Tag: Justice Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies: Reserved Candidates Availing Age, Physical Relaxations Can’t Migrate to General Quota
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Reserved Candidates Availing Age, Physical Relaxations Can’t Migrate to General Quota

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that reserved category candidates availing relaxations in age or physical standards are barred from migrating to unreserved vacancies if the governing recruitment rules impose such an embargo. Conversely, relaxations in physical standards based on gender or ethnicity, absent a specific rule, do not automatically preclude such migration. The applicability depends on the explicit provisions of the relevant recruitment rules or office memoranda. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a recruitment drive initiated by the Railway Protection Force (RPF) in 2013 to fill various ancillary posts. The employment notification provided age and physical measurement relaxations for candidates from SC/ST and OBC categories. A key issue arose regarding candidat...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Tender Conditions Must Be Clear, Can’t Reject Bids on Unstated Requirements
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Tender Conditions Must Be Clear, Can’t Reject Bids on Unstated Requirements

The Supreme Court ruled that tender conditions must be explicit and unambiguous. A bidder cannot be disqualified for non-submission of a document not expressly mandated by the tender. The tendering authority must act fairly and cannot impose hidden requirements, especially when a submitted certificate adequately demonstrates compliance with the stated criteria. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a tender issued by Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. (MPPGCL) for coal beneficiation work. Maha Mineral, the appellant, submitted its bid relying on its past experience as a 45% partner in a Joint Venture (JV) named Hind Maha Mineral LLP. To prove this, it submitted a work execution certificate from the Maharashtra State Mining Corporation (MSMC), which explicitly stated its 45% share an...
Read More
Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Slum Authority Can’t Acquire Land Without Notice
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Slum Authority Can’t Acquire Land Without Notice

The Supreme Court affirmed the landowner's preferential right to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. It held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority must issue a specific notice inviting the owner to submit a redevelopment scheme before any acquisition under Section 14 can be initiated. The 2018 Amendment to the Act did not dilute this mandatory requirement, and acquisition proceedings commenced without such notice were declared illegal. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a plot of land in Bandra, Mumbai, owned by the Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount (Church Trust). A portion of this land had been encroached by hutments since the 1930s and was declared a slum area in 1978. The slum dwellers formed the Shri Kadeshwari Cooperative Housing Soci...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Slum Laws: Landlords Get First Right to Redevelop Their Property
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Slum Laws: Landlords Get First Right to Redevelop Their Property

This Supreme Court judgement affirms that landowners possess a preferential right to redevelop their property declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. The Court held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority must formally invite the landowner to submit a rehabilitation scheme. The power of the State to acquire the land under Section 14 of the Act is subject to this preferential right and cannot be exercised before this right is legally extinguished. Facts Of The Case: The case concerned a land dispute in Mumbai, where Indian Cork Mills Private Limited (ICM) was the owner of a plot that had been encroached upon by slum dwellers. A portion of the land was declared a slum area in 1979, and later, in 2011, the entire plot was declared a Slum Reh...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Curing Defects in Petition Affidavits :Simplifying Election Laws
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Curing Defects in Petition Affidavits :Simplifying Election Laws

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that non-compliance with the affidavit requirement under Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is not automatically fatal. Following the precedent in G.M. Siddeshwar, the Supreme Court held that 'substantial compliance' with Form 25 suffices, and defects are generally curable. The matter was remanded to the High Court to determine if the affidavit in question substantially complied with the statutory requirements and whether the defects could be rectified. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the General Elections to the Odisha Legislative Assembly for the 07-Jharsuguda Constituency, held in 2024. The appellant, Tankadhar Tripathy, was declared the elected candidate, winning by a margin of 1,333 votes. The respondent, Dipa...
Read More
Gun, Gold Chain & Lies: Supreme Court Explains Why Conviction in 2006 Murder Stands
14Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Gun, Gold Chain & Lies: Supreme Court Explains Why Conviction in 2006 Murder Stands

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) and misappropriation of a gold chain (Section 404 IPC), and under the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 25 and 27). The conviction relied on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory and forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the deceased's gunshot injury. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the appellant's conviction for murder and other offenses. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory, which placed the appellant with the deceased before the crime. Key evidence included the recovery of articles, such as the weapon used in the crime, and forensic findings that linked the appellant to the...
Read More
Who Pays for Poor Students?:Supreme Court Stops Kerala’s Extra Fee on NRI Medical Students
25May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Pays for Poor Students?:Supreme Court Stops Kerala’s Extra Fee on NRI Medical Students

The Supreme Court held that the Kerala government's directive to create a corpus fund from NRI student fees lacked legislative backing, violating the principle that fees cannot be levied without statutory authority. It ruled that unaided institutions retain autonomy over fee structures, subject only to anti-profiteering regulations, and emphasized that welfare measures must be enacted through proper legislation. The Court allowed colleges to retain collected funds but mandated their use for subsidizing economically weaker students. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute over the Kerala government's directive requiring self-financing medical colleges to contribute a portion of fees collected from Non-Resident Indian (NRI) students towards a corpus fund. This fund aimed to subs...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 20 of the Concession Agreements between MCD and private contractors did not constitute a valid arbitration clause under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized that clauses lacking mutual intent, impartial adjudication, and procedural fairness cannot be enforced as arbitration agreements, directing parties to pursue alternative remedies. The judgment reiterated the essential elements of arbitration clauses from K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) and upheld precedent in SDMC v. SMS AAMW Tollways (2019). Facts Of The Case: The case involved three separate appeals before the Supreme Court concerning Concession Agreements between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and private contractors (SMS Ltd., DSC Ltd., and CCC ...
Read More