Facts:

The appellant filed a suit seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, alleging that the respondent, Parappa, agreed to sell the land to him but failed to execute the sale deed.

The property in question was joint family property belonging to the father and his two sons. The sale agreement was executed only by the father (vendor) without the concurrence of the other co-owners (sons).

The agreement represented the father as the absolute owner of the property and promised the sale of the entire property.

It was found that the appellant was in possession of the property.

Issues:

Whether the sale agreement was valid and enforceable against the vendor-father to the extent of his 1/3rd share in the property.

Whether Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was applicable in this case.

Whether previous court decisions supported the enforcement of the sale agreement against the vendor-father to the extent of his share in the joint family property.

Held:

The agreement was not binding on the respondents as the property was joint family property and there was no legal necessity for the sale.

Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was not applicable in this case as the agreement was for the entire property, not a part of it.

Previous court decisions supported the enforcement of the sale agreement against the vendor-father to the extent of his share in the joint family property.

The Supreme Court partially allowed the civil appeal, decreeing the suit to the extent of the vendor-father's (first defendant's) 1/3rd share in the property. The other civil appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

The import price of crude palm oil was significantly lower than the price of coconut oil, affecting coconut growers in Kerala.

Coconut cultivation is vital for approximately 35 lakh farmers in Kerala, contributing to a significant portion of the state's agricultural income.

Issues:

The validity of notifications issued by the government banning the importation of crude palm oil through ports in Kerala.

Held:

The Court upheld the validity of the notifications, emphasizing their issuance in the interest of marginalized farmers and their rational nexus with the objective of protecting farmers' livelihoods.

The Court stressed that policy decisions aimed at promoting public welfare, especially for marginalized sections, are entitled to deference and should not undergo extensive judicial review.

The government was within its authority under Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, to issue notifications regulating imports, subject to exceptions deemed fit by the Central Government.

The ban on importing crude palm oil through Kerala ports served the public good and fell within the parameters of the Act.

Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the validity of the notifications banning the importation of crude palm oil through Kerala ports.

Facts:

The appellant, a captive distillery, challenged a government order dated 12.5.1992, which fixed the price of rectified spirit at Rs. 6/- per litre, with captive distilleries receiving only Rs. 5/- per litre and the balance of Rs. 1/- per litre going to the state government. The appellant had supplied rectified spirit at the rate of Rs. 6/- per litre to various parties during a specific period. When a demand for payment of Rs. 13,32,000/- was raised by the Superintendent of Excise, Huballi, the appellant initiated a challenge through a writ petition.

Issues:

Whether the appellant, being a captive distillery, was obligated to pay the additional Rs. 1/- per litre to the state government as per the government order dated 12.5.1992.

Held:

The court found no merit in the appeal. It stated that the appellant had been aware of the conditions set by the government regarding the pricing of rectified spirit. Since the appellant had not challenged the government order itself, it could not dispute the demand made by the state government based on that order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

The appellants were convicted under Sections 302 and 364A of the IPC for the kidnapping and killing of a 16-year-old boy for ransom.

Issues:

Whether the imposition of death sentence under Section 364A is constitutional.

Interpretation of the term "any other person" in Section 364A.

Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 after dismissal of a writ petition under Article 32.

Held:

The provisions of Section 364A of the IPC, prescribing death or life imprisonment, are not unconstitutional.

The term "any other person" in Section 364A encompasses private individuals and is not restricted to the government or international organizations.

The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is not available after dismissal of a writ petition under Article 32.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the conviction and death sentence imposed on the appellants under Sections 302 and 364A of the IPC.

Facts:

The case involves the taxation of composite indivisible works contracts under the Finance Act of 1994. The issue arises from the lack of specificity in the charging section of the Act regarding the taxation of such contracts.

Issues:

Whether service tax is leviable on composite indivisible works contracts prior to the introduction of the Finance Act, 2007.

Whether entering into composite indivisible works contracts after the enactment of the Finance Act, 1994, contradicts public policy.

The constitutional segregation of taxation powers between the Centre and the States in the context of composite works contracts.

Held:

The court held that the Finance Act of 1994 did not provide specific provisions for the taxation of composite indivisible works contracts. Therefore, service tax could not have been levied on such contracts prior to the introduction of the Finance Act, 2007.

It was determined that entering into composite indivisible works contracts after the enactment of the Finance Act, 1994, does not contradict public policy, as there is no subterfuge involved in such contracts.

The court emphasized the exclusive taxation powers of the Centre and the States and the need to segregate the service and goods elements in composite works contracts for taxation purposes.

Decision: The appeals filed by the assessees were allowed, and those filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

Facts:

Madras Institute of Development Studies (MIDS) issued an advertisement for vacancies of Professor, Associate Professor, and Assistant Professor.

The respondent, along with others, applied for the post of Associate Professor.

The selection process included shortlisting by the Director of the Institute and a Selection Committee conducting interviews and recommending candidates.

The Executive Council approved the appointments.

The respondent challenged the selection process after not being selected, alleging irregularities and deviation from the advertised qualifications.

The single judge dismissed the writ petition, citing lack of objection during the selection process and the institution not being a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, holding the institution as a 'State' and finding variations between the advertisement and the rules.

Issues:

Whether the Madras Institute of Development Studies qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Whether there were variations between the advertisement and the rules governing the selection process.

Whether the respondent, who participated in the selection process without raising objections initially, could later challenge it.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It held that there was no illegality in the institute's decision to appoint respondents 2 to 6 as Associate Professors. The Court emphasized the principle that candidates who participate in the selection process cannot later challenge it, citing precedents. The Court noted that the respondent's challenge to the selection process came only after not being selected, without seeking relief regarding his own candidature. The question of whether the institute qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 was left open by the Court.

Facts:

The case pertains to the denial of approval by the Central Government to new medical colleges seeking permission to admit students to the first year of MBBS course, increase in intake of seats in first-year MBBS course, and renewal of permission for the academic session 2014-15. The denial was based on the Medical Council of India's inability to verify compliance reports of the colleges.

Issues:

Whether the applicants were afforded a reasonable opportunity as mandated by the Medical Council Act, 1956, and relevant regulations.

Whether timely assessment and compliance with regulations were ensured by the Medical Council of India and the Central Government.

Whether the schedules provided by the Medical Council of India adequately accommodated stage-wise consideration and time limits for granting opportunities to applicants.

Held:

The court held that the applicants must be afforded a reasonable opportunity as required by the Medical Council Act, 1956, not only during the initial stage but also during subsequent renewals. Timely assessment is crucial, and both the Medical Council of India and the Central Government are obligated to conduct renewal inspections every year.

The court noted deficiencies in the schedules provided by the Medical Council of India, emphasizing the need for stage-wise consideration and compliance verification. It stressed the importance of accommodating various stages and time limits in the schedules to ensure observance of natural justice and compliance with regulations.

The court directed that the draft schedules submitted by the Medical Council of India, which included provisions for stage-wise consideration and compliance verification, be given statutory status. It clarified that the Central Government is empowered to modify schedules, subject to observing the deadline for admissions.

The court dismissed cases seeking permission for establishing new colleges or increasing intake capacity due to the deadline for admissions being over. However, it granted relief to cases seeking renewal of permission, making interim relief absolute for those falling under Category III.

Decision: The court dismissed cases seeking permission for establishing new colleges or increasing intake capacity (Categories I and II) due to the deadline for admissions being over. However, it granted relief to cases seeking renewal of permission (Category III), making interim relief absolute for those falling under this category. All matters stand disposed of in above terms.

Facts:

Modern Hotel, a partnership firm, held an FL-3 liquor license for a bar attached to a hotel. The license renewal was denied due to one of the partners having outstanding abkari arrears to the government. The High Court dismissed Modern Hotel's writ petition, and subsequent appeals were also unsuccessful. Modern Hotel sought a refund of the deposit made for license renewals, citing a government Amnesty Scheme introduced in 2008.

Issues:

The interpretation of Rule 13A(5) of the Foreign Liquor Rules regarding license renewals in cases of outstanding abkari arrears.

Additionally, the court needed to determine the entitlement of Modern Hotel to a refund of the deposit made for license renewals.

Held:

The court held that Modern Hotel was not entitled to a refund of the deposit, as it had already been appropriated towards interest as per the relevant rules. The court upheld the principle that the liability or disqualification of any partner affects the partnership firm as a whole. Therefore, the license renewal could be affected by the actions of individual partners.

The appeal was dismissed, and Modern Hotel was directed to redeposit the amount within a specified period, along with interest, to meet its liabilities under the security furnished earlier .