon relevant documents and officials from the VHBC Society to assist in resolving the dispute.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments of both the High Court and the trial court, and remitting the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties were given adequate opportunity to present their cases.

Facts:

A. Singamuthu was appointed as a part-time Masalchi in the Registration Department of Tamil Nadu on 01.04.1989. He completed ten years of service on 31.03.1999. The State Government issued G.O. Ms. No.22 on 28.02.2006, directing the regularization of daily wage employees with ten years of service as on 01.01.2006. Subsequently, G.O. Ms. No.74 clarified that this regularization applied only to full-time daily wage employees. Singamuthu approached the High Court seeking regularization from the date of completion of ten years of service, which was granted by the Single Judge but appealed against by the Department.

Issues:

Whether the regularization scheme applied to part-time employees like Singamuthu.

Whether Singamuthu was entitled to regularization and back wages from the date of completion of ten years of service.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the regularization scheme applied only to full-time daily wage employees and not to part-time employees like Singamuthu.

The Court emphasized that part-time employees cannot seek regularization or parity in salary with regular employees. Therefore, Singamuthu was entitled to monetary benefits only from the date of issuance of the government order regularizing his service, i.e., 18.06.2012.

The impugned order directing regularization from the date of completion of ten years of service was erroneous and set aside. The appeal was allowed, and Singamuthu's claim for back wages from the date of completion of ten years of service was rejected.

Facts:

The appellant, a tenant since 1965, was paying rent at a rate of Rs. 700 per month.

An agreement in 1988 stipulated a new rent of Rs. 2400 per month upon completion of construction.

The tenant continued to pay rent at the old rate even after the completion of construction.

The landlord filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent.

Issues:

Whether the tenant defaulted on paying the lawful rent specified in the agreement?

What are the legal consequences of the tenant depositing rent in court?

Held:

The court interpreted Section 5(1)(e) and Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, which deals with the consequences of non-payment of rent and depositing rent in court. The court found that the tenant had defaulted on paying the lawful rent specified in the agreement. Despite depositing rent in court, it was not the lawful rent, and the tenant remained in default.

The court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming the eviction of the tenant and the recovery of arrears of rent.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Appellate Court has rightly considered the entire evidence on record and answered the issues framed by trial court correctly. The findings of the Appellate Court that defendant is defaulter affirmed by the High Court are findings of the facts based on appreciation of entire evidence. We do not find any error in the judgment and order of the Appellate Court directing eviction and arrears of rent. The High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the revision.

Facts:

The appellant (defendant) entered into an agreement for sale with the respondent (plaintiff) regarding a property.

The respondent alleged that the appellant breached the agreement by refusing to sell the property as agreed upon.

The trial court decreed the respondent's suit, which was confirmed by the High Court on appeal.

Issues:

Whether the suit for specific performance was maintainable.

Whether the respondent was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement.

Whether the respondent came to court with clean hands.

Whether the respondent breached the agreement by insisting on additional terms.

Held:

The Supreme Court rejected all of the appellant's arguments:

The objection regarding the maintainability of the suit was not raised in the written statement or in the appeal before the High Court, and therefore, could not be considered at this stage (Para 35-38).

The respondent had pleaded the necessary requirements for specific performance in the plaint and had proven readiness and willingness to perform her part of the agreement (Para 43).

There was no evidence to suggest that the respondent did not come to court with clean hands, and the appellant's refusal to execute the sale deed constituted a breach of the agreement (Para 46-47).

The respondent had not claimed any relief beyond the scope of the agreement, and her insistence on specific performance related only to the subject matter of the agreement (Para 48).

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, dismissing the appeal and directing the appellant to pay costs to the respondent (Para 50).

Facts:

The case involved the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, followed by the filing of a review petition under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). However, this review petition was barred by limitation and eventually not entertained on merits.

Issues:

The delay in disposing of the review application, which had been pending for almost four years.

Held:

The Court emphasized the importance of timely disposal of review applications and cautioned against using review petitions as a delay tactic. It directed the High Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of review applications and urged litigants and their counsel to file review petitions without defects and to promptly cure any defects that arise. The Court also emphasized the duty of High Court registries to alert judges about pending review petitions and to issue pre-emptory orders for defect removal.

The court concluded by dismissing the special leave petition both on grounds of delay and lack of merit. Additionally, the Court ordered that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrar General of each High Court for necessary action.

Facts:

Anna Juhi John appeared in the All India Common Entrance Test, 2015 conducted by the English and Foreign Languages Universities for B.A. (Hons.) in English. Despite securing 68 marks, she was ineligible for admission to the Hyderabad Campus due to her rank and had to join the Lucknow Campus instead. Anna later sought transfer to the Hyderabad Campus citing reasons such as language problems and proximity to home. Her requests were denied by the university, leading to litigation.

Issues:

Whether the refusal of the university to allow transfer from one campus to another was consistent with its policies and legal principles.

Whether the university's admission process and policies were subject to judicial review.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, ruling that the university's refusal to allow Anna's transfer was consistent with its policies and did not amount to arbitrariness.

The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the university's admission process and the need for clear and consistent policies. It noted that while there may have been exceptional cases of transfer, such as in instances of serious illness, these cases were treated as exceptions rather than precedents.

The Court stated that the university's policies regarding campus transfer, as outlined in various documents including admission instructions and confirmation letters, prohibited transfer under any circumstances.

The Court refrained from considering allegations against another student, Tirna Chandra, as she had not been made a party to the writ petition. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

Canara Bank provided financial assistance to M/s Eversure Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd., with the respondent no.1 being one of the guarantors.

Default occurred, and Canara Bank issued demand and possession notices under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

After taking symbolic possession, Canara Bank determined the upset price of the secured asset and issued a notice of sale (e-auction notice).

Respondent no.1 challenged the legality of the e-auction notice, contending it was in contravention of the SARFAESI Act and its rules.

Issues:

Whether Rule 8(6) and Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 mandate separate notices to the borrower before deciding on the mode of sale and prior to publication of sale notice in newspapers.

Whether the simultaneous issuance of notices to the borrower and public notice for sale is permissible under the SARFAESI Act.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interpretation of Rule 8(6) and Rule 9 was incorrect. The High Court's view that separate notices to the borrower and a public notice for sale cannot be simultaneously issued was overturned.

The Court emphasized that the only requirement is to serve a notice of 30 days on the borrower regarding the intention to sell the secured asset and the mode and date of sale, followed by a public notice if the sale is by inviting tenders or holding a public auction.

There is no need to wait for the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of the borrower notice to publish a public notice. Thus, the appeal succeeded, and no costs were awarded.

Facts:

Bhagwati @ Reena (appellant) appealed against the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, which upheld the Family Court's declaration of her marriage with Anil Choubey (respondent) as void ab initio due to her alleged minority at the time of marriage.

Anil Choubey filed a civil suit seeking annulment of the marriage, alleging that Bhagwati was underage at the time of their marriage and that it was conducted under coercion and fraud.

Issues:

Whether Bhagwati was a minor at the time of her marriage.

Whether the High Court erred in solely focusing on Bhagwati's age rather than addressing other grounds raised by Anil Choubey.

Held:

The Supreme Court found fault with the High Court's approach and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The court emphasized that only a minor spouse has the right to seek annulment of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, and since Anil Choubey, the respondent, was an adult at the time of marriage and sought annulment, the focus should have been on his claims of coercion and fraud rather than solely on Bhagwati's age.

Therefore, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the case was directed to be reconsidered focusing on the primary issue of annulment sought by Anil Choubey and in accordance with the law. The court urged expeditious disposal of the case considering its age.