Facts:

The Court appointed a committee to inquire into the workings of the BCCI, with the committee recommending various reforms to enhance transparency and efficiency.

Issues:

The recommendations made by the committee, including changes to BCCI membership, upper age limits for office bearers, ineligibility of ministers and government officials, financial oversight, and other structural reforms.

Held:

The committee's task was inquisitorial, involving hearing stakeholders and making recommendations for the improvement of BCCI without adjudicating on any final rights. The court found the committee's procedures adherent to principles of natural justice and no legal flaw in the process.( Para 44-45)

The court clarified that Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to form associations, is applicable only to citizens, and the committee's recommendations did not interfere with the composition of State Associations.( Para 52-53, 60-61)

The court upheld the "One State One Vote" recommendation, converting certain clubs to associate membership, considering it necessary for the structural streamlining of BCCI.( Para 62-63)

Regarding the "One State One Vote" recommendation for Maharashtra and Gujarat, the court proposed a rotational membership approach to balance historical perspectives and regional representation.( Para 64-65)

The court found the recommendation for an upper age limit of 70 for office bearers reasonable, citing alignment with the National Sports Development Code of India.( Para 66-68)

The court upheld the committee's recommendation that ministers and government officials should be ineligible for posts in State Associations or the BCCI, emphasizing the need to prevent conflicts of interest.( Para 69-72)

The court accepted the committee's recommendation for nominees of the Accountant General and the Comptroller & Auditor General (C&AG) to bring transparency and financial oversight into State Associations and the BCCI.( Para 74-76)

The court supported the formation of a Players' Association, including financial support, as a reasonable idea to involve players in the management of the game.( Para 79-80)

The court suggested that bringing BCCI under the Right to Information Act and legalizing betting in cricket should be examined by the Law Commission.( Para 82-83)

The court addressed concerns about commercial exploitation in broadcasting and recommended that the BCCI ensures an uninterrupted broadcast for viewers.( Para 84-86)

The court referred back to the Committee to re-examine the induction of IPL franchisee nominees in the Governing Council due to potential conflicts of interest.( Para 87-88)

The court found reasonable the committee's recommendations for term limits, cooling-off periods, and disqualification grounds for office bearers.( Para 89)

The court supported the committee's recommendation to overhaul existing committees for institutionalizing administrative affairs.( Para 90-91)

Facts:

Respondent No.3, Shirish Dhopeshwarkar, filed O.P. No.552 of 1988 before the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, for declaration of title and recovery of land.

Special Tribunal allowed the application but dismissed the claim for compensation.

Appeals were filed, leading to a remand for fresh disposal and further proceedings.

Issues:

Title disputes involving Respondent No.3 and appellants.

Allegations of land grabbing under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.

Appellants' failure to implead themselves in the Special Court proceedings.

Claims of procedural lacunae by the appellants.

Held:

The Special Tribunal and Special Court concurred in establishing the title of Respondent No.3.

Appellants failed to present adequate evidence of their title and possession.

Appellants did not implead themselves in a timely manner, and their claim of procedural lacunae was rejected.

High Court upheld the decisions of the lower forums, dismissing the writ petition and review petition filed by the appellants.

The ground of non-compliance with procedural requirements was considered inconsequential to the merits of the case.

These appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Facts:

The insertion of Section 12(1B) in the SEBI Act on January 25, 1995, led to the creation of two categories of persons: proviso and non-proviso.

The proviso category involved those who commenced activities before January 25, 1995, while the non-proviso category consisted of those who hadn't commenced activities by that date.

The Collective Investment Regulations came into force on October 15, 1999.

Issues:

Interpretation of Section 12(1B) and its implications on individuals falling into the proviso and non-proviso categories.

Compliance with the Collective Investment Regulations, specifically Regulation 5 and other relevant sections.

Held:

The court held that the non-proviso category was barred from commencing collective investment activities without obtaining a certificate of registration from 'the Board'.

The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 12(1B) and the penal consequences of its contravention.

The court clarified the distinctions between the proviso and non-proviso categories, specifying the obligations and permissions for each.

Decision: The court concluded that the proceedings initiated against certain respondents were flawed, citing deficiencies in the complaint, lack of disclosure of offense particulars, and improper categorization of the accused. The court quashed the proceedings against the respondents.

Facts:

The case involves a challenge to the selection process for the post of Principal in Degree Colleges and Post Graduate Colleges in Uttar Pradesh. The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, and the corresponding Regulations, especially Regulation 6, govern the selection procedure. The Commission is accused of non-compliance with Regulation 6, altering selection norms, and potentially favoring certain candidates.

Issues:

Alleged non-compliance with Regulation 6 by the Commission.

Changes in selection norms, potentially favoring certain candidates.

Adherence to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980.

Held:

The Regulation 6 grants the Commission substantive power to call for interviews and determine the ratio of candidates to vacancies. The Commission initially set norms but later altered them, allowing all candidates to participate. Serious allegations of favoritism were made, casting doubt on the integrity of the selection process.

The Commission's varying of cut-off index norms raised serious concerns, leading to the participation of ineligible candidates in the interview process. The High Court rightly frowned upon such inconsistent practices by the Commission, emphasizing the need for an honest approach in selection matters.

The High Court found serious discrepancies in the selection process, including the induction of Commission members with questionable qualifications. The Commission's deviation from consistent norms and the participation of ineligible candidates raised substantial doubts about the overall fairness of the selection.

The Court rejected the contention that withdrawal of earlier writ petitions without reservation should estop the petitioners from filing the present writ petition. The withdrawal occurred before the interview, and subsequent challenges were permissible after the declaration of results.

The High Court's detailed examination of qualifications and experience of certain candidates led to a factual finding that they did not fulfill the minimum requirements. The Court dismissed the appellant's contention that further examination of documents was necessary, upholding the High Court's findings.

The High Court, considering serious breaches of regulations and discrepancies in the selection process, set aside the entire selection. The application of the rule of reservation by the Commission, contrary to this Court's precedent, was also noted as a flaw in the selection.

Facts:

The appellants were charged with committing a bank robbery.

Identification of the appellants by eyewitnesses was a crucial aspect of the case.

The appellants were tried by a Court Martial and were convicted.

Issues:

Credibility of the identification by eyewitnesses (PW-14 and PW-18).

Validity of the evidence provided by the Fingerprint Expert (PW-15).

Applicability of the benefit of doubt to one of the appellants (DK Singh).

Claim for reinstatement by the acquitted appellant (DK Singh).

Held:

Identification of Appellants: The tribunal disbelieved the identification of appellants AK Singh and UK Singh by PW-14 and PW-18, but the Supreme Court differed, finding that the bank personnel could have seen the culprits during the robbery and accepted the identification.

Fingerprint Evidence: While there were lapses in the prosecution regarding the recovery of weapons, the Supreme Court held that these lapses should not result in acquittal and upheld the fingerprint evidence presented by PW-15, linking AK Singh and UK Singh to the crime.

DK Singh's Acquittal: The tribunal acquitted DK Singh due to doubts about identification and the recovery of weapons. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the acquittal was not an honorable one, especially considering the credible identification of DK Singh by PW-14 and PW-18.

Reinstatement Claim by DK Singh: The Supreme Court emphasized that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle reinstatement, particularly if the acquittal is based on the benefit of doubt. DK Singh, having been granted the benefit of doubt, cannot claim reinstatement or other consequential benefits.

Facts:

The petitioner alleged that Mis. Utsav violated the Supreme Court's order by outsourcing the manufacturing of HSRPs. The petitioner further claimed that the scheme was not implemented in its true spirit.

Issues:

The alleged violation of the Supreme Court's order, outsourcing of manufacturing, and non-implementation of the HSRP scheme.

Held:

The court took cognizance of the contempt petition based on the petitioner's claims of Mis. Utsav outsourcing HSRP manufacturing, which was in violation of the Supreme Court's order.( Paragraph 14)

Mis. Utsav had secured tenders for manufacturing HSRPs in multiple states by forming Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) with entities like Mis. Linkpoint and Mis. Rosmerta.( Paragraph 22)

The judgment discussed the Type of Approval Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of Production (CoP) requirements for HSRP manufacturers, emphasizing compliance with Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.( Paragraph 23)

The court highlighted the lack of certification for Mis. Rosmerta's manufacturing unit in Assam and identified a prima facie violation of Rule 50 and court orders.( Paragraph 25)

The contempt proceedings against Mis. Utsav were not pursued, leaving it to the respective states to take action for any violations. The State of Madhya Pradesh terminated the Concessionaire Agreement, and the Delhi Government issued a show cause notice to Mis. Rosmerta.( Paragraphs 27-28)

Concerns were raised about Mis. Utsav's control over the HSRP manufacturing process and the illegal sale of HSRPs by consortium partners. Directions and guidelines were issued for the proper implementation of the HSRP scheme.( Paragraphs 30, 34)

Facts:

The government had established a permanent machinery for arbitration in 1989 to settle commercial disputes between public sector enterprises (PSE) and government departments.

The dispute between the parties was referred to the Permanent Machinery for Arbitration in 1993/1994.

An arbitrator made an award, which was challenged by MIS. NORTHERN COALFIELD LTD. through a filed suit.

Issues:

Whether the requirement of permission from the Committee on Disputes (COD) was necessary for the suit to proceed.

The dissolution of COD and its impact on the procedural requirements.

The legal character of a government-owned company and its right to seek redress.

Held:

Commercial disputes between public sector enterprises were settled through arbitration by government officers or empowered government agencies. The Permanent Machinery for Arbitration was established in 1989 outside the framework of the Arbitration Act, 1940.( Para 14)

The High Court rejected the appellant's suit based on the absence of permission from COD. However, the Supreme Court held that the dissolution of COD negated the necessity for such clearance, making the rejection unsustainable.( Para 23-24)

An arbitral award under the Permanent Machinery of Arbitration may not be legally enforceable in court if not accepted by both parties. In the present case, the appellant did not accept the award, and the dispute continued.( Para 25)

Remedies available to the government on the administrative side cannot substitute legal remedies. The right of the appellant to demand adjudication was recognized, leading to the referral of the matter to a sole arbitrator.( Para 27)

The matter is referred to a sole arbitrator for the adjudication of all outstanding disputes between the two corporations, considering the impracticality of a lengthy and expensive trial.( Para 25, 27)

In the result we allow this appeal.

FACTS:

The accident occurred on 16.09.2008 involving a three-wheeler and a truck.

Legal representatives of the deceased individuals filed claim petitions seeking compensation against the owner, driver, and insurer of the offending vehicle (truck).

The MACT awarded compensation, holding the insurance company liable as the driver had a valid driving license.

The High Court partially allowed the appeals, reversing the MACT's award, citing the absence of a valid driving license.

ISSUES:

Whether the insurance company is liable for compensation.

Validity of the driver's license and its admissibility as evidence.

HELD:

The High Court erred in exonerating the insurance company from liability. The Tribunal correctly held the insurance company liable as the driver had a valid license, and the vehicle was insured.( Paragraph 14)

The High Court failed to consider that the driver filed a photocopy of his license, which was proved without objection from the insurance company. The lack of evidence from the insurance company regarding the license's validity was highlighted.( Paragraph 15)

The Tribunal's finding that the driver possessed a valid license was correct, and the insurance company failed to prove otherwise. The High Court's reversal was unwarranted.( Paragraph 19)

The High Court should have acknowledged that the driver proved the validity of the license, and the insurance company, having not objected during the trial, had no right to raise concerns later.( Paragraph 22)

The insurance company is held liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and enhanced by the High Court, jointly and severally with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.( Paragraph 23)

REFERRED CASES:

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla, (2007) 13 SCC 476

Facts:

Kantilal Mohanlal Mehta entered into a lease agreement with the State of Gujarat for bauxite mining in 1964.

The state reserved and later de-reserved certain areas for bauxite mining in 1964 and 1978.

Conditions were sought by the state from the central government regarding mining, including setting up industrial units for captive consumption.

The Central Government granted permission for de-reservation and imposition of conditions in 1980.

The lessee applied for permission to sell/export bauxite, which was granted but subsequently rejected for non-compliance with conditions.

Legal proceedings ensued, involving the High Court and the Central Government.

Issues:

Whether the state has the power to impose conditions, including setting up a captive plant, at the time of renewing a mining lease.

Whether the central government's permission granted in 1980 is applicable to the respondent's mining lease.

The legality of the state's resolution dated 04.02.2005 regulating the sale/export of bauxite.

Held:

Power to Impose Conditions at Renewal: The renewal of a mining lease is a fresh grant, and the state has the power to impose conditions, including setting up a captive plant. The Central Government's permission obtained in 1980 supports this authority (Paragraphs 25-28).

Applicability of Central Government's Permission: The central government's permission for de-reservation and conditions in 1980 applies to the respondent's mining lease, even though their mines were not affected by the initial reservation. Any other interpretation would lead to discrimination (Paragraphs 30-32).

Legality of State's Resolution: The resolution dated 04.02.2005 regulating the sale/export of bauxite is valid and necessary to protect the state's interests. The lessees' focus on export without establishing captive plants jeopardizes the state's goals (Paragraph 14).