Search Judgments

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India – Recruitment to public employment – “Rules of the game” – The principle that the “rules of the game” cannot be changed after the commencement of the recruitment process is a salutary principle predicated on the rule against arbitrariness and the guarantee of equal opportunity.

Recruitment Process – Eligibility Criteria vs. Selection Procedure – The prohibition on changing the “rules of the game” applies with strictness to the eligibility criteria. Changing the eligibility criteria after the process has begun is impermissible as it deprives a person of the guarantee of equal opportunity.

National Highways Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996 – Deputation Service – A period of deputation to the NHAI, followed by a repatriation to the parent department and then a subsequent re-entry through a direct recruitment process, cannot be counted as continuous service for the purpose of promotion. The service from the date of direct recruitment is considered a fresh entry.

Promotion – Eligibility for Promotion – A break in service between an initial deputation and a subsequent direct recruitment appointment prevents the deputation period from being counted towards the required qualifying service for promotion. The benefit of counting deputation service is limited to those who faced minimal administrative gaps during a continuous process of absorption or regularisation.

Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules 27, Maharashtra, 1971 & Government Regulations (GR) dated 09.07.1999 – Discretionary Allotment of Land – The State’s discretionary power to allot government land to a co-operative housing society must be exercised with transparency and in adherence to the prescribed procedure. Allotment must be for the purpose for which it was originally sought and the members of the society must satisfy the eligibility criteria.

Allotment Procedure – The allotment of government land to a co-operative housing society, especially when more than one plot is available, must be done by inviting applications through a public notice and by a public draw, as mandated by the rules. The non-disclosure of reasons for exercising discretionary power to allot land renders the allotment arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 41 – Transfer by Ostensible Owner – For a transferee to claim protection under Section 41, they must plead and prove that the ostensible owner had the express or implied consent of the person(s) interested in the property to effect the transfer. The transferee must also show they took reasonable care to ascertain the transferor’s authority and acted in good faith.

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Proof of Will – The propounder of a Will must prove its due execution in accordance with the law and must dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. A Will executed shortly before the testator’s death, which deviates from a prior registered Will and disinherits natural heirs, is subject to a higher degree of scrutiny.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of referral court’s jurisdiction regarding non-signatories to arbitration agreement — After the 2015 Amendment (specifically Section 11(6A)), the court’s role under Section 11 is limited to examining the “existence” of an arbitration agreement.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6): Non-signatories to an arbitration agreement can be bound if their conduct shows a clear and substantial intention to be a party to the contract. The involvement must be positive, direct, and not merely incidental.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Jurisdiction of Court: A court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) should not conduct a “mini-trial” or delve into complex and disputed questions of fact regarding the binding nature of an arbitration agreement on a non-signatory.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11: The scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, as per the 2015 amendment. A court cannot conduct a detailed examination of the merits of the dispute or the factual matrix, which is the domain of the arbitral tribunal.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Frivolous Claims: The issue of whether a claim is frivolous, dishonest, or a “non-existent” dispute should be decided by the arbitral tribunal, not the referral court. The tribunal is better equipped to determine such matters after a full review of evidence.

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – Sections 47 & 48 and Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939 – Rules 21 & 22A: The process for claiming a refund of stamp duty involves two distinct stages: making the application within the prescribed period and a subsequent enquiry to submit evidence. An application for refund should not be rejected merely because the supporting documents or evidence were not submitted along with it.

Principles of Natural Justice and State’s Duty: The State should not rely on technicalities to deny a just claim, especially when a citizen has acted in good faith and is a victim of fraud. The expiry of a limitation period may bar the remedy but not the right to a refund.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 24 & 26 – Jurisdiction of Family Court: A Family Court’s jurisdiction to decide applications for maintenance pendente lite (Section 24) and for the welfare of children (Section 26) does not cease upon the withdrawal of the main divorce petition. These provisions are independent and are not merely ancillary to the primary matrimonial proceedings. The court retains the power to adjudicate on these matters to ensure financial security for the dependent spouse and the welfare of the child.

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: The Supreme Court can exercise its power under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

The Income Tax Act, 1961 under Section 44AB; The Constitution India Article 19(1)(g)  – This judgment pertains to a challenge by Chartered Accountants (CAs) against Clause 6 of Guidelines No. 1-CA(7)/02/2008, issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The clause imposes a limit on the number of tax audits a CA can accept in a financial year under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners argued the restriction violates Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession) and Article 14 (equality) of the Constitution.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34

Background:
OPG Power Generation (OPG) floated a tender for an air-cooled condenser unit. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions (Enexio) bid for the project, resulting in two purchase orders issued by OPG’s holding company, Gita Power, later confirmed by OPG. Disputes arose regarding payments, leading Enexio to invoke arbitration.

Arbitration Award:
The Arbitral Tribunal ruled in favor of Enexio, ordering OPG and Gita Power to jointly pay a principal amount with interest, administrative costs, and legal fees.