Facts:

The Appellant, Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd., proposed to set up a caustic soda manufacturing unit in Tamil Nadu.

The State promised a concessional tariff for the first five years after the commencement of production in a Government Letter dated 29.6.1976.

The Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978, came into force on 23.2.1979, and the tariff rates were subsequently amended by G.O. No. 861 dated 30.4.1982.

Issues:

Whether the principles of promissory estoppel can be invoked in favor of the Appellants to entitle them to the benefit of the concessional tariff.

Validity of the withdrawal of concessional tariff by the State.

Held:

The principle of promissory estoppel would not apply in this case. The court relied on the precedent (Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) and held that there can be no estoppel against the statute. The withdrawal of the concessional tariff, being a concession granted by the State, was defeasible and could be taken away.

The Appellants' argument that their industries had not made profits and, therefore, should not be subjected to the withdrawal, was rejected. The court held that the assessment of profit/loss was made for the industry as a whole, and it was not an arbitrary basis for the withdrawal of concessional tariffs.

All the appeals were dismissed as the principles of promissory estoppel did not apply, and the withdrawal of concessional tariffs was held to be valid.

Referred Cases:

Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 193

State of Rajasthan Vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., (2004) 7 SCC 673

Facts:

The case involved the application of the SARFAESI Act and SICA to the recovery of debts by secured creditors from a sick industrial company, MIS Madras Petrochem Ltd.

Issues:

The precedence of the SARFAESI Act over SICA, the applicability of SICA to secured and unsecured creditors, and the circumstances under which a reference under SICA may abate.

Held:

SARFAESI Act Prevalence: The SARFAESI Act prevails over the SICA, particularly in situations where conflicting provisions arise. It was established that the SARFAESI Act takes precedence to the extent of inconsistency with SICA.

Role of Secured Creditors: Secured creditors, representing a significant percentage (60% or more) of the outstanding amount, have the authority to enforce their security under the SARFAESI Act, overriding the provisions of SICA.

Applicability of SICA to Unsecured Creditors: SICA continues to apply to unsecured creditors seeking debt recovery from a sick industrial company, as SICA overrides the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Abatement of Reference: A reference under SICA may abate if secured creditors, constituting at least 75% of the outstanding amount, decide to enforce their security under the SARFAESI Act.

Decision: The court, in dismissing the appeals, held that the SARFAESI Act prevails over SICA in cases of secured creditors seeking debt recovery from sick industrial companies. The decision clarified the circumstances under which each statute applies, emphasizing the rights of secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act.

Referred Cases:

BPL Ltd. Vs. R. Sudhakar, (2004) 7 SCC 219

Gujarat Steel Tube Co. Ltd. Vs. Virchandbhai B. Shah, (1999) 8 SCC P.11

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Industry Facilitation Council, (2006) 8 SCC 677

Kailash Nath Agarwal Vs. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corpn. of U.P. Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC 305

Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu, (1992) Sup 2 SCC 651

KSL & Industries Ltd. Vs. Arihant Threads Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 166

LIC Vs. Vijay Bahadur, (1981) 1 SCC 315

M/s. Salem Textiles Limited Vs. The Authorized Officer, AIR 2013 Madras 229

Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. Vs. State Industrial And Investment, (1993) 2 SCC 144

Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Vs. Union of India UOIEtc. Etc., (2004) 4 SCC 311

Morgan Securities and Credit Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd., (2006) 12 SCC 642

NFEF Ltd. Vs. Chandra Developers P Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 219

Noble Aqua Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, AIR 2008 Orissa 103

Raheja Universal Limited Vs. NRC Limited, (2012) 4 SCC 148

Ravi S. Naik Vs. Union of India, (1994) Sup 2 SCC 641

Real Value Appliances Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank, (1998) 5 SCC 554

Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Assn., (1992) 3 SCC 1

Solidaire India Ltd. Vs. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., (2001) 3 SCC 71

Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd., (2008) 7 SCC 619

Union of India Vs. R, Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association, (2010) 11 SCC 1

Facts:

The Railway Board issued Commercial Circular No. 37 on 09.08.2010, emphasizing the renewal of licenses for existing licensees under the Catering Policy, 2010. Circular dated 23.08.2011 further directed the renewal of licenses for GMUs and SMUs at certain category stations every 3 years, subject to satisfactory performance and payment of dues. Licenses of the respondent Association members were renewed till July 2013.

Issues:

The denial of renewal of licenses to pre-existing licensees under the 2010 Policy and its potential impact on the constitutional rights to freedom of occupation and livelihood.

Held:

The provisions of the 2010 Policy are applicable to pre-existing licensees, and denial of renewal would amount to deprivation of constitutional rights. Article 14 mandates that state action must not be arbitrary and discriminatory.( Para 20)

As a welfare state, India has a duty to generate employment, and the right to livelihood is integral to the right to life. The court, as the countermajoritarian institution, is duty-bound to protect the rights of vulnerable minorities and weaker sections of society.( Para 21, 22, and 23)

The policy of not renewing licenses for those dependent on self-earning is deemed unfair, unreasonable, and arbitrary. The court emphasizes the duty of the state in tackling rising unemployment and criticizes the handover of public functions to private entrepreneurs exploiting government policies against the poor.( Para 24)

Considering the evolving concept of social justice, the court allows the members of the respondent Association, who are licensees, to continue their petty business, given the lack of employment potential in the country.( Para 26)

The Catering Policy, 2010, applies to the respondents. The Railway's action in not granting renewals is deemed arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, and discriminatory, and cannot be sustained in law.( Para 27)

Eligibility for renewal clarified - only those licensees declaring on affidavit that they do not have licenses for more than one shop or kiosk are eligible, with a periodic reasonable increase of the license fee.( Para 28)

Referred Cases:

Decided on : 29-01-2016

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, Article 19(1), Article 21, Article 37, Article 38, Article 39, Article 41

Renewal of License — Appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of the learned single Judge, wherein it was held that the Respondents are entitled to get their licenses renewed under the Catering Policy, 2010. — Appellants under the guise of the policy are permitted to deny renewal of licenses in favour of the licensees, it would amount to deprivation of their right to freedom of occupation guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as well as the right to livelihood, which action of the Appellants would be diametrically opposed to their constitutional duty towards social justice as well as uplifting the weaker sections of the society and the unemployed youth of the country. — Keeping in view the evolving concept of social justice, we allow the members of Respondents who are the licensees to continue their petty business, especially in the absence of employment potentiality in the country on account of non-governance and non-implementation of the constitutional philosophy of an egalitarian society, which provides the opportunity to all individuals to lead a life of dignity. — Court hold that the provisions of the Catering Policy, 2010 are applicable to the concerned Respondents. The action of the railways in not granting renewals of the licenses to the members of the Respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory, and the same cannot be allowed to sustain in law.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

N.K. Kaul, ASG, Shilpa Nair, R.M. Bajaj, S.N. Bhat and Shreekant N. Terdal, Advocates, for the Appellant; P.K. Goswami, Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocates, V.K. Shukla, Anchal Mehrotra, Rajeev Sharma, Advocates for Intervenor, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Goli Rama Krishna, Shashwat Goel, Arunabh Chaudhary, Parthiv K. Goswami, Kaustav Talukdar, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Diksha Rai, Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Mythili Vijay Kumar T. and Vikram Aditya Narayan, Advocates, for the Respondent

Cases Referred

Bank of India Vs. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313

Charu Khurana Vs. Union of India, (2015) 1 SCC 192

Consumer Education & Research Center Vs. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42

Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608

Jivan Das Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1994) Sup 3 SCC 694

Lala Ram Vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 813

LIC Vs. D.J. Bahadur, (1981) 1 SCC 315

Munn Vs. Illinois, (1877) 94 U.S. 113

Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545

People's Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235

R.D. Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority, (1979) 3 SCC 489

Ram & Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267

Sadhuram Bansal Vs. Pulin Sarkar, (1984) 3 SCC 410

The North Eastern Railway Company Vs. L. Hastings 1900 AC 260

Final Result : Dismissed

Facts:

The case involves the detention of an individual under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The High Court held that the decision of the competent authority was not communicated to the detenu, leading to a violation of the detenu's rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Issues:

The central issues in the case include the adequacy of communication of the detention order to the detenu and the alleged violation of the detenu's rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

The High Court, based on these issues, granted a writ of habeas corpus.

Held:

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's decision, stating that treating the communication of rejection of representation as a constitutional safeguard is incorrect. The Court emphasized the need to assess whether the representation submitted by the detenu was rejected in a mechanical manner without the application of mind.

The Court determined that the competent authority passed the order based on the material before it, demonstrating subjective satisfaction. The High Court's order granting habeas corpus was deemed incorrect and set aside.

The Court directed the detaining authority to re-examine the matter within two months, considering certain principles. The detenu's initial detention for one year and subsequent release were considered, and it was decided that the appropriate course would be for the detaining authority to reassess the matter.

The appeal is allowed.

Referred Cases:

A. Sowkath Ali Vs. Union of India, (2000) 7 SCC 148

A.C. Razia Vs. Government of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 2504

Ahamed Nassar Vs. State of T.N., (1999) 8 SCC 473

Ashadevi Vs. K. Shivraj, Addl. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat, (1979) 1 SCC 222

Ashok Narain Vs. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 437

Babu Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 1 KLT 230

Bhut Nath Mete Vs. State of West Bengal, (1974) 1 SCC 645

Chandrakant Baddi Vs. ADM & Police Commr., (2008) 17 SCC 290

Commissioner of Police Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16

Devji Vallabhbhai Tandel Vs. The Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu, AIR 1982 SC 1029

Emperor Vs. Shibnath Bannerji, AIR 1943 FC 75 : 45 CriLJ 341

Gurdev Singh Vs. Union of India, (2002) 1 SCC 545

Haradhan Saha Vs. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 198

John Martin Vs. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 836

K.M. Abdulla Kunhi Vs. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476

Khudiram Das Vs. The State of West Bengal, (1975) 2 SCC 81

Lekha Nandakumar Vs. Government of India, (2004) 2 KLT 1094

Machindar Vs. King, AIR 1950 FC 129

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

Raj Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (1982) 3 SCC 10

Saliyal Beevi Vs. State of Kerala, (2011) 4 KHC 422

Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 309

Simms Motor Units Ltd. Vs. Minister of Labour and National Service, (1946) 2 All ER 201

State of Gujarat Vs. Adam Kasam Bhaya, (1981) 4 SCC 216

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Alagar, (2006) 7 SCC 540

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kethiyan Perumal, (2004) 8 SCC 780

Sunil Fulchand Shah Vs. Union of India, (2000) 3 SCC 409

Ujagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1952) SCR 756

Union of India Vs. Arvind Shergill, (2000) 7 SCC 601

Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1982) 2 SCC 43

Facts:

An agreement dated 22.04.1993 was executed between Bharat Aluminium Company (Appellant) and Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (Respondent) regarding equipment supply and production facility up-gradation.

Disputes arose, leading to arbitration proceedings in England, resulting in two awards in favor of the Respondent on 10.11.2002 and 12.11.2002.

The Appellant filed Section 34 applications before the District Judge, Bilaspur, which were dismissed, leading to appeals before the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the applications under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act were maintainable against foreign awards?

Whether Indian law applies to the arbitration agreement despite the express choice of English Arbitration Law?

Held:

The Constitution Bench resolved conflicting views on the applicability of Part I of the Arbitration Act, clarifying its applicability to arbitrations within the territory of India.

The proper law of the contract was Indian law, and Article 22 of the Arbitration Agreement clearly indicated the application of English Law to arbitration.

The intention of the parties to apply English Law to the arbitration agreement was evident from the terms of Article 22.

The High Court's view that Section 34 applications were not maintainable against the foreign awards was upheld.

Appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Referred Cases:

Aircraft Employees' Housing Cooperative Society Limited Vs. Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, (1996) 11 SCC 475

Bharat Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552

Bhatia International Vs. Bulk Trading S.A., (2002) 4 SCC 105

Cargill International S.A. Vs. Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation, (1998) 1 W.L.R. 461

Fabianich Vs. Hart, D.C. Mun App., 31A.2d 881, 883

Palm Shipping Vs. Kuwait Petroleum, (1988) 1 Lloyds Rep 500 at 502

Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Union of India, (2014) 7 SCC 603

Sumitomo Heavy Industries Limited Vs. ONGC Limited, (1998) 1 SCC 305

Union of India Vs. Reliance Industries Limited, (2015) 10 SCALE 149

Facts:

Bhola Ram Steel Pvt. Ltd. applied as an HTIS consumer for a connected load of 500 KVA.

Inspection in January 1999 found the connected load to be 495 HP.

Appellant claimed exemption from minimum guarantee charges based on the Industrial Policy of 1995.

Dispute arose over the maximum demand exceeding the contracted load and issues with the MDI meter.

Issues:

Whether the connected load exceeded 500 KVA, justifying the demand by Bihar State Electricity Board.

Validity of the claim for exemption from minimum guarantee charges.

Reliability of the MDI meter and its readings.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the demand raised by the Electricity Board was legal and valid. The court emphasized the reliability of the MDI meter in recording excess consumption and found a violation of the permissible connected load. The High Court's decision to quash the demand was set aside. The outstanding amount was directed to be paid within six weeks as per the Board's norms. The appeal is allowed.

Referred Cases:

Orissa State Electricity Board Vs. IPI Steel Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 320

Bhilai Rerollers Vs. M.P. Electricity Board, (2003) 7 SCC 185

Facts:

Don Ayengia, the appellant, entered an agreement with Nazimul Islam for building construction.

Ayengia paid Rs. 10,00,000 to Nazimul Islam, but the construction agreement was canceled.

A promissory note dated 13th August 2007 was executed, promising a refund within one month through post-dated cheques.

Cheques were dishonored twice, and Haren Mudoi acknowledged issuing them through an endorsement.

Mudoi later denied knowledge of dishonor and promised to pay the amount with fresh cheques.

Issues:

Whether the cheques issued were meant to discharge a debt or liability under Section 138.

Validity of Haren Mudoi's denial and promise to pay.

Held:

The execution of the promissory note and the endorsement by Mudoi were proven. Cheques were intended to discharge a debt or liability.( Para 10)

The existence of the debt/liability was acknowledged, and cheques were issued to give time for payment. The relationship between the liability and the cheques was direct.( Para 11)

The argument that Mudoi had no liability to liquidate the debt was rejected. Cheques were supported by consideration, and their presentation was logical upon non-payment.( Para 12)

The High Court erred in overturning the conviction without proper analysis. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the appellate court's decision.( Para 13)

Facts:

The appellant, the State of Rajasthan, appealed against the High Court's decision to alter the conviction of the respondent from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.

The case involved the shooting of Mangla Ram, leading to his death, and subsequent legal proceedings against the accused-respondent.

Issues:

Whether the conviction of the respondent under Section 302 should be altered to Section 304 Part-I, IPC, as decided by the High Court.

The court also needed to consider the application of various sections of the Arms Act and the Penal Code.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court rightly convicted the respondent under Section 302, IPC, while the High Court erred in categorizing it as Section 304 Part-I, IPC.( Para 9)

The court criticized the High Court's reasoning, emphasizing the doctrine of transfer of malice and the importance of Section 301, IPC, in determining culpable homicide.( Para 10)

The court stated that the High Court failed to consider Section 301, IPC, and reiterated that the respondent knew his act was likely to cause death, rejecting the High Court's classification.( Para 11)

The Supreme Court, therefore, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court under Section 302, IPC, and other relevant sections of the Arms Act.( Para 12)

Referred Cases:

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya, AIR 1977 SC 45

Facts:

The case involved appellants Tmt. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and others as landlords and respondents M. Chinniyan and others as tenants.

Issues:

Differentiation of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation and title suits.

Interpretation of ownership in the context of rent control legislation.

Validity of an eviction petition under Sections 10(2) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

Consideration of the necessity to implead all co-owners in an eviction petition.

Held:

The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by rent control laws was distinguished from that in a title suit.

Ownership in rent control legislation was defined as the entitlement, in one's own legal right, to evict the tenant and retain control, hold, and use the premises for oneself.

It was clarified that proof of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation might not be sufficient to sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit.

The eviction petition filed by the appellants against the respondent was allowed, rejecting the High Court's assertion that the tenancy in relation to the suit premises was with an agent.

In the context of Sections 10(2) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, it was held that it is not necessary to implead all co-owners in an eviction petition. The petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of the daughter of the deceased vendor.

The execution of a Power of Attorney was discussed, emphasizing that an agent always acts on behalf of the principal and does not receive any personal benefit. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

Referred Cases:

Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706

Dhannalal Vs. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78

Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814

Pal Singh Vs. Sunder Singh, (1989) 1 SCC 444

Sheela Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC 375

Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath, (1976) 4 SCC 184

State of Rajasthan Vs. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77

Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited 2 Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656