Facts:

The Respondents sought information under the Right to Information Act, including scan copies of their answer sheets, tabulation sheets containing interview marks, and the names of the examiners who evaluated their answer sheets.

The PSC and other authorities denied the information, citing a fiduciary relationship and other concerns.

Issues:

Whether the Respondents are entitled to information regarding the names of examiners who evaluated their answer sheets.

Held:

The Court agrees with the High Court's decision to allow the disclosure of scan copies of answer sheets, tabulation sheets, and other relevant information related to the examination process. This is not considered a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court rejects the Kerala High Court's decision to disclose the names of examiners, emphasizing the fiduciary relationship between the PSC and the examiners.

The decision is modified to deny the disclosure of examiners' names, affirming the fiduciary relationship between the PSC and the examiners.

Information regarding the answer sheets and interview marks is to be provided to the information seekers as it ensures transparency and fairness in the competitive examination process.

FACTS:

Selection made by the State of Bihar for various common posts in the Gazetted Cadre through the 36th Combined Competitive Examination.

Advertisement issued on 9th January 1989.

Resolution dated 10th November 1978 covered the reservation policy at the time of the advertisement.

Another Resolution on reservation policy issued on 30th October 1990.

Order dated 7th January 1991 declared that the policy resolution of 30th October 1990 would apply to examinations already held.

Selection proceeded with, and candidates from the general merit category challenged the results.

ISSUES:

Challenge to the selection process based on reservation policy changes.

Dispute over the applicability of the policy resolution dated 30th October 1990 to the selection made in the 36th Combined Examination.

Contempt proceedings initiated against the State for non-compliance with the Division Bench's order dated 22nd February 2000.

HELD:

The court allows the appellants and petitioners to continue holding their respective posts until reaching the age of superannuation. The State Governments are instructed not to interfere with the initial posting and subsequent benefits accrued to them. The appeal and the transferred cases Stand disposed of. ( Paragraph 20)

The benefit granted under this order extends to applicants in IA Nos. 16, 17, and 20, restoring their status quo ante. This order is not to be quoted as a precedent in any other case. ( Paragraph 21)

Facts:

Respondents applied for a BTC training course under the physically handicapped category, claiming completion of training and job offers.

Complaint filed by Bhartiya Viklang Sangh alleged illegal usurpation of handicapped quota based on fraudulently procured certificates.

State Government ordered verification of disability certificates, revealing 21% were fraudulently obtained.

Issues:

Whether the State Government had the right to verify disability certificates issued by the Medical Board.

Whether the High Court's interference was justified when a substantial number of candidates were found to have fraudulently obtained certificates.

Held:

The Court emphasized the seriousness of the complaint and the substantial fraud committed by candidates. Fraud was deemed to vitiate the entire process, especially when a large number of candidates had unlawfully taken reserved seats for disabled persons. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, dismissing the writ petition, and directed a show cause notice to individuals with fraudulent certificates. The decision-making process was to comply with the law within four months. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Referred Cases:

Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 7 SCC 605

Chittaranjan Das Vs. Durgapore Project Ltd., (1995) 99 CWN 897

Express Newspapers P Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 133

General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland Vs. Overtoun, (1904) AC 515

Lazarus Estates Ltd. Vs. Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341

Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319

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

Short Vs. Poole Corpn., (1926) Ch 66

Shrisht Dhawan Vs. Shaw Bros., (1992) 1 SCC 534

State of A.P. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149

Facts:

The case involves the assessment of property tax under the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994, with specific reference to Section 63. The appellant, State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., contested the assessment, and the High Court's decision was based on bye-law 12 of the New Delhi Municipal Committee Byelaws.

Issues:

Validity of the assessment of property tax under the NDMC Act.

Applicability and validity of bye-law 12 in property tax assessment.

Determination of rateable value for self-occupied and sub-let premises.

Held:

The court sets aside the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the assessment must be based on the provisions of the NDMC Act. For self-occupied buildings, the annual rent is to be fixed according to what the landlord might reasonably expect to receive. In the case of sub-let premises, the 25% payment to the Government of India by the lessee is considered inflated, and the rateable value is to be fixed at 75% of the amount received from the sub-lessee. The assessing officer is directed to complete the assessment for the disputed period within three months. The appeals are allowed as above with no order as to costs.

Referred Cases:

Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1980) 1 SCC 685

India Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation, (2002) 3 SCC 388

Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran HUF Vs. Union of India, (2002) 95 Delhi Law Times 508 2002DB

Facts:

The case involves the tariff determination for power procurement in Gujarat from Solar Energy Projects. The first tariff order (January 29, 2010) considered accelerated depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. A second tariff order (January 27, 2012) determined separate tariffs for projects not availing accelerated depreciation. GUVNL entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with EMCO Limited for electricity sale and purchase. EMCO failed to commence power generation within the control period stipulated in the first tariff order.

Issues:

Whether EMCO is entitled to the tariff as per the second tariff order, given its failure to commence power generation within the control period specified in the first tariff order.

Held:

The court established that an undertaking engaged in power generation has the option to claim depreciation under Section 32(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act. This option can be exercised as indicated in the second proviso to Rule 5(1) of Income Tax Rules, 1962.( Para 15)

The court asserted that the second respondent (power producer) proposed a tariff, assuming all projects would claim accelerated depreciation. The tariff under the first tariff order is applicable to all projects, regardless of eligibility for accelerated depreciation.( Para 18 and 16)

The Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) does not provide an option for the power producer to opt out of its terms. It contemplates the producer not commissioning the project within the control period and specifies the applicable tariff in such an event. The PPA does not entitle the power producer to the tariff determined by the second tariff order.( Para 26)

The right of the power producer not to avail accelerated depreciation stems from the Income Tax Act. The first tariff order provides an option to the power producer not to sell power at the specified price but seek a separate tariff if they choose not to avail accelerated depreciation.( Para 26)

The Income Tax Act allows power producers the option to avail accelerated depreciation. However, the PPA does not reference this benefit. The availability of this option does not relieve the power producer of contractual obligations under the PPA.( Para (28 and 29))

EMCO, as the power producer, knowingly entered into the PPA, which stipulated that tariffs were determined by the Commission under the first tariff order. The overlooked stipulation in the PPA acknowledged the possibility of not commencing generation within the control period, with provisions for subsequent tariffs.( Para 30 and 31)

Facts:

Late Hazi Azimuddin executed a gift deed on 24th February 1976, granting a one-third share of property to the plaintiff, Rafiuddin.

The plaintiff filed a suit for rent recovery from the defendants, who were brothers of the plaintiff.

The trial court and the high court held the gift to be invalid under Muslim Law, emphasizing the lack of possession delivery and the applicability of hiba-bil-musha.

Issues:

Validity of the gift deed under Muslim Law, especially in the context of hiba-bil-musha.

Requirement of possession for a gift of an undivided share.

Whether exceptions to hiba-bil-musha, such as freehold property in a large commercial town, applied.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The key points in the decision are as follows:

The gift deed was held to be genuine and validly executed.

Possession was deemed to be delivered as the right to collect rent was assigned to the plaintiff under the gift deed itself.

The court emphasized exceptions to hiba-bil-musha, highlighting that the property was freehold in a large commercial town (Jaipur), justifying the validity of the gift.

The lower courts were criticized for misapplying the law and erroneously holding the gift to be invalid.

The decision clarified that there was no absolute bar to a gift of an undivided share, especially when exceptions applied.

Facts:

The respondent, a car dealer, was accused of incorrectly recording the sale of cars from its Mahe Branch, registering them under the Motor Vehicles Act at Mahe, and remitting taxes under the Pondicherry Sales Tax Act. The allegation suggested an attempt to benefit from lower tax rates in Pondicherry and evade taxes under the KGST Act in Kerala. A penalty of Rs. 86 lakhs was imposed by the Department, but the High Court set it aside.

Issues:

whether the respondent had engaged in tax evasion by registering sales in Mahe, Pondicherry, instead of Kozhikode, Kerala.

Held:

Co-Terminus Nature of Sale and Registration: The court emphasized the close link in time between the sale of a motor vehicle and its registration. Although registration is a post-sale event, the sale practically coincides with the registration. The Motor Vehicles Act prohibits the dealer from permitting the purchaser to use the vehicle until valid registration is obtained, making possession transferable just before or at the registering authority's office.

Article 286(2) and Section 4(2) of Central Sales Tax Act: Article 286(2) empowers Parliament to formulate principles for determining the place of sale. Section 4(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act addresses the place of sale, stating that in the case of unascertained or future goods, the sale is deemed to occur where the goods are at the time of their appropriation.

Sale of Goods Act - Ascertained Goods: The court rejected the argument that motor vehicles remain unascertained goods until their engine or chassis numbers are entered in the registration certificate. It emphasized that possession can only be handed over at the registration office, making the sale co-terminus with registration. The motor vehicles were considered ascertained goods at the Mahe registration office.

Sale of Goods Act - Conditions for Transfer of Property: Referring to Section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act, the court highlighted that the conditions for transfer of property in the case of motor vehicles include handing over possession at or near the office of the registering authority. This ensures that the vehicle is in a deliverable state, allowing the property to pass to the buyer.

Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the respondent was not guilty of tax evasion. The High Court's decision to set aside the penalty was deemed correct.

Referred Cases:

Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sehgal Autoriders Pvt. Ltd., (2011) SCC OnLine Bom 872

Association of Registration Plates Vs. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 364

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (1970) 1 SCC 622

Facts:

The case involved an appeal by Dharam Pal against the High Court's decision denying the transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The appellant argued negligence in the investigation, failure to examine crucial witnesses, and sought CBI intervention.

Issues:

The fairness of the investigation, the request for CBI involvement, and the High Court's refusal to transfer the case based on the commencement of the trial.

Held:

The Court emphasized the singular and collective nature of the cry for a fair trial, sometimes motivated by vengeance and, in this case, by the distressing disappointment faced by the victim. The Court highlighted the need for collective justice.( Paragraph 2)

The judgment cited the constitutional principles of justice, the duty to uphold human rights, and the power of the courts to intervene for fair investigation. The need for instilling confidence in the investigation process was underlined.( Paragraph 3)

Reference to the conclusions of the Constitution Bench in the State of West Bengal case, emphasizing the protection of fundamental rights, the role of the judiciary, and the power to order CBI investigations in exceptional cases.( Paragraph 10

The Court rejected the argument that the commencement of trial and examination of witnesses was an absolute impediment to exercising the power of transferring investigation. The focus was on ensuring a fair and just investigation.( Paragraph 12)

The appeal was allowed, and the Court directed the CBI to conduct the investigation. The trial judge was instructed not to proceed until the CBI report is filed, underscoring the importance of a fair trial.( Paragraph 20)

Referred Cases:

Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commr. Of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537

K.V. Rajendran Vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai, (2013) 12 SCC 480

Narmada Bai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79

Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346

State of West Bengal Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, (2010) 3 SCC 571

Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762

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