Facts:

The respondent, NTPC Ltd., issued an invitation for bids for the development and operation of coal mines, accompanied by "Instructions to Bidders" (ITB) containing clauses essential for understanding the Qualifying Requirements (QR) of the project.

The appellant, Monte Carlo Ltd., participated in the bidding process but was found technically non-responsive by NTPC due to lacking necessary experience in drilling for blasting purposes.

Monte Carlo Ltd. challenged NTPC's determination before the High Court, arguing that the tender documents required experience in drilling only, not specifically for blasting purposes.

Issues:

Whether NTPC's assessment of the appellant's bid was correct in considering the lack of experience in drilling for blasting purposes.

Whether the High Court's decision regarding the interpretation of the tender documents was justified.

Held:

The High Court correctly observed that the tender documents, particularly the ITB clauses on mine operations, demonstrated the importance of drilling, including drilling for blasting purposes. The documents filed by the appellant in support of the QR were deemed substantially inadequate by the High Court.

In tender processes for complex technical projects like coal mine development, understanding the nature of work and its purpose is crucial. Expert scrutiny, often with third-party assistance, ensures objectivity in assessing bidders' technical capabilities and financial feasibility.

Judicial review of tender processes is warranted only if the approach is arbitrary, irrational, or biased. Courts should defer to the understanding of tender documents by the project owner unless malafide or perversity is evident. Technical evaluation by the court is impermissible in such cases.

The decision of the High Court was deemed manifestly in line with the language and purpose of the tender documents, serving the intended purpose for which the tender was floated. Thus, there was no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court.

The appeal stands dismissed.

Facts:

The appellants-landlords filed a suit after terminating the tenancy. The respondents-tenants not only sublet the premises but also failed to pay rent for 14 years. The defense of the tenants was struck off by the civil court, and ultimately, the suit was decreed. However, during the pendency of the appeal, a notification was issued, bringing the area where the suit premises are situated under the purview of the Rent Act.

Issues:

Whether the Rent Act, upon becoming applicable to the premises during the pendency of the suit, ousts the jurisdiction of the civil court.

Whether the appellants-landlords should be deprived of the fruits of the decree passed in their favor due to the subsequent applicability of the Rent Act.

Held:

The rights of the parties are crystallized on the date of the institution of the suit. The law applicable at the time of filing the suit continues to apply until the suit is disposed of. The applicability of the Rent Act to the premises during the pendency of the suit does not divest the civil court of its jurisdiction.

To oust the jurisdiction of the civil court, there must be a specific provision in the Rent Act expressly taking away such jurisdiction.

The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, does not provide protection to ex-tenants nor does it exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of pending cases.

Depriving the appellants-landlords of the decree passed in their favor would be unjust, especially considering the conduct of the respondents-tenants.

Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and restored the decree passed by the trial court, affirming the jurisdiction of the civil court in the matter.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) and CSEPDI - TRISHE Consortium regarding the evaluation and finalization of bids for a project.

Issues:

The correctness of the consultant's evaluation report, the scope of judicial review in such matters, and the propriety of representations made by the parties during bid consideration.

Held:

The court observed that TANGEDCO decided to open price bids from both bidders, followed by obtaining supplementary bids for additional items. The bids were evaluated by a consultant, and the Single Judge referred to the evaluation report.

The Price Evaluation Report showed a significant difference between the bids, with the respondent No.1's bid being higher. Disputes arose regarding certain charges included in the evaluation.

The Division Bench criticized the process of bid identification and referred to previous orders regarding the consideration of representations.

The court addressed the issue of interest on management and guarantee fees, explaining the consultant's methodology in evaluating these charges.

It was emphasized that the evaluation was conducted transparently, with documents considered before any additional submissions. The court reiterated the complexity of fiscal evaluations and the need for expert judgment.

The court criticized the timing of representations made by the respondent, emphasizing the importance of approaching the court at the appropriate stage. It highlighted the role of the court in maintaining restraint in judicial review.

The Division Bench's approach was deemed erroneous as it extended judicial review beyond its rightful scope, acting as an appellate authority.

Decision: The court set aside the Division Bench's order, noting its errors in extending judicial review beyond the appropriate scope and acting as an appellate authority. The appeals stand allowed.

Facts:

The partnership firm stood dissolved with effect from December 06, 1987, and the business was carried on by the partners with controlling interest as an interim arrangement. Income was assessed in their hands as an Association of Persons (AOP). The assets of the firm were put to sale in accordance with the Partnership Deed, albeit as an ongoing concern. The outgoing partners (assessees herein) received their net share of the value of the assets of the firm. The asset sold was deemed a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act.

Issues:

Whether the gain arising from the sale of assets during winding up proceedings should be taxed as capital gains in the hands of the erstwhile partners.

Whether the sale qualifies as a "slump sale" under Section 2(42)C of the Income Tax Act.

How the business income/revenue income of the firm in the assessment year should be assessed for taxation purposes.

Held:

The assets sold during winding up proceedings were deemed capital assets, and thus, the gain therefrom is treated as capital gains under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act. The transfer of assets triggered the provisions of Section 45, making the capital gains subject to taxation. [Paras 27, 28]

The sale does not qualify as a "slump sale" under Section 2(42)C since individual values were assigned to assets and liabilities, contrary to the definition of slump sale. Therefore, the provisions of Section 50B, which pertain to the computation of capital gains in the case of a slump sale, do not apply. [Paras 25, 26]

The business income or revenue income of the firm in the assessment year should be assessed at the hands of the Association of Persons (AOP-3), as directed by the High Court. AOP-3 retained the tax amount from the consideration payable to the assessees for this purpose. These appeals are rendered otiose and are disposed of as such. [Paras 32, 33, 34,35]

Facts:

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, regarding the qualifications for the appointment of teachers and the passing of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).

Issues:

The validity of relaxation in passing marks in the TET examination for reserved category candidates.

The interpretation of the NCTE notification regarding relaxation in TET passing marks.

Migration of reserved category candidates to general category seats based on their performance in the recruitment examination.

The impact of relaxation in passing marks on teaching quality.

The constitutional principles of equality and affirmative action in the context of educational policies.

Held:

The court affirmed the validity of the relaxation provided by the State Government in passing marks in the TET examination for different reserved categories mentioned in the communication dated March 23, 2011.

The court clarified that the relaxation mentioned in the amended para 3 of the NCTE notification dated July 29, 2011, pertains to qualifying marks in graduation and B.Ed., not to the TET examination. Relaxation in passing TET is governed by para 9 of the Notification dated February 11, 2011.

Reserved category candidates who secured better marks than general category candidates in the recruitment examination may be eligible for migration to general seats, provided they did not avail any other special concessions except for passing marks in TET.

While acknowledging the importance of maintaining teaching standards, the court emphasized the need to reconsider the extent of relaxation in passing marks in TET to ensure it remains within reasonable limits, without compromising educational standards.

The court underscored the constitutional ethos of promoting equality through affirmative action, including providing concessions to reserved categories, to ensure equal opportunities and representation.

Facts:

Vivek Batra, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS), was accused of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

An FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against him.

After a lengthy investigation, the CBI sought sanction for prosecution, which was eventually granted by the competent authority.

Issues:

Whether the sanction for prosecution granted against Vivek Batra was valid.

Whether the various opinions expressed by different authorities during the sanction process affected the validity of the sanction.

Held:

The Court held:

The sanction for prosecution granted against Vivek Batra was valid, and the various opinions expressed by different authorities did not affect its validity.

The Finance Minister, as the competent authority, had the power to grant the sanction.

The opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was relevant and prevailed in according the sanction.

The sanction process followed proper procedures, and there was no indication of any decision not to grant sanction at any point.

The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, with no expressed opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute between the appellants (Gupta Group) and the respondents (Sanwalka Group) under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondents filed a company petition alleging oppression by the appellants and questioning certain actions taken by them.

Issues:

The maintainability of the company petition.

Allegations of oppression and mismanagement against the appellants.

Issues concerning the issue of bonus shares and ordinary equity shares.

Conversion of preference shares into equity shares.

Held:

Maintainability of Company Petition: The court found that the share certificates indicated fresh and independent allotment to the Sanwalka Group without any connection to forfeited shares held by the appellants. Compliance with the call notice was not proved by the appellants. Therefore, the company petition was held maintainable.

Oppression and Mismanagement: The court found a series of unacceptable decisions and actions by the Gupta Group, indicating oppression. Satisfaction of oppression was found based on the facts of the case.

Issue of Bonus Shares: The resolution of issuing bonus shares was deemed impermissible as it was not empowered by the Articles of Association of the company. The purpose indicated for issuing bonus shares was found to be a sham, indicating self-serving interest by the Gupta Group.

Issue of Ordinary Equity Shares: The court upheld the direction to allot shares proportionate to the share holdings of both groups, emphasizing the principle of fair play.

Conversion of Preference Shares: The resolution regarding the conversion of preference shares into equity shares was found unreliable, and the conversion was struck down. The preference shares were reverted to their earlier status.

Decision: The court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 589 of 2010 and disposed of Civil Appeal No. 599 of 2010 with directions.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Rule 7 of the Customs Tariffs (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, concerning the confidentiality of information provided to the Designated Authority (DA) in anti-dumping investigations. The Union of India and the Designated Authority contended that the decision in the Reliance Industries case had affected the rule of confidentiality under Rule 7.

Issues:

Whether the observations made in the Reliance Industries case regarding confidentiality diminished the scope of Rule 7 as provided in the Customs Tariffs Rules, 1995.

Held:

The court held that the ordinary meaning of the words used in Rule 7 is clear, and there is no need to depart from the rule of Literal Construction. Rule 7 permits an exception to the principles of natural justice, allowing certain information to be treated as confidential. Even if there were ambiguities requiring interpretation, the court would adopt a construction least restrictive of individual rights. (Paragraph 22)

The court clarified that Rule 7 does not empower the Designated Authority to claim confidentiality regarding the reasons for its findings against a party. Reasons or findings cannot be equated with information supplied by a party claiming confidentiality. The Designated Authority must not disclose information already held to be confidential without the consent of the party providing it. If a party disagrees with the disclosure of information claimed to be confidential, and the Designated Authority determines that the information is not genuinely confidential, it should ignore the information rather than disclosing it to the public. (Paragraph 25)

Decision: The court answered the question referred by affirming the law regarding the rule of confidentiality as established in previous cases and clarifying the scope and limitations of Rule 7 in the context of anti-dumping investigations.

Facts:

The case concerns the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Issues:

Whether the definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) of the Act, which includes the term 'adult male person', is constitutionally valid.

Held:

The Court acknowledged the prevalence of domestic violence against women and recognized the need for innovative remedies to address this issue (Para 14).

It noted the broad scope of the Act to protect women from various forms of violence within the family, as indicated in the preamble (Para 16).

The definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) was found to be problematic as it lacked an intelligible differentia and rational relation to the Act's objective (Para 36).

Anomalies arising from the restricted definition were highlighted, including the exclusion of female relatives who may perpetrate violence (Para 18, 20, 21).

The court emphasized the gender-neutral nature of domestic violence and the need for the law to reflect this reality (Para 19).

Applying the doctrine of severability, the court struck down the expression 'adult male' from the definition of 'respondent' while leaving the rest of the section intact (Para 40).

The proviso to the definition, which made an exception for cases where the respondent is not an adult male, was deemed irrelevant and deleted (Para 40).

The court observed that other legislations also define 'respondent' without the prefix 'adult male', indicating a broader scope consistent with the protection of women (Para 41, 42).

Decision: The court held that the restrictive definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was unconstitutional. The court struck down the discriminatory terms and applied the doctrine of severability to ensure the Act's effectiveness in achieving its goals.