Facts:

The appellant, Vaneet Mahajan, was the complainant in a case where he, along with his brother and an employee, was attacked by a group of individuals armed with deadly weapons. The attack was allegedly orchestrated by a cabinet minister in the Punjab government. The appellant suffered several injuries, including grievous ones, leading to the registration of a criminal case under various sections of the IPC, including Section 307.

Issues:

Whether the charges under Section 307 IPC were sustainable based on the evidence presented. Whether the High Court's decision to delete the charge under Section 307 IPC was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's conclusion that the intention to kill was conspicuously missing. It observed that the prosecution's case, as detailed in the FIR and supported by medical evidence, clearly indicated that the accused had attacked the victims with deadly weapons, targeting their heads and causing grievous injuries.

The Court cited precedent to emphasize that for an offense under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the injury be on a fatal part of the body. It also highlighted that when several persons attack unarmed individuals with deadly weapons, it is reasonable to presume that they had the intention or knowledge that such attack could result in death.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and directed that the accused persons be tried for the offense under Section 307 IPC as well.

Facts:

Anant Singh @ Anant Kumar Singh, the appellant, was preventively detained under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, on 21.9.2016, for a maximum period of one year.

The appellant was alleged to be involved in 31 grave crimes, including murder, attempt to murder, and kidnapping, and had been in jail since 24.6.2015.

A previous preventive detention order dated 5.9.2016 was revoked due to lack of State Government approval within the specified time.

The subsequent detention order was passed on 21.9.2016 based on grounds prior to the revocation of the earlier order.

Issues:

Whether the subsequent detention order passed on 21.9.2016 is valid under Section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.

Whether the appellant's representation rights and procedural safeguards were violated under the Act.

Whether the detention order met the requirements of Section 12(1) of the Act.

Held:

The Court held that the detention order dated 21.9.2016 was invalid due to non-compliance with Section 23(2) of the Act, as it was based on grounds that arose prior to the revocation of the earlier order.

The Court relied on the judgment in Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack (1969) 1 SCR 227, which established that revocation includes both valid and invalid orders, and fresh orders must be based on new grounds. This principle ensures that the detaining authority fully applies its mind and complies with statutory requirements.

Consequently, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was allowed, resulting in the annulment of the detention order dated 21.9.2016. However, the Court clarified that its decision does not preclude the State Government from taking any other lawful action against the appellant.

Facts:

Anil Kumar Dadurao Dhekale (the appellant) sought eviction of the respondents from his property under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

The original tenant, Manilal Ishwarbhai Valand, defaulted on rent payments, leading to a notice from the appellant.

The appellant filed a Rent Suit No.499 of 1978 seeking possession of the property and arrears of rent.

The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant, but the decision was overturned by the First Appellate Court.

The High Court affirmed the decision of the First Appellate Court.

Issues:

Whether there was default in payment of rent.

Whether the property had been sublet without permission.

Whether the defendants were entitled to continue the tenancy after the death of the original tenant.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the evidence supported a monthly tenancy, not an annual one as concluded by the lower courts. The respondents had defaulted on rent payments for more than six months, making them liable for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Control Act.

The defendants were not entitled to continue the tenancy after the death of the original tenant, as they were not carrying on the same business as the tenant, as required by Section 5(11)(c) of the Act.

Evidence of subletting was found, and the findings of the lower courts on this matter were reversed.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the eviction order passed by the trial court was restored.

The respondents were directed to vacate the premises within two months.

Facts:

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules and the Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules, specifically regarding eligibility for appointment as Inspector under the A.P. Police Service.

Issues:

The eligibility criteria for appointment as Inspector, particularly whether service rendered as Reserve Sub-Inspectors should be counted towards the total years of service required for eligibility.

Held:

The Court upheld the existing rules, which clearly specify that 6 completed years of service as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) are required for appointment as Inspector under the A.P. Police Service.

The judgment clarified that service rendered as Reserve Sub-Inspectors does not count towards the total years of service required. It affirmed that seniority alone cannot override eligibility criteria for promotion and that eligibility conditions must be fulfilled before consideration for promotion.

The Court found no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the existing rules. Therefore, the appeals challenging the rules were dismissed.

Facts:

A lease agreement was executed between the appellant-landlord and respondents-tenants for a period of three years with specified rent. The landlord filed an eviction application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging arrears of rent from a certain date.

The Rent Controller made a provisional assessment of the rent due, which the tenants failed to comply with. Consequently, the Rent Controller passed an eviction order. The tenants' appeal against this order was dismissed by the appellate authority, but the High Court, in a revision, set aside the eviction order based on its finding that the provisional assessment was flawed.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, specifically concerning provisional assessment of rent, the rights of tenants and landlords, and the consequences of non-compliance with provisional assessment orders.

Held:

The court clarified the provisions under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act, which provide a concession to the tenant, allowing them to be deemed to have duly paid or tendered rent within the prescribed time if they comply with certain conditions, including paying arrears of rent assessed by the Rent Controller. Failure to comply with a provisional assessment order would render the tenant liable to eviction.

The determination of provisional assessment by the Rent Controller forms the basis of the eviction order. Therefore, the tenant has the right to challenge the correctness of the provisional assessment even after the eviction order is passed.

The provisional assessment is based on a prima facie view formed by the Rent Controller and is subject to subsequent final adjudication. The deposit by the tenant, as per the final assessment order within the specified period, protects them from eviction.

The court emphasized the need to strike a balance between the rights of the tenant and the landlord in interpreting Section 13. If the tenant admits to rent being due for a certain period, the court should adopt an interpretation that does not allow the tenant to defeat the landlord's claim.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, thereby restoring the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, and directed the respondents to pay costs to the appellant.

Referred Cases in the above Judgment:

Decided on : 11-04-2017

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Section 13(2)(i)

Rent and Eviction—Eviction Decree—Defaulting in payment of rent—Once Rent Controller has made a provisional assessment of arrears of rent, interest and costs, tenant must deposit amount so determined on first hearing of application for ejectment—A tenant who does so would be deemed to have duly paid or tendered rent within time prescribed by substantive provision of Section 13(2)(i)—A tenant failing to comply with terms of an order of provisional assessment, cannot thereafter avail of concession extended to a tenant and will be liable to suffer order of eviction—However, having suffered order of eviction, tenant is entitled to statutory remedy of appeal under Section 15(1)(b). [Sections 13 and 15 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949]

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Sudhir Walia, Abhishek Atrey, Advocates, for the Appellant; Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondents

Cases Referred

Harjit Singh Uppal Vs. Anup Bansal, (2011) 11 SCC 672

Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade, (1999) 5 SCC 590

Narayan Dutt Tiwari Vs. Rohit Shekhar, (2012) 12 SCC 554

Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, (2002) 5 SCC 440

Vinod Kumar Vs. Premlata, (2003) 11 SCC 397

Facts:

The Dental Council of India (DCI) conducted assessments of a dental college regarding its eligibility to start post-graduate courses.

The college's scheme for post-graduate courses was disapproved by the Government of India based on recommendations from the DCI.

The college approached the High Court seeking relief against the disapproval, and the High Court passed an interim order staying the decision.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in passing the interim order interfering with the admission process of the college.

Whether such interim orders should be passed in matters concerning educational institutions lacking approval.

Held:

The Court held that while it generally refrains from interfering with interim orders, the High Court's order in this case was unsustainable. Despite this, the Court decided to strike a balance by allowing admitted students to continue their courses but adjusting their seats from the next academic session. Additionally, the college was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs before the Registry of the Court within eight weeks. The costs imposed on the college were not to be recovered from the students.

The Court emphasized the need to avoid chaos and uncertainty in the admission process and cautioned against institutions attempting to manipulate the system. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute regarding the determination of tariff for the supply of power from power projects governed by Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) between State Government Utilities and power generating companies. The dispute arose due to a change in Indonesian law, which increased the export price of coal from Indonesia to the international market.

Issues:

Whether the change in Indonesian law constituted a valid ground for relief under force majeure or change in law provisions.

The interpretation of regulatory powers under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003, concerning tariff determination.

The scope and applicability of clauses within the PPAs regarding force majeure events and changes in law.

Held:

The court held that the PPAs did not treat changes in the cost of fuel as force majeure events. Therefore, the unexpected rise in the price of coal did not exempt the generating companies from fulfilling their contractual obligations.

While a change in Indonesian law did not qualify as a change in law under the guidelines, a change in Indian law did. Consequently, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) was directed to reconsider the matter for those power generators falling within Clause 13 of the PPA.

The court clarified that CERC's regulatory functions, especially concerning tariff determination, should be exercised in accordance with guidelines issued by the Central Government. However, CERC could utilize its general regulatory powers under certain circumstances where guidelines were not applicable.

The term "composite scheme" in the context of the Electricity Act was interpreted to mean a scheme for the generation and sale of electricity in more than one state. The expression "any law" in the PPAs referred only to Indian laws, not laws of other countries.

Decision: The court set aside the tribunal's judgment and directed CERC to reconsider the matter in light of the findings, particularly regarding the impact of changes in Indian law on compensatory tariffs for power generators falling within Clause 13 of the PPAs.

Facts:

An agreement was executed between Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. and Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, for setting up a plant to manufacture Oxygen and Acetylene gases. The agreement required Diesel Locomotive Works to lift a minimum quantity of gases each month, with payment obligations even if the minimum quantity was not lifted. Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. initiated arbitral proceedings due to the non-lifting of the minimum quantity of gases by Diesel Locomotive Works. The arbitral proceedings lasted from 1982 to 2004.

Issues:

The production of documents by Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. before the arbitrator.

The entitlement of Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. to payment for the shortfall in gases lifted by Diesel Locomotive Works.

Held:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and affirmed the arbitral award. The Court found that Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. had indeed produced the required documents before the arbitrator, contrary to the High Court's findings.

Additionally, the Court concluded that Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. had duly informed Diesel Locomotive Works before emptying their cylinders, as required by the agreement. Post-decretal interest was awarded to Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. at the rate of 9% on the awarded amount, with effect from the date the arbitral award was decreed.

Facts:

The dispute concerns land in Survey No.129/68 Paiki, with multiple parties asserting ownership or rights over it. Previous legal proceedings, including CCCA No.14 of 1972, established the appellant society's ownership of the land in Survey No.129/68 Paiki. Despite this, another case (LGC No.44/2000) was filed challenging the ownership, leading to the present appeals.

Issues:

whether the Special Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, considering the doctrine of res judicata and previous decisions establishing the appellant's ownership of the land.

Held:

The court holds that the principles of res judicata apply, given the previous decisions establishing the appellant's ownership of the land. The court finds errors in the Special Court and High Court's failure to recognize the finality of the previous rulings.

The appeals filed by the appellant society are allowed, and those filed by the respondents are dismissed. The impugned judgment by the High Court and the orders passed by the Special Court are quashed and set aside. The contempt petition filed by the respondents is also dismissed. No costs are awarded.