Arbitration Act, 1940 — Ss. 31(4), 30 and 33 r/w Ss. 14(2) and 2(c) — Filing award to make it rule of court and to entertain objections to award — Proper court for: Supreme Court may make a reference to an arbitrator on consent but to hold it as a legal principle that it can also entertain objections as the original court will invite a fundamental fallacy pertaining to jurisdiction. When an arbitrator is not appointed under the Act and the matter is challenged before the High Court or, for that matter, the Supreme Court and, eventually, an arbitrator is appointed and some directions are issued, it will be inappropriate and inapposite to say that the superior court has the jurisdiction to deal with the objections filed under Ss. 30 and 33. [State of Jharkhand v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 602]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 5 Rr. 20(1) & (1-A) and 17 — Service of summons — Substituted service: Substituted service under Or. 5 R. 20 of CPC is an exception to normal mode of service. For ordering substituted service under said provision, court is required to be satisfied that: (i) there is reason to believe that defendant is keeping out of the way for purpose of avoiding service, or (ii) for any other reason, the summons cannot be served in ordinary way. Thus, while making that order, court must apply its mind to requirements under Or. 5 R. 20 of CPC and indicate in its order due consideration of provisions contained in Or. 5 R. 20. [Neerja Realtors (P) Ltd. v. Janglu, (2018) 2 SCC 649]
Constitution of India — Art. 51-A(a) and Preamble — Duty to show respect to national symbols i.e. National Flag and National Anthem: When National Anthem is played or sung, due respect as salutation to motherland should be shown by standing up and proper decorum should be maintained, except where a person is differently abled. It is now not mandatory to play National Anthem before starting of film but if National Anthem is played in cinema halls prior to showing of films, it is mandatory for audience to stand up in respect. However, if National Anthem is played as part of storyline of a feature film or newsreel or documentary, audience need not stand up. [Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 574]
Constitution of India — Arts. 51-A(g), 51-A(h), 14, 21, 29, 48 and Sch. VII List III Entry 17: Issue in these petitions is that whether Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017, which received Presidential assent on 31-1-2017, is valid and enjoys constitutional protection? Whether defects pointed out in earlier judgments in A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 and Animal Welfare Board, (2017) 2 SCC 144, can be said to have been removed? In an earlier judgment and review petition filed thereagainst Jallikattu festival was banned as unconstitutional. Hence, matter referred to Constitution Bench. [Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 645]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Ss. 12, 13, 14, 22 and 22-C — Request for hearing before Circuit Bench of National Commission — Proper disposal of: Appellants received notice from National Commission and, thereafter, reply was sent on 25-7-2014 praying that matter may be heard in Camp Sitting of National Commission at Bengaluru. Ex parte order passed by National Commission in present cases, based on compromise made by appellant with another consumer, not proper. Copies of orders passed on record does not show that appellants were ever informed that their request for having matter heard at Bengaluru was either accepted or rejected. Therefore, National Commission erred in not issuing fresh notice to appellants. Order of National Commission set aside and matter remitted to it for hearing same on merits. [Mangalam Homes & Resorts (P) Ltd. v. Joy Kaliyavumkal, (2018) 2 SCC 636]
Education Law — Allotment of seats/Counselling for reserved category students/Vacancies/Dereservation — Admission to medical courses: Meritorious Reserved Candidate (MRC) who is treated as general category candidate, may opt for reserved category seat to gain admission in college of his preference. However, for computing percentage of reservation such MRC will be deemed to have been admitted as open category candidate i.e. there is no migration in reserved category. Consequently, one reserved category candidate would be adjusted against the one general category seat vacated by such MRC in lieu of one reserved category seat taken up by MRC. Thus, reservations will not exceed 50%. [Tripurari Sharan v. Ranjit Kumar Yadav, (2018) 2 SCC 656]
Education Law — Medical and Dental Colleges — Affiliation/Recognition — Renewal of — 4th Renewal (fifth batch of MBBS course) for academic year 2017-2018: As there was deficiency of faculty and residence exceeding 5% during surprise inspection, order of Central Government rejecting renewal for academic year 2017-2018, not interfered with. Bank guarantee deposited should be used while considering renewal for next academic year. [IQ City Foundation v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 593]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 8 and 9 — Demand notice through Advocate — Validity of: Had the legislature wished to restrict the demand notice being sent by the operational creditor himself, the expression used would perhaps have been “issued” and not “delivered” and that delivery, therefore, would postulate that such notice could be made by an authorised agent. Further, the requirement of appending signatures of persons “authorised to act” on behalf of the operational creditor in the demand notice as well as the application under S. 9 of 2016 Code in terms of Form 3 and 5 of Rules also reflects similar understanding of the draftsman of the Adjudicatory Authority Rules. Also, on a conjoint reading of S. 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 dealing with the fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to practice one’s profession and Ss. 8 and 9 of 2016 Code together with the Adjudicatory Authority Rules and Forms, such notice sent on behalf of an operational creditor by Advocate, held, is valid. [Macquarie Bank Ltd. v. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 674]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Ss. 16, 17, 23 and 48 — Incapacity of State to entertain claim for reconveyance of acquired land on any ground whatsoever to original owner after it has vested in State: Reiterating and following V. Chandrasekaran, (2012) 12 SCC 133 and Natural Resources Allocation, In re, (2012) 10 SCC 1, it was held, High Court was justified in holding that regrant of land is not permissible. It is a different matter if there is policy for rehabilitation for persons displaced by land acquisition, in case such persons are rendered landless. If land acquired for public purpose is no longer needed for such purpose, State can transfer such land but such disposal is regulated by doctrine of public trust. Thus, apart from appellants having not been found entitled to regrant of acquired land, regrant policy itself is against Art. 14 of the Constitution. Disposal of property vested in State can only be in manner consistent with Art. 14 of Constitution of India. [Mansukhbhai Dhamjibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 2 SCC 642]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Ss. 23, 18 and 54 — Compensation — Computation of — Land with fruit trees: According to respondent owner, 396 fruit trees were standing on acquired land they were of orange 28, peach 76, mausambi 135 and mango 157. Collector awarded total compensation of Rs 37,321.12 including 30% solatium and 12% increase in respect of such fruit trees. Expert examined by Respondent owner, reported total value of all trees as Rs 6,35,114.70 with certain other factors such as distance of land from town, etc., also found fruit trees to be of “B” category. Respondent in his deposition stated about 250 fruit trees including amrood, orange and mango, all about 4 to 5 yrs old. Patwari examined on behalf of appellant State deposed that in 1985-1986, wheat and other crops were sown and subsequently word orchard added in land without any order from competent authority. Valuation of expert examined by State is far less than valuation provided by expert on behalf of respondents and he also stated that there was no irrigation facilities and further deposed that there could be 90 fruit trees in one killa (equal to one acre). The Supreme Court held that if, only 90 fruits trees can be planted in one killa (one acre), there could not be 250 trees or 396 trees in 7 kanals and 2 marlas of land (which is less than one acre). It is clear that High Court has overlooked certain material aspects of evidence before coming to conclusion and needs to consider entire material in proper perspective afresh. Hence, matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. [State of Punjab v. Thuru Ram, (2018) 2 SCC 639]
Rent Control and Eviction — Revision — Revisional jurisdiction of High Court under S. 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887: Though jurisdiction of High Court under S. 25 is wider than revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 CPC but pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 25 unless such findings are perverse or based on no material or have been arrived at by taking into consideration inadmissible evidence or without considering relevant evidence. [Trilok Singh Chauhan v. Ram Lal, (2018) 2 SCC 566]
Service Law — Pay — Pay scale — Revised pay scale — Interest: Direction to pay revised pay scale along with 12% interest, not proper. [State of U.P. v. Israr Ahmad, (2018) 2 SCC 672]
Trusts and Trustees — Religious and Charitable Endowments and Trusts — Temple — Private or public — Determination of: As extract of entry in Register of Endowments of Government, prepared by following prescribed procedure, produced on behalf of respondent Department, significant for holding suit temple as public temple, more so in view of rebuttable presumption under S. 114 Ill. (e) of Evidence Act but in view of oral evidence adduced by parties being equally balanced; persistent stand of appellants, countering respondents’ claim, that their father (deceased) had not endowed suit premises to render suit temple as public temple and that they had not received any notice from Endowments Department in connection therewith and attending facts and circumstances, held, parties should be granted an opportunity to adduce all evidence for final and conclusive decision. Accordingly, appellants directed to file representation before authority concerned in support of their claim that suit temple and its premises are their private property. [Vijendra Kumar v. A.P. Charitable & Religious Institutions & Endowment Dept., (2018) 2 SCC 555]
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (5 of 1954) — Ss. 9-A, 11, 45 and 48 — Ascertainment of possession: Authorities could not have made entries in favour of appellant objectors without giving public notice and without giving notice to legal heirs of deceased. Hence, High Court was justified in holding that revenue authorities ascertained possession without giving public notice. However, High Court could not have issued directions to authorities to remove names of both parties. Therefore, matter remanded to revenue authorities to ascertain possession of suit lands after hearing both parties. [Jagtar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 2 SCC 647]
