Facts:

Application filed for admission for the academic year 2016-17.

Request for admission based on the Common Entrance Test conducted by the APDMC.

Similar prayer made in a previous application (I.A. No. 74 of 2014) for the academic year 2015-16, which was dismissed on 12th February 2015.

No mention of the earlier application in the present one.

Issues:

Lack of averment regarding the dismissed earlier application.

No request for an examination for admission for the academic year 2016-17.

Violation of Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000.

Held:

The court found no mention of the dismissed earlier application and noted the absence of a request for an examination for the academic year 2016-17.

No examination had been conducted as required by regulations, and the last date for the examination had passed.

Despite a plea to extend the examination date, the court found it impractical.

The interim arrangement permitted medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh to admit 50% of students based on the applicant association's examination and 50% based on the state's recommendation.

The court allowed the applicants to select candidates for the 2016-17 batch from the successful candidates in the All India Examination.

The state was responsible for counseling, and collected fees were to be paid to the medical colleges by the state.

Interlocutory Application No. 83 of 2015 was disposed of.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute subject to arbitration, and the arbitration agreement is governed by the provisions of Section 3 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The relevant clauses in the First Schedule of the Act outline the framework for the appointment of arbitrators, time limits for passing awards, and other procedural aspects.

Issues:

The power of an arbitrator to award pendente lite interest, especially when the contract may contain explicit provisions barring such awards.

Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act grants the arbitrator the authority to award interest pendente lite unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

Held:

Elucidates the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1940, emphasizing that the arbitration agreement includes the provisions contained in the First Schedule unless a different intention is expressly stated.

The definition of "Court" in Section 2(c) is explained, making a clear distinction between the court and the arbitrator. The arbitrator derives authority from the agreement and does not possess all the powers of a court.

Sections 29 and 34 of the Act are highlighted to illustrate the court's power to award interest and draw a parallel with Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act, which emphasizes the significance of the contract between the parties.

The grant of pendente lite interest is contingent on various factors, as explained in paragraphs 6, 7, 16, 23. Factors include the language used in the agreement, clauses conferring arbitration powers, the nature of the claim, and the specified items for which interest may be excluded.

Decision: The court holds that if a contract expressly bars the award of interest pendente lite, the arbitrator cannot grant such interest. However, the court cautions against readily inferring an express bar solely based on a delay payment provision, emphasizing the need to consider various relevant aspects.

Referred Cases:

Ashok Construction Company Vs. Union of India, (1971) 3 SCC 66

Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta Vs. Engineers-De-Space-Age, (1996) 1 SCC 516

Executive Engineer Irrigation Balimela Vs. Abhaduta Jena, (1988) 1 SCC 418

Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa Vs. N.C. Budharaj D by L.Rs., (2001) 2 SCC 721

Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan Vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore, AIR 1967 SC 1030

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1992) 4 SCC 217

Madnani Construction Corporation P Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 549

Nachiappa Chettiar Vs. Subramaniam Chettiar, AIR 1960 SC 327

Raipur Development Authority Vs. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors, (1989) 2 SCC 721

Satinder Singh Vs. Amrao Singh, AIR 1961 SC 908

Sayeed Ahmed & Co. Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 12 SCC 26

Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa Vs. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508

Seth Thawardas Pherumal Vs. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 468

Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions Vs. Divisional Railway Manager Works, Palghat, (2010) 8 SCC 767

State of M.P. Vs. M/s. Saith and Skelton Pvt. Ltd., (1972) 1 SCC 702

State of Orissa Vs. B.N. Agarwalla, (1997) 2 SCC 469

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction P Ltd., (2009) 12 SCC 1

State of U.P. Vs. Harish Chandra & Co., (1999) 1 SCC 63

Superintending Engineer Vs. B. Subba Reddy, (1999) 4 SCC 423

Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited Vs. Jai Prakash Associates Limited, (2012) 12 SCC 10

Union of India Vs. Bright Power Projects India Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 695

Union of India Vs. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 1032

Union of India Vs. Krafters Engineering & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 7 SCC 279

Facts:

Ajay Arjun Singh, the returned candidate, filed a petition seeking the dismissal of an election petition. The ground for dismissal was that the affidavit filed with the petition did not conform to Form 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The election petitioner contended that the affidavit in Form 25 was included in pages 394 and 395 of the petition and asserted that two affidavits were filed.

Issues:

Whether the affidavit filed was in conformity with Form 25.

Whether one or two affidavits were filed along with the election petition.

Jurisdictional issue related to Rule 13(2) of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008.

Held:

The High Court's casual handling of the matter was criticized. The finding of no affidavit in Form No.25 was recorded without examining the existence or content of the affidavit claimed to be annexed to the petition.( Para 20)

The objection raised by the returned candidate regarding the jurisdiction of Rule 13(2) of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, was rejected. Section 80A(2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, was held to govern the jurisdiction of election petitions.( Paras 29 and 31)

The argument regarding the subsequent and conflicting finding was rejected. The principle of res judicata was found inapplicable as the specific issue was not directly and substantially in issue in a former proceeding.( Para 35(1), 37(i))

The High Court's failure to examine whether two affidavits were filed along with the petition in the OR VII R 11 petition was highlighted. The order was deemed casual and lacking in examination of facts.( Paras 35(II), 37(ii))

Non-compliance of Rule 6(4) by the Registrar was noted, but it was held not fatal to the election petition as the act or omission of the Court should not harm any party.( Para 37(c, d))

The question of whether the election petitioner filed the second affidavit was considered a pure question of fact, but it was not directly in issue during the OR VII R 11 petition.( Para 37(e))

The returned candidate's objection in the OR VII R 11 petition was clarified to be about the format and content of the affidavit, not the date of filing.( Para 39)

The election petitioner's filing of another affidavit pursuant to the order dated 25.8.2014 was deemed irrelevant to the question of the existence of a second affidavit initially.( Paras 40, 43)

Referred Cases:

Banarsi Vs. Ram Phal, (2003) 9 SCC 606

Banku Chandra Bose Vs. Marium Begum, AIR 1917 Cal. 546

G.M. Siddeshwar Vs. Prasanna Kumar, AIR 2013 SC 1549

Hardevinder Singh Vs. Paramjit Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 261

P.A. Mohammed Riyas Vs. M.K. Raghavan, (2012) 5 SCC 511

State of Punjab Vs. Krishan Niwas, (1997) 9 SCC 31

FACTS:

Trust property admeasuring 3343.53 sq. meters in Girgaun area, Mumbai.

Trustees resolved to sell the property due to low rents and protection issues under the Bombay Rent Act.

Sale proposed under Development Control Regulation 33(7) for re-development of cessed buildings.

ISSUES:

Challenge to the Charity Commissioner's order granting permission to sell the property.

Single Judge set aside the order, directing the trustees to invite bids for redevelopment.

HELD:

The Supreme Court directed the Trust to issue a fresh advertisement for redevelopment.

Two offers received from Ramee Construction and Raunak Corporation.

Ramee Construction increased its offer to Rs. 10 crores during proceedings.

Considering circumstances, the Court found it beneficial for the Trust to accept Ramee Construction's increased offer.

The appeals were allowed, setting aside the Division Bench's order, and the case was disposed of with no orders as to costs.

Facts:

The appellants were accused of violating insider trading regulations on three specific days in 2012. SEBI issued a show cause notice, and the appellants responded, arguing that the defaults were technical and did not warrant penalties.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 15A, post its 2002 amendment, and its interrelation with Section 15J. The court needed to determine whether penalties should be imposed for technical defaults and if Section 15J limits the discretion of the adjudicating officer.

Held:

The court found it necessary to refer the matter to a larger bench for authoritative pronouncement due to difficulties in subscribing to both views presented in a prior judgment (SEBI vs. Roofit Industries Limited). The court expressed concern about potential anomalies and disproportionate penalties for technical defaults if Section 15A is read in isolation. The court emphasized the importance of harmonious construction of statutes and the need to consider Section 15J in conjunction with Section 15A. Pending a decision by a larger bench, the interim orders were to continue.

Referred Cases:

Julius v Bishop of Oxford, (1880) LR 5 AC 214 HL

SEBI Through its Chairman Vs. Roofit Industries Limited, (2015) 12 SCALE 642

Facts:

The case of Suresh Chand Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. revolves around the issue of reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in public employment.

Issues:

Whether a writ or direction can be issued to the State Government to collect and gather necessary data of the SCs and STs in the services of the State for granting reservation in promotion.

Held:

The court references the M. Nagaraj case, affirming that the State is not obligated to make reservations for SCs/STs in matters of promotion. However, if the State chooses to provide such reservations, it must collect quantifiable data demonstrating the backwardness of the concerned class and the inadequacy of their representation in public employment, in addition to complying with Article 335 of the Constitution. The court highlights that the State's discretion can only be exercised on certain conditions being satisfied.

The court emphasizes that the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the State to collect data for the purpose of granting reservation in promotion is not appropriate. It clarifies that mandamus cannot be used to force the State to take a particular decision as it involves an exercise of discretion by the State based on conditions being satisfied. The court distinguishes between cases where guidelines are framed for certain rights and the present situation where a mandamus is sought for the framing of rules or regulations for reservation in promotions.

Decision: The court concludes that a writ of mandamus seeking the collection of data for reservation in promotion cannot be issued. The discretion to make reservations is subject to certain conditions, and mandamus cannot be employed to compel the State to collect data as it would infringe upon the legislative domain.

Referred Cases:

Ajit Singh III Vs. State of Punjab, (2000) 1 SCC 430

Ajit Singh Januja Vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 715

Ajit Singh II Vs. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209

All India Judges' Association Vs. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247

Ambica Querry Works Vs. State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 213

Aneesh D. Lawande Vs. State of Goa, (2014) 1 SCC 554

Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770

Atam Prakash Vs. State of Haryana, (1986) 2 SCC 249

Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971) 2 QB 175, 190

Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502

Census Commissioner Vs. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796

Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association, (2015) 1 SCALE 169

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

D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, (2015) 8 SCC 744

Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., (2007) 8 SCC 338

Director of Settlements, A.P. Vs. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638

Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, (1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144

Dr. Umakant Saran Vs. State of Bihar, (1973) 1 SCC 485

Ganga Ram Moolchandani Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 6 SCC 89

Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 2 SCC 688

Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, (1992) Sup 3 SCC 217

Julius Vs. Lord Bishop of Oxford, (1880) 5 AC 214

Kalyan Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1183

Khoday distilleries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, (1995) 1 SCC 574

Lafarge Umiam Mining P Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 338

Lee District Board Vs. LCC, (1989) 82 LT 306

M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212

M.A. Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 7 SCC 517

M.G. Badappanavar Vs. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC 666

Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Vs. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 85

Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727

Markand Dattatreya Sugavkar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, (2013) 9 SCC 136

Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Vardichan, (1980) 4 SCC 162

Nagar Palika Nigam Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, AIR 2009 SC 187

Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, (1991) Sup 1 SCC 430

Padfield Vs. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1968) 1 All ER 694 HL

Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1

Province of Bombay Vs. Khushaldas S. Advani, AIR 1950 SC 222

R Vs. Marshland Smeeth and Fen District Commr, (1920) 1 KB 155 DC

R Vs. Thomas, (1892) 1 QB 426

R. Vs. Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London, (1812) 15 East 117, at 136

R. Vs. Bank of England, (1819) 2 B & Ald 620, at 622

R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745

Ranveer Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 11 SCC 493

Re Nichols Vs. Baker, (1890) 44 Ch D 262

S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India, (1981) Sup 1 SCC 87

Sharif Ahmad Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, (1978) 1 SCC 1

State of Kerala Vs. A. Lakshmikutt, (1986) 4 SCC 632

State of Rajasthan Vs. Harishanker Rajendrapal, AIR 1966 SC 296

Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability Vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 320

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441

Suraj Bhan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 1 SCC 467

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 61

Tara Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1682

U.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2012) 7 SCC 1

Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588

Union of India Vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684

Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241

Waman Rao Vs. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 587

Facts:

Saket Housing Ltd. constructed a multi-storeyed building with significant deviations from the sanctioned plan.

The court ordered the demolition of the unauthorized construction after dismissing Saket Housing's civil appeal.

Owners of residential flats filed a writ petition seeking relief from the demolition order.

The court refused to recall the demolition order, directed compensation at Rs. 6,000 per sq. ft., and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues:

Legality of the unauthorized construction.

Validity of the demolition order.

Compensation rate for affected persons.

Compliance with court directives by Saket Housing and Patna Municipal Corporation.

Held:

The court, considering the finality of the writ petition, refused to entertain further orders. It directed Saket Housing to comply with the demolition order issued on July 9, 2014.The compensation rate was enhanced from Rs. 6,000 per sq. ft. to Rs. 7,000 per sq. ft. All flat owners were instructed to receive compensation within six weeks and vacate the premises within one month.( Para 13)

The Patna Municipal Corporation was directed to demolish unauthorized structures within four months, filing a compliance report thereafter.( Para 14)

Facts:

The case involved a suit for the declaration of title through adverse possession. The plaintiff, N. Jayamma, claimed ownership of the land, which had already been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. However, the actual possession of the land remained with the original owner. The plaintiff admitted that officials of the Bangalore Development Authority demolished a structure on the property.

Issues:

Whether the plaintiff established title through adverse possession.

The relevance of the demolition of the structure by the Bangalore Development Authority to the claim of adverse possession.

Consideration of equity in the context of the Authority's purpose and the respondent's continuous possession.

Held:

The respondent-plaintiff admitted that officials of the appellant-Authority had demolished the structure on the suit property, indicating a lack of unhindered, peaceful, and continuous possession.

The plea of equity, considering the purpose of the Authority and the respondent's continuous possession, was rejected. Such considerations were deemed irrelevant in the present civil proceedings.

Decision: As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the suit filed by the respondent was deemed liable to be dismissed for the failure to prove title by adverse possession.

Referred Cases:

Ajay Kishan Singhal Vs. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 721

Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil Vs. Balwant, (1995) 2 SCC 543

Balwant Narayan Bhagde Vs. M.D. Bhagwat, (1976) 1 SCC 700

D.N. Venkatarayappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (1997) 7 SCC 567

East India Company Vs. Oditchurn Paul, (1849) Cases in the Privy Council on Appeal from the East Indies 43

Gian Chand Vs. Gopala & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 528

John B. James & Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, ILR 2000 KAR 4134

Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, (1998) 4 SCC 387

M. Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, (2015) 10 SCALE 27

Mahavir & Anr. Vs. Rural Institute, Amravati, (1995) 5 SCC 335

Mahesh Chand Sharma Dr. Vs. Raj Kumari Sharma, (1996) 8 SCC 128

Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, (2008) 9 SCC 177

Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, (1996) 1 SCC 639

Mohd. Mohd. Ali Vs. Jagadish Kalita, (2004) 1 SCC 271

NTPC Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Dutta, (2009) 8 SCC 339

P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. Vs. Revamma, (2007) 6 SCC 59

Parsinni Vs. Sukhi, (1993) 4 SCC 375

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792

Rama Shankar & Anr. Vs. Om Prakash Likhdhari, (2013) 6 ADJ 119

S.M. Karim Vs. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254

Saroop Singh Vs. Banto, (2005) 8 SCC 330

Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A. Viswam D, (1996) 2 SCC 634

Tika Ram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 10 SCC 689

U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 3 SCC 124

Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak Vs. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak, (2004) 3 SCC 376

Facts:

The Appellant, Charanjit Kaur, filed a criminal case against Respondent No. 1, Bikram Singh, and others, alleging harassment and torture for dowry. The trial resulted in the conviction of Respondent No. 1, with a subsequent appeal and dismissal by the Sessions Judge. The High Court, in a summary manner, affirmed the decision after the respondent-husband was granted probation subject to a deposit of ₹2,50,000.

Issues:

The leniency shown to the respondent-husband after conviction, claiming that the High Court was influenced by a wrong presumption regarding the chance to save the marriage.

The appellant argued that an opportunity to express her feelings was not provided.

Held:

Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, sending the matter back to the High Court for re-hearing the parties and a fresh decision on merits. The Court emphasized that the High Court should make its decision strictly in accordance with the law. The appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3695 of 2013 was allowed to the extent mentioned in the judgment. The same order was applied to the appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3694 of 2013.