Facts:

Navjot Singh Sidhu, the appellant, contested the 2009 election for the 02-Amritsar Parliamentary Constituency.

The election was challenged in E.P. No.3 of 2009 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Sidhu filed an application for the dismissal of the election petition, claiming deficiencies in pleadings.

The High Court partially granted relief to Sidhu but ordered a regular trial for certain allegations, including exceeding the expenditure limit and alleged assistance received from a government official.

Sidhu appealed against this decision.

Issues:

Whether the election petition adequately pleaded the allegations of corrupt practices.

Whether the allegations regarding election expenses and assistance from a government official warranted a regular trial.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the election petition sufficiently pleaded the allegations of corrupt practices regarding election expenses.

The Court ruled that the details provided in the petition regarding the expenses incurred by the candidate were adequate, and thus, the trial on this issue should continue.

Regarding the assistance received from a government official, the Court determined that if the official was rendering service under the State Government when providing assistance, it constituted a corrupt practice. Therefore, this issue should proceed to trial.

The Court found that the third allegation concerning actions taken by the Returning Officer had become academic due to the passage of time.

Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, and the trial of the election petition on the surviving issues was ordered to recommence.

Facts:

The case involves the cancellation of a plot allotment by a Housing Co-operative Society to one of its members (the original allottee), subsequent cancellation of membership, and the transfer of the plot to another party.

A compromise deed was entered into between the Society, the subsequent plot owner, and the original allottee's son (the appellant), resulting in compensation for the appellant.

The appellant challenged the cancellation of the allotment, subsequent transfer of the plot, and the registration of related documents.

Issues:

Whether the cancellation of the allotment and membership by the Housing Co-operative Society was lawful.

The validity of registration of documents related to the cancellation and subsequent transfer of the plot.

The applicability of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this matter.

Held:

The Co-operative Society was within its rights to unilaterally cancel the allotment and membership of the original allottee due to alleged violations of bye-laws.

The Registrar's role is limited to registration, and there is no provision empowering them to cancel registrations post facto.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be used for private or contractual disputes.

The appellant should pursue statutory remedies available under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, for resolution of the dispute.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition and directing the appellant to pursue statutory remedies. The court clarified the limited role of Registrars in post-registration matters and emphasized the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute regarding the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary employees (referred to as daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on a casual basis, contractual employees, etc.). These temporary employees were engaged in duties and responsibilities similar to those of regular employees holding the same or corresponding posts within the State of Punjab. The qualifications possessed by these temporary employees were also suitable for appointment on a regular basis.

Issues:

Whether the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable to temporary employees who perform duties equivalent to those of regular employees, holding the same post.

Held:

The Court held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies to all temporary employees engaged in duties similar to those of regular employees. Temporary employees must be paid wages at the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged government employees in the same post.

The Court outlined the parameters for applying the principle, including the burden of proof on the claimant to demonstrate parity in duties and responsibilities, irrespective of departmental distinctions, and the necessity for similar qualifications for recruitment.

The Court clarified the misinterpretation of previous judgments by the High Court and affirmed the applicability of the 'equal pay for equal work' principle to temporary employees, emphasizing that it should not be confused with issues of regularization.

The differential treatment of temporary employees based on their length of service was set aside by the Court, affirming the entitlement of temporary employees to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale for their category but not to allowances attached to regular posts.

Facts:

The case involves the validity of amendments made to the Telangana (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, following the formation of the state of Telangana. These amendments reduced the number of members in the Agricultural Market Committee and shortened their term of office.

Issues:

The constitutionality of the retrospective amendments and their impact on the rights of existing and future members of the Market Committee.

Held:

The Court affirmed the competence of the state legislature to enact laws retrospectively or prospectively within constitutional parameters. [Para 23]

Retroactive amendments made by the legislature do not constitute an encroachment upon judicial power, as long as they rectify defects in the law highlighted by court decisions. [Para 29]

The doctrine of colorable legislation does not question the motives behind legislative actions but rather focuses on the competence of the legislature to enact laws. [Para 30]

The retrospective amendment substituting 'appointed' with 'nominated' effectively removed the distinction between existing and future members of the Market Committee. Thus, the amendment did not violate constitutional provisions or democratic norms. [Para 31]

The Court noted that the characteristics of Market Committee and Special Market Committee are different, and therefore, Article 14 is not attracted. [Para 33]

Facts:

Saroj Agarwalla filed a petition for the grant of probate of a will purportedly executed by Jagdish Prasad Tulshan, claiming to be his only surviving sister.

Two respondents, Yasheel Jain and Malati Tulshan, lodged caveats opposing the grant of probate, asserting their respective interests in the estate of the deceased.

The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the appellant's petition and upheld the caveats filed by the respondents.

Issues:

Whether the respondents had caveatable interest in the probate proceedings.

Whether the caveats filed by the respondents should be discharged.

Held:

The Division Bench held that both respondents had caveatable interest in the probate proceedings and upheld their caveats. The court clarified the limited scope of the probate court's inquiry and emphasized that it is only concerned with the execution of the will and the testator's mental capacity at the time of execution. The court's decision was based on the totality of facts and circumstances presented. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The case involved a challenge to the process of promotion from Class IV to Class III posts in the District Court of Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

Initially, a written examination and interview were conducted, but due to discrepancies in marks allocation, a fresh examination was ordered.

The High Court intervened and reinstated the original order of appointment.

The appellants participated in the fresh selection process but later challenged the result.

Issues:

Whether the appellants, having participated in the fresh selection process, could challenge the result.

Interpretation of the rules governing the selection process.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, citing the principle of estoppel. Once candidates participate in a selection process without objection, they cannot later challenge the process merely because they were unsuccessful. The Court also noted some vagueness in the interpretation of the rules but found no glaring illegality. In the interest of justice, the Court directed that the appellant, if still in service, could continue to work provisionally in the Class III post until the next selection process. The appellant could participate in future selections and claim consideration for seniority based on the period spent in the Class III post if successful. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Division Bench and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

Facts:

The Court had issued directions based on a status report submitted by a Committee consisting of Justice R M Lodha, Justice Ashok Bhan, and Justice RV Raveendran regarding the implementation of reforms recommended for BCCI.

The Committee observed that BCCI had violated the Court's directions and undermined the Committee's authority.

BCCI's President had reportedly sought clarification from the ICC Chairman regarding the appointment of a nominee of the CAG, suggesting it might constitute governmental interference.

Issues:

Whether BCCI had complied with the Court's directions and recommendations.

Whether the President of BCCI's actions regarding seeking clarification from the ICC Chairman constituted defiance of the Court's judgment.

Held:

The Court found BCCI in violation of its directions and expressed serious concerns about its conduct. Despite initial denial, it was established that the President of BCCI had indeed sought clarification from the ICC Chairman regarding the appointment of a nominee of the CAG. The Court issued additional directions to ensure compliance with its previous orders, including ceasing funds disbursement to state associations until they commit to implementing reforms, appointing an independent auditor to scrutinize BCCI's finances, and requiring BCCI to file compliance statements. The next hearing was scheduled to review BCCI's compliance.

Facts:

A circular issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir's Education Department prohibited government employees, especially those in the Education Department, from engaging in private tutoring or coaching activities without prior permission.

The respondents challenged this circular through a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.

The High Court quashed the circular and issued directions prohibiting private tutoring by government teachers and private practice by government doctors.

The State Government appealed this decision before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the circular issued by the Education Department could regulate private practice by government doctors.

Whether the High Court's directions regarding private practice by government doctors were justified.

Whether there was a need for scrutiny of conditions in public-government hospitals in Jammu and Kashmir.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision regarding the regulation of private practice by government doctors was erroneous. It emphasized that the circular in question pertained specifically to officials in the Education Department and did not extend to government doctors. The regulation of private practice by government doctors is governed by separate rules framed by the State Government. Additionally, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for proper scrutiny of the conditions in public-government hospitals in Jammu and Kashmir. It directed the High Court to constitute a Committee of Experts for this purpose. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment regarding private practice by government doctors and remanded the proceedings back to the High Court for fresh consideration in light of its observations.

Facts:

The case revolved around the validity of a notification issued by the Central Government under Paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995.

The notification prescribed norms for conversion cost, packing charges, and process loss of raw materials, excluding packing materials in conversion, as well as packing and process loss of packing materials in packaging.

Issues:

Whether the notification was issued mechanically, lacking any application of mind.

Whether the notification was valid in law.

Held:

In addressing the first issue, the court emphasized the importance of being circumspect in granting interim relief, as the consequences of such actions could have serious ramifications for society, consumers, and public interest in the long term.

Regarding the second issue, the court stressed the need for caution when interfering with the functioning of the drug industry. It noted that such interference could have wide-ranging implications, not only commercially but also for the people of the country.

Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned judgments and orders, indicating that the notification in question was deemed valid under the law.