Tag: Writ Petition

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 Ruling: Key Lesson for Armed Forces, Location Misrepresentation is a Punishable Offence
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Key Lesson for Armed Forces, Location Misrepresentation is a Punishable Offence

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court affirmed that misconduct, proven on the preponderance of probabilities and bringing disrepute to a disciplined force, warrants a commensurate penalty. It found no grounds for intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Constable Amar Singh, was serving with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at the Mallaram Camp. On August 27, 1995, he was granted a two-hour out-pass to visit a hospital. Instead of doing so, he went to a residential colony located approximately 12 kilometres from the camp to enquire about quarters allotted to another constable. His presence and actions there agitated the local ci...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Govt Can’t Cancel Ongoing Job Recruitments Midway
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Govt Can’t Cancel Ongoing Job Recruitments Midway

This Supreme Court judgment reiterates that executive instructions, such as a New Recruitment Policy, cannot override or supplant statutory rules or rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. A recruitment process, once commenced under specific statutory rules, cannot be altered midway by executive fiat, as doing so amounts to changing the rules of the game after it has begun and violates principles of fairness and legitimate expectation. Facts Of The Case: The State of Tripura initiated a recruitment process for the post of Enrolled Followers in the Tripura State Rifles, conducted strictly under the Tripura State Rifles Act, 1983 and its corresponding Rules. The process, involving advertisements, physical tests, written exams, and interviews, had advanced significantly, with pr...
Read More
Who Gets Paid First? Supreme Court Reopens Case on Priority Between Employee Provident Fund and Secured Lenders
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Gets Paid First? Supreme Court Reopens Case on Priority Between Employee Provident Fund and Secured Lenders

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court to determine the priority of charges between the EPFO, under Section 11(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, and secured creditors, including Axis Bank, under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The core legal issue for fresh adjudication is the conflict between the statutory first charge of EPFO dues and the primacy claimed by secured creditors. Facts Of The Case: M/s Acropetal Technologies Pvt. Ltd. defaulted on its Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) dues from July 2013. The EPFO determined a liability and, upon learning the company's properties were to be auctioned by various banks, invoked its priority under the EPF Act. The EPFO specifically asserted a first charge over the 'Attibele property' being auctioned by Axis B...
Read More
Conduct Matters: Supreme Court Confirms Auction Sale but Orders Buyer to Pay Extra ₹25 Lakh/Acre
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Conduct Matters: Supreme Court Confirms Auction Sale but Orders Buyer to Pay Extra ₹25 Lakh/Acre

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision confirming the validity of a court-auctioned property sale. It endorsed the directions for a fresh survey to demarcate the exact purchased area and for the auction purchaser to pay additional consideration, citing his conduct, while ruling that subsequent challenges to the sale were barred by law. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a debt recovery proceeding initiated by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) against a company, for which the respondent, G.M. Krishna, was a guarantor. Following a decree, KSFC attached the respondent's agricultural land for auction. The appellant, R. Raghu, emerged as the highest bidder in a court auction in 2003, and a sale certificate was subsequently issued. The responden...
Read More
A New Lease on Life: Supreme Court Allows Death Penalty Review Based on New Mitigation Guidelines
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

A New Lease on Life: Supreme Court Allows Death Penalty Review Based on New Mitigation Guidelines

This Supreme Court judgment holds that its extraordinary power under Article 32 of the Constitution can be invoked to reopen the sentencing stage in death penalty cases that have attained finality. This is permissible to remedy a clear breach of the procedural safeguards for individualized sentencing mandated in Manoj v. State of M.P., which are integral to the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. The Court clarified that such judicial declarations operate retrospectively. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the petitioner, Vasanta Sampat Dupare, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2008 kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a four-year-old girl in Nagpur. His conviction and death sentence were confirmed by the High Court in 2012 and ultimately upheld by the Supr...
Read More
Supreme Court’s New Rule: Stray Dogs Can Be Returned to Streets After Sterilization
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s New Rule: Stray Dogs Can Be Returned to Streets After Sterilization

This Supreme Court order modifies its earlier directions on stray dog management, balancing fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life) with the statutory Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. The Court clarified that sterilized and immunized dogs must be released back to their localities as per Rule 11(19) of the ABC Rules, while allowing permanent impounding only for rabid or aggressively dangerous dogs. It issued supplementary directives, including creating designated feeding zones, and expanded the case's scope to all states and union territories for a uniform national policy. Facts Of The Case: The Supreme Court's intervention was triggered by a suo motu cognizance of a news report titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price,” detailing the death of a six-year-o...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in Telangana Job Case :Legitimate Expectation vs. Employer’s Right
25Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in Telangana Job Case :Legitimate Expectation vs. Employer’s Right

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that candidates in a select list possess no vested right to appointment. An employer's decision to cancel a recruitment process is valid if based on bona fide reasons like administrative changes (e.g., state bifurcation) and altered requirements. The Court's role is limited to examining the decision-making process, not substituting its own view on the sufficiency of accommodations like age relaxation offered to affected candidates. Facts Of The Case: The erstwhile Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP-Transco) initiated a recruitment process in 2011-2012 for 339 Sub-Engineer posts across the composite state. This process was delayed due to litigation challenging the marks weightage given to in-service candidates. While the legal challe...
Read More
Supreme Court : Courts Can’t Reopen Departmental Inquiries; Role is to Check Procedure, Not Merits
23Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Courts Can’t Reopen Departmental Inquiries; Role is to Check Procedure, Not Merits

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review in departmental inquiries. The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts cannot act as appellate authorities to re-examine evidence. Interference is permissible only for procedural illegality, natural justice violations, or manifest perversity, not to reassess the merits of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Ramadhar Sao, was employed as a messenger (a Class-IV employee) with the State Bank of India. In 2008, the Bank received complaints alleging he acted as a middleman, taking bribes from customers to facilitate the sanction and disbursement of loans. A chargesheet was issued against him in 2010, accusing him of misconduct for acting as a conduit fo...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?

The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not constitute the "initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b). The bar against parallel proceedings is triggered only upon the issuance of a show-cause notice, which formally crystallizes the subject matter and commences adjudication. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd., a company providing security services, was issued a show-cause notice dated 18.11.2024 by the State GST authority (Respondent No. 2) under Section 73 of the CGST Act. This notice raised a tax demand for the period April 2020-March 2021 on grounds of under-declared tax and excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. Subsequently, on 16.01.2025, the Central GST authority (Respondent No. 1) conducted ...
Read More