Constitutional Law - Scope of legislative competence under Entry 66 of List I vs. Entry 25 of List III - State legislation prescribing selection based on seniority for postgraduate medical courses challenged - Regulation 9 of MCI, 2000 mandates academic merit as the basis of admission, requires entrance examination results - High Court holds, seniority-based selection permissible only if candidates meet the entrance test benchmarks set by MCI [Paras 9-10, 13-14].

Legislative Competence - Kerala Act under challenge - Held, provisions of Kerala Act prescribing seniority-based selection not valid if they conflict with MCI's mandate of merit-based admissions through an entrance exam - State's legislative competence limited by the need to align with national standards set under Entry 66 of List I [Paras 11-12, 16].

Judicial Interpretation - High Court's directive that seniority can be a criterion only if in-service candidates clear the entrance test as per MCI regulations upheld - Supreme Court finds no fault in reconciliatory approach but clarifies merit remains predominant criterion over seniority in admissions [Para 20].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - High Court judgment upheld, clarifying that admissions must align with MCI's academic merit criteria and entrance exam performance despite seniority considerations under state law [Para 21].

Referred Cases:

R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , AIR 1995 SC 264 : (1994) 6 JT 514 : (1994) 4 SCALE 494 : (1994) 6 SCC 632 : (1994) 4 SCR 353 Supp

Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, , AIR 1980 SC 898 : (1980) CriLJ 636 : (1982) 1 SCALE 713 : (1980) 2 SCC 684 : (1980) SCC(Cri) 174 : (1983) 1 SCR 145

Machhi Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, , AIR 1983 SC 957 : (1983) CriLJ 1457 : (1983) 2 Crimes 268 : (1983) 2 SCALE 1 : (1983) 3 SCC 470 : (1983) 3 SCR 413

Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana, , (2012) 2 RCR(Criminal) 941 : (2012) 5 SCALE 185 : (2012) 5 SCC 766 : (2012) AIRSCW 3766

Ram Pal Vs. State of U.P., , AIR 2003 SC 4168 : (2003) CriLJ 3760 : (2003) 6 SCALE 109 : (2003) 7 SCC 141 : (2004) 1 UJ 101 : (2003) AIRSCW 3792 : (2003) 5 Supreme 297

Sri Mahendra Nath Das @ Sri Gobinda Das Vs. State of Assam, , AIR 1999 SC 1926 : (1999) CriLJ 2873 : (1999) 3 Crimes 86 : (1999) 4 JT 35 : (1999) 3 SCALE 700 : (1999) 5 SCC 102 : (1999) 3 SCR 729 : (1999) AIRSCW 1596 : (1999) 5 Supreme 414

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State thr. CBI, , (2010) 4 Crimes 226 : (2010) 11 JT 1 : (2010) 9 SCC 747 : (2010) 9 UJ 4611

Haresh Mohandas Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra, , AIR 2011 SC 3681 : (2011) 4 Crimes 163 : (2011) 10 JT 493 : (2011) 4 RCR(Criminal) 257 : (2011) 10 SCALE 629 : (2011) 12 SCC 56 : (2011) 6 UJ 3571 : (2011) AIRSCW 5414 : (2011) 6 Supreme 450

The Supreme Court examined the legislative competence of the Kerala State Legislature in enacting provisions allowing in-service medical officers’ admissions to postgraduate courses based solely on seniority under the Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Post Graduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008 (Kerala Act 29 of 2008) - The appellants argued that this legislation conflicted with the Medical Council of India's regulations which mandate admission based on academic merit determined through a common entrance test - The High Court upheld that admissions should be merit-based, aligning with the Medical Council of India’s regulations but allowed seniority to play a role provided the candidates met the entrance test's minimum eligibility criteria - The Supreme Court held that the State's legislation, while well-intentioned to address the difficulties faced by in-service candidates, was ultimately beyond the legislative competence of the State as it contravened the standards set by the Medical Council of India under the Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution - Consequently, the Court affirmed that admissions must be based strictly on merit as defined by the MCI regulations, without seniority as a criterion, hence dismissed the appeals [Para 9-21]

Decision: Dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, reaffirming the principle that admission to postgraduate medical courses should be based on merit as determined by a common entrance test in accordance with the Medical Council of India’s regulations, and not on seniority.

Referred Cases:

State of T.N. and Another Vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 104

The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Gopal D. Tirthani and Others, AIR 2003 SC 2952

Dr Preeti Srivastava and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others, AIR 1999 SC 2894

Financial misconduct and misappropriation — Appellant, an assistant manager at UCO Bank, involved in a criminal conspiracy with Harshad Mehta to misappropriate funds through erroneous securities transactions in the Securities General Ledger (SGL) accounts — Held, appellant misused his official position for wrongful gain to co-conspirator and caused significant loss to the bank, violating multiple sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act — Conviction upheld by the Supreme Court due to substantial evidence of intentional fraud and conspiracy [Paras 1-31].

Role of Accused — Manipulation of bank records and SGL accounts — Held, appellant's actions were part of a well-orchestrated plan to benefit Harshad Mehta, rather than clerical errors as claimed — Active participation in criminal activities established beyond reasonable doubt through documentary and oral evidence, demonstrating abuse of his official position for personal gain [Paras 2-30].

Evidence and Conviction — Prosecution established guilt through detailed analysis of transaction records, bank instructions, and telex communications — Defense of clerical error rejected based on the pattern of transactions and deliberate cover-up efforts — Supreme Court finds no merit in the appeal, dismissing it and ordering immediate custody of the appellant [Paras 5-31].

Referred Cases:

None

Constitutional Law - Reservation in Promotion - Consideration of reservation for SC and ST in promotions within officer grades of public sector banks - Appeals against High Court judgment favoring reservations - Supreme Court finds no provision for reservation in promotions within officer grades carrying a salary of Rs. 5,700 and above per month as per Office Memorandum dated 01-11-1990 - High Court's interpretation of Article 16 and supportive affirmative actions upheld in part - Reservation mandated for promotions from Scale-I to Scale-VI, as applicable salary limits fall below Rs. 5,700 per month. [Paras 1-38]

Interpretation of Office Memoranda - Distinction between 'concession' and 'reservation' clarified - Concession applies to promotions within officer grades carrying a salary above Rs. 5,700 per month, not amounting to reservation - Reservation in promotions affirmed for lower scales up to Scale-VI based on salary criteria outlined in Department of Public Enterprises guidelines dated 08-11-2004. [Paras 27-35]

Directive to Appellant Banks - To implement reservation policy effectively from Scale-I to Scale-VI as per prevailing salary limits, ensuring representation of SC/ST employees in promotions to uphold constitutional mandates of Articles 15 and 16. [Para 37]

Referred Cases:

M. Nagaraj and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2007 SC 71

S. Vinod Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 580

Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (1992) 3 SCC 217 Supp

National Federation of S.B.I. and Others, etc. Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1995 SC 1457

Pragiyotish Gaonlia Bank (now known as Assam Gramin Vikash Bank) and Another Vs. Shri Brijlal Das, (2009) 1 SCC(L&S) 655

Union of India and others etc. Vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan etc., AIR 1996 SC 448

Superintending Engineer, Public Health, U.T. Chandigarh and others Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others, AIR 1997 SC 2133

Rohtas Bhankhar Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2014) 8 SCC 872

H.P. Scheduled Tribes Employees Federation and Another Vs. Himachal Pradesh S.V.K.K. and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 308

Companies Act, Scheme of Arrangement – Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited challenged the scheme of arrangement proposed by B.P.L. Limited, claiming it was no longer a secured creditor due to a prior arbitration award that settled financial disputes between the parties. The court examined whether such an award affected the appellant's status as a secured creditor and its entitlements under the scheme of arrangement - The Supreme Court upheld the status of the appellant as a secured creditor, noting that the arbitration award did not extinguish its security interest as registered under the Companies Act [Paras 38-47].

Arbitration and Security Interest – The court observed that an arbitration award resolving financial liabilities did not inherently alter the nature of pre-existing security interests unless explicitly stated in the award. The security interest continued to exist independently of the personal debt obligations settled through arbitration [Paras 32-33].

Application of Company Law Principles – The judgment reaffirmed the principles governing schemes of arrangement under the Companies Act, highlighting the importance of proper creditor classification and the binding nature of court-sanctioned schemes on all creditors, including those dissenting or claiming a change in status post-arbitration [Paras 20-29].

Legal Interpretations on Pledges and Hypothecation – The court elaborated on the legal distinctions and implications of pledges and hypothecation under the Contract Act, affirming that rights in hypothecated goods remain unaffected by separate debt recovery actions unless explicitly relinquished or extinguished [Paras 42-43].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court’s ruling that recognized the appellant as a secured creditor under the scheme of arrangement despite the previous arbitration settlement. No order as to costs.

Referred Cases:

Gulamhusain Lalji Sajan Vs. Clara D'Souza, , (1929) 31 BOMLR 988 : (1929) ILR (Bom) 819

Suryakant Natvarlal Surati and others Vs. Kamani Bros. P. Ltd. and others, , (1985) 58 CompCas 121

S. Nazeer Ahmed Vs. State Bank of Mysore and Others, , AIR 2007 SC 989 : (2007) 135 CompCas 664 : (2007) 2 JT 500 : (2007) 2 SCALE 349 : (2007) 1 SCR 843 : (2007) AIRSCW 766 : (2007) 2 Supreme 822

Miheer H. Mafatlal Vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd., , (1996) 7 AD 260 : AIR 1997 SC 506 : (1996) 87 CompCas 792 : (1996) 8 JT 205 : (1996) 6 SCALE 595 : (1997) 1 SCC 579 : (1996) 6 SCR 1 Supp : (1996) AIRSCW 3897 : (1996) 8 Supreme 700

State of Maharashtra and another Vs. M/s. National Construction Company, Bombay and another, , (1996) 1 AD 458 : AIR 1996 SC 2367 : (1998) 92 CompCas 21 : (1996) 1 JT 156 : (1996) 1 SCALE 176 : (1996) 1 SCC 735 : (1996) 1 SCR 293

Jitendra Nath Singh Vs. The Official Liquidator and Others, , (2012) 111 CLA 358 : (2012) 175 CompCas 251 : (2013) 1 CompLJ 101 : (2012) 9 JT 221 : (2012) 9 SCALE 186 : (2013) 1 SCC 462 : (2012) 116 SCL 215 : (2012) AIRSCW 5391

Sidramappa Vs. Rajashetty and Others, , AIR 1970 SC 1059 : (1970) 1 SCC 186 : (1970) 3 SCR 319

Indian Bank Vs. The Official Liquidator, Chemmeens Exports (P) Ltd. and Others, , (1998) 5 AD 72 : AIR 1998 SC 2111 : (1998) 93 CompCas 76 : (1998) 2 CTC 632 : (1998) 79 FLR 761 : (1998) 4 JT 172 : (1998) 3 SCALE 531 : (1998) 5 SCC 401 : (1998) 3 SCR 255 : (1998) AIRSCW 1991 : (1998) 4 Supreme 599

Jagad Bandhu Chatterjee Vs. Smt. Nilima Rani and Others, , (1969) 3 SCC 445 : (1970) 2 SCR 925

K.V. George Vs. Secretary to Government, Water and Power Department, Trivandrum and Another, , AIR 1990 SC 53 : (1990) 1 ARBLR 55 : (1989) 4 JT 166 : (1989) 2 SCALE 822 : (1989) 4 SCC 595 : (1989) 1 SCR 398 Supp

The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, , AIR 1977 SC 1466 : (1977) LabIC 697 : (1977) 2 LLJ 369 : (1977) 2 SCC 288 : (1977) 2 SCR 555 : (1977) 9 UJ 122

Lallan Prasad Vs. Rahmat Ali and Another, , AIR 1967 SC 1322 : (1967) 2 SCR 233

Harbans Singh and Others Vs. Sant Hari Singh and Others, , AIR 2009 SC 1819 : (2009) 2 JT 32 : (2009) 1 SCALE 729 : (2009) 2 SCC 526 : (2009) 1 SCR 250 : (2009) AIRSCW 1414 : (2009) 1 Supreme 677

Lonankutty Vs. Thomman and Another, , AIR 1976 SC 1645 : (1976) 3 SCC 528 : (1976) SCR 74 Supp : (1976) 8 UJ 550

Arjun Lal Gupta and Others Vs. Mriganka Mohan Sur and Others, , AIR 1975 SC 207 : AIR 1974 SC 207 : (1974) 2 SCC 586 : (1974) 6 UJ 546

Hindustan Lever Employees' Union Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited and others, , AIR 1995 SC 470 : (1995) 83 CompLJ 30 : (1994) 7 JT 215 : (1994) 4 SCALE 642 : (1995) 1 SCC 499 Supp : (1995) 1 SCC 499 : (1994) 4 SCR 723 Supp

Deva Ram and Another Vs. Ishwar Chand and Another, , AIR 1996 SC 378 : AIR 1995 SC 378 : (1995) 7 JT 641 : (1995) 6 SCALE 18 : (1995) 6 SCC 733 : (1995) 4 SCR 369 Supp

Waman Shriniwas Kini Vs. Ratilal Bhagwandas and Co., , AIR 1959 SC 689 : (1959) 2 SCR 217 Supp

Kewal Singh Vs. Smt. Lajwanti, , AIR 1980 SC 161 : (1980) 1 SCC 290 : (1980) 1 SCR 854

Ranganayakamma and Another Vs. K.S. Prakash (D) by L.Rs. and Others, , (2008) 8 JT 510 : (2008) 9 SCALE 144 : (2008) 15 SCC 673

Mahalinga Nadar Vs. Ganapati Subbien, , (1904) ILR (Mad) 528 : (1903) 13 MLJ 445

Employment Law - Regularization of Contractual Employment - Appellant, initially appointed as a Professor on a contractual basis at IITTM in 1997, later became Director in 2006 - Appeals against High Court's decision that denied regularization of his earlier professorial role upon completion of his directorship - Supreme Court holds that appellant was covered under the 2006 regularization of the post he held since 1997 as part of the 68 posts regularized following a Staff Inspection Unit assessment in 2002 - Asserts that moving to a higher post (Director) on a contractual basis does not negate his earlier regularization as Professor [Paras 9-13] -

Lien and Reversion Rights - Upon completion of the directorial tenure, appellant sought to revert to his regularized professorial post - High Court denied, finding that contractual appointment as Director ended any lien on the professorial post - Supreme Court disagrees, clarifying that lien remains on the regularized post despite subsequent contractual directorial appointment, mandating reevaluation of appellant's reversion rights by the department [Paras 14-20] -

Decision: High Court's order set aside - Case remanded to the competent authority to decide on the appellant's lien and reversion rights to the professorial post, considering his regularization from 27th January 1997, with directives to resolve within four weeks [Para 21] -

Referred Cases:

S. Narayana Vs. Md. Ahmedulla Khan and Others, AIR 2006 SC 2224

Ramlal Khurana (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1985

Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1992 SC 496

T.R. Sharma Vs. Prithvi Singh and Others, AIR 1976 SC 367

Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1958 SC 36

State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. S.N. Tiwari and Others, AIR 2009 SC 2104

Paresh Chandra Nandi Vs. Controller of Stores, N.F. Railway, Pandu and Others, AIR 1971 SC 359

S. Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Ku. Sandhya Tomar and Another, (2013) 136 FLR 300

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 609

Dr. S.K. Kacker Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others, (1996) 10 SCC 734

Background and Appeal Grounds: Appeals arise from Jodhpur Bench of Rajasthan High Court's judgment on 20.08.2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 704 of 2005, affirming life imprisonment for appellants Ahmed Shah and Gurmukh Singh under Section 302 IPC, and altering convictions for other co-accused - Complainant party's failed forcible possession attempt led to a violent altercation resulting in deaths and injuries, with the prosecution alleging unlawful assembly and fatal assault by the accused - Appellants contested the factual basis of possession and nature of altercation, arguing a case of sudden fight without premeditation under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC [Paras 2-11].

Court's Analysis and Findings: Examination of evidence suggests a sudden quarrel over land possession, with mutual provocations - Complainant party, armed and attempting forcible possession, clashed with accused, leading to the fight and resultant injuries and deaths - High Court's conviction of co-accused under various sections revised, recognizing the complexities of individual actions and contributions to the fight [Paras 12-23].

Judgment: Conviction of appellants under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC, acknowledging the sudden and provoked nature of the fight without undue advantage or cruelty - Appellants' sentences reduced to the period already served; appeals by the State regarding acquittals upheld, emphasizing insufficient evidence for a higher degree of culpability [Paras 24].

Referred Cases:

Sridhar Bhuyan Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 2004 SC 4100

Satish Narayan Sawant Vs. State of Goa, (2009) CriLJ 4655

Criminal Procedure - Appeal against High Court order which dismissed petitions seeking court-monitored investigation - Allegations of procedural irregularities under telecommunications license issuance leading to purported losses to the state - Investigation led by CBI post-Central Vigilance Commission and CAG reports suggesting serious discrepancies - Supreme Court set up special court for the trial ensuring no interference with the trial process; specific directives issued for CBI investigation and prosecution handling. [Paras 2-5]

Role of Corporate Executives - Court’s observation on whether top executives were "alter ego" of the corporations hence responsible for acts of corporations - Initially, Special Court implicated Mittal and others under the principle of "alter ego", which was contested and led to appeals - Supreme Court scrutinized the direct role and involvement of the executives in alleged criminal activities before deciding on their implication in the case. [Paras 4, 12-13]

Decision - Supreme Court clarified incorrect application of "alter ego" principle by lower court, not sufficient to hold executives criminally liable without specific evidence of individual involvement - Appeals allowed, summoning orders against Mittal and others set aside, although the door left open for further action if evidence surfaced during trial. [Paras 48-50]

Referred Cases:

Sharon Michael and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, (2009)

R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, (2009)

Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, AIR 1998 SC 128

Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Others, AIR 2011 SC 20

Dharam Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, AIR 2013 SC 3018

S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another, AIR 2005 SC 3512

Kishun Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar, (1993)

Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. C.B.I., New Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2545

Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 2795

Sham Sunder and Others Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 1982

Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and Another, AIR 2003 SC 2612

GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Ltd., (2013)

Lee Kun Hee and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2012 SC 1007

Hareram Satpathy Vs. Tikaram Agarwala and Others, AIR 1978 SC 1568

Jethsur Surangbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC 151

Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2013 SC 3725

M/s. SWIL Ltd. Vs. State of Delhi and Another, (2001)

Standard Chartered Bank and Others etc. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Others etc., AIR 2005 SC 2622

Keki Hormusji Gharda and Others Vs. Mehervan Rustom Irani and Another, AIR 2009 SC 2594

Keshub Mahindra Vs. State of M.P., (1996)

M.N. Ojha and Others Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Another, AIR 2010 SC 201

M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2007)

S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Ltd. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 1213

S.K. Alagh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 1731

Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2008)

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Datar Switchgear Ltd. and Others, (2011)

State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604

Sabitha Ramamurthy and Another Vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya, AIR 2006 SC 3086

Contract Law - Forfeiture of Earnest Money - Challenge against High Court upholding DDA’s forfeiture of ₹78,00,000 earnest money deposited by appellant - Supreme Court finds DDA did not act in good faith by unilaterally extending deadlines without giving adequate notice of final terms or rescinding the auction conditions - Held that forfeiture was unwarranted and allowed appellant's appeal restoring Single Judge's order for refund with interest. [Paras 1-47]

Public Authority - Arbitrariness in Decision-Making - Under Article 14 of the Constitution, public authorities are required to act fairly and reasonably, not arbitrarily - Supreme Court found DDA's actions arbitrary as they profited from re-auctioning the property at a much higher price without suffering any loss from appellant's alleged breach - Earnest money must be refunded with 9% interest per annum. [Paras 28, 46]

Judicial Interpretation - Section 74, Contract Act - Court clarified application of Section 74, highlighting no damages means no compensation - Emphasized that earnest money cannot be forfeited without a breach causing loss, contradicting lower court's ruling - Reinforced that legal principle under contract law prevents windfall profits at the expense of the non-breaching party. [Paras 43-45]

Referred Cases:

K. Venkoji Rao v. M. Abdul Khuddur Kureshi, AIR 1991 Kar 119

Smt. Saraswathamma v. H. Sharad Shrikande and Others, AIR 2005 Kar 292

Pazhaniappa Chettiyar v. South Indian Planting and Industrial Co. Ltd., AIR 1952 Ker 161

Anandram Mangturam v. Bholaram Tanumal, AIR 1946 Bom 1

S. Brahmanand and Others v. K.R. Muthugopal (D) and Others, AIR 2006 SC 40

ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, (2004) 118 CompCas 213

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. SAW Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2629

T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363, S.C. Belgaum, AIR 1963 SC 1144

Maula Bux v. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1970 SC 1955

Shri Hanuman Cotton Mills and Others v. Tata Air Craft Limited, AIR 1970 SC 1986

Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel and Others v. Lalbhai Trikumlal Mills Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 512

VST Industries Ltd. v. VST Industries Workers' Union and Another, (2001) 88 FLR 548

Citi Bank N.A. v. Standard Chartered Bank and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4630

Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1991 SC 537

Roshan Lal v. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited, 7 Ind. Cas. 794