Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Judges: M Venkatachaliah, S Agrawal, A Anand

11 November, 1992·JUDGMENT S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Heard counsel for the parties.3. This Appeal arises out of O S 407 of 1976 filed by the appellants against the respondent for the partition of properties covered by a lease deed (Ex. A 2) dated May 31, 1944 Sankaran the common ancestor of the part...

Judges: K J Reddy, G Ray

11 November, 1992·1. This appeal is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ("TADA Act" for short). The five respondents herein were charge-sheeted under Sections 120B, 302 read with 120-B I.P.C., 3(iii) and 4(iii) of the TADA Act and Sec...

Judges: J S Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 14 Contractual Transactions Of State Or Its Instrumentality Essential Requisites Non Arbitrariness, Fairness In Action And Due Consideration Of Legitimate Expectation Ignoring The Highest Bid Negotiations For Higher Offer And Acceptance Thereof Validity Of Administrative Law Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Forms Part Of Non Arbitrariness And Rule Of Law To Be Determined In The Larger Public Interest Open To Judicial Review Headnote The Appellant Corporation Invited Tenders For Sale Of Stocks Of Damaged Food Grains The Respondent S Bid Was The Highest Since The Appellant Was Not Satisfied About The Adequacy Of The Amount Offered Even In The Highest Tender, It Invited All The Tenders To Participate In The Negotiations, Instead Of Accepting The Highest Tender During The Course Of Negotiations, The Respondent Refused To Revise The Rates In Its Offer On The Basis Of The Highest Bid Made During The Negotiations, The Appellant Disposed Of The Stocks Of Damaged Foodgrains, Rejecting The Highest Tenders The Respondent, Whose Tender Was The Highest, Challenged The Decision Of The Appellants By Filing A Writ Petition Before The High Court It Was Contended That The Action Of The Appellant Was Arbitrary And Hence Violative Of Art 14 Of The Constitution The High Court Accepted The Contention And Allowed The Writ Petition Being Aggrieved By The High Court S Decision The Appellant Corporation Preferred The Present Appeal It Was Contended On Behalf Of The Appellant That There Being No Right In The Person Submitting The Highest Tender To Claim Acceptance Thereof, And Since All Tenderers Were Given Equal Opportunity To Participate In The Negotiations And To Revise The Bid Before Acceptance, The Action Of The Appellant Was Not Arbitrary The Respondent Contended That Since No Cogent Reasons Were Indicated For Rejecting All The Tenders And For Deciding To Dispose Of The Stock By Negotiating With The Tenderers For Procuring A Higher Price, Such A Decision Was Arbitrary Allowing The Appeal

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT:LT. COL. KOMAL CHARAN AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT14/05/1992 BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (J) ANAND, A.S. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1479 1992 SCR (3) 259 1992 SCC Supl. (3) 186 JT 1992 (4) 136 1992 SCALE (1)1308 ACT:National Cadet Corps...

Judges: J S Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 14 Contractual Transactions Of State Or Its Instrumentality Essential Requisites Non Arbitrariness, Fairness In Action And Due Consideration Of Legitimate Expectation Ignoring The Highest Bid Negotiations For Higher Offer And Acceptance Thereof Validity Of Administrative Law Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Forms Part Of Non Arbitrariness And Rule Of Law To Be Determined In The Larger Public Interest Open To Judicial Review Headnote The Appellant Corporation Invited Tenders For Sale Of Stocks Of Damaged Food Grains The Respondent S Bid Was The Highest Since The Appellant Was Not Satisfied About The Adequacy Of The Amount Offered Even In The Highest Tender, It Invited All The Tenders To Participate In The Negotiations, Instead Of Accepting The Highest Tender During The Course Of Negotiations, The Respondent Refused To Revise The Rates In Its Offer On The Basis Of The Highest Bid Made During The Negotiations, The Appellant Disposed Of The Stocks Of Damaged Foodgrains, Rejecting The Highest Tenders The Respondent, Whose Tender Was The Highest, Challenged The Decision Of The Appellants By Filing A Writ Petition Before The High Court It Was Contended That The Action Of The Appellant Was Arbitrary And Hence Violative Of Art 14 Of The Constitution The High Court Accepted The Contention And Allowed The Writ Petition Being Aggrieved By The High Court S Decision The Appellant Corporation Preferred The Present Appeal It Was Contended On Behalf Of The Appellant That There Being No Right In The Person Submitting The Highest Tender To Claim Acceptance Thereof, And Since All Tenderers Were Given Equal Opportunity To Participate In The Negotiations And To Revise The Bid Before Acceptance, The Action Of The Appellant Was Not Arbitrary The Respondent Contended That Since No Cogent Reasons Were Indicated For Rejecting All The Tenders And For Deciding To Dispose Of The Stock By Negotiating With The Tenderers For Procuring A Higher Price, Such A Decision Was Arbitrary Allowing The Appeal

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:BHAGIRATHDAN Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT14/08/1992 BENCH:BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH:BHARUCHA S.P. (J) THOMMEN, T.K. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1949 1992 SCR (3) 882 1992 SCC (4) 64 JT 1992 (4) 533 1992 SCALE (2)179 ACT:Civil Service-Mines and Geology Depart...

Judges: J S Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 14 Contractual Transactions Of State Or Its Instrumentality Essential Requisites Non Arbitrariness, Fairness In Action And Due Consideration Of Legitimate Expectation Ignoring The Highest Bid Negotiations For Higher Offer And Acceptance Thereof Validity Of Administrative Law Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Forms Part Of Non Arbitrariness And Rule Of Law To Be Determined In The Larger Public Interest Open To Judicial Review Headnote The Appellant Corporation Invited Tenders For Sale Of Stocks Of Damaged Food Grains The Respondent S Bid Was The Highest Since The Appellant Was Not Satisfied About The Adequacy Of The Amount Offered Even In The Highest Tender, It Invited All The Tenders To Participate In The Negotiations, Instead Of Accepting The Highest Tender During The Course Of Negotiations, The Respondent Refused To Revise The Rates In Its Offer On The Basis Of The Highest Bid Made During The Negotiations, The Appellant Disposed Of The Stocks Of Damaged Foodgrains, Rejecting The Highest Tenders The Respondent, Whose Tender Was The Highest, Challenged The Decision Of The Appellants By Filing A Writ Petition Before The High Court It Was Contended That The Action Of The Appellant Was Arbitrary And Hence Violative Of Art 14 Of The Constitution The High Court Accepted The Contention And Allowed The Writ Petition Being Aggrieved By The High Court S Decision The Appellant Corporation Preferred The Present Appeal It Was Contended On Behalf Of The Appellant That There Being No Right In The Person Submitting The Highest Tender To Claim Acceptance Thereof, And Since All Tenderers Were Given Equal Opportunity To Participate In The Negotiations And To Revise The Bid Before Acceptance, The Action Of The Appellant Was Not Arbitrary The Respondent Contended That Since No Cogent Reasons Were Indicated For Rejecting All The Tenders And For Deciding To Dispose Of The Stock By Negotiating With The Tenderers For Procuring A Higher Price, Such A Decision Was Arbitrary Allowing The Appeal

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.Vs. RESPONDENT:P.J. KAMPAVAT AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT28/04/1992 BENCH:JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH:JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.CITATION:1992 AIR 1685 1992 SCR (2) 845 1992 SCC (3) 226 ACT:Constitution of India, 1950:Article 310-Contractual appointme...

Judges: J S Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 14 Contractual Transactions Of State Or Its Instrumentality Essential Requisites Non Arbitrariness, Fairness In Action And Due Consideration Of Legitimate Expectation Ignoring The Highest Bid Negotiations For Higher Offer And Acceptance Thereof Validity Of Administrative Law Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Forms Part Of Non Arbitrariness And Rule Of Law To Be Determined In The Larger Public Interest Open To Judicial Review Headnote The Appellant Corporation Invited Tenders For Sale Of Stocks Of Damaged Food Grains The Respondent S Bid Was The Highest Since The Appellant Was Not Satisfied About The Adequacy Of The Amount Offered Even In The Highest Tender, It Invited All The Tenders To Participate In The Negotiations, Instead Of Accepting The Highest Tender During The Course Of Negotiations, The Respondent Refused To Revise The Rates In Its Offer On The Basis Of The Highest Bid Made During The Negotiations, The Appellant Disposed Of The Stocks Of Damaged Foodgrains, Rejecting The Highest Tenders The Respondent, Whose Tender Was The Highest, Challenged The Decision Of The Appellants By Filing A Writ Petition Before The High Court It Was Contended That The Action Of The Appellant Was Arbitrary And Hence Violative Of Art 14 Of The Constitution The High Court Accepted The Contention And Allowed The Writ Petition Being Aggrieved By The High Court S Decision The Appellant Corporation Preferred The Present Appeal It Was Contended On Behalf Of The Appellant That There Being No Right In The Person Submitting The Highest Tender To Claim Acceptance Thereof, And Since All Tenderers Were Given Equal Opportunity To Participate In The Negotiations And To Revise The Bid Before Acceptance, The Action Of The Appellant Was Not Arbitrary The Respondent Contended That Since No Cogent Reasons Were Indicated For Rejecting All The Tenders And For Deciding To Dispose Of The Stock By Negotiating With The Tenderers For Procuring A Higher Price, Such A Decision Was Arbitrary Allowing The Appeal

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RESPONDENT:P.K. SHAMSUDEEN DATE OF JUDGMENT21/07/1992 BENCH:BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH:BHARUCHA S.P. (J) THOMMEN, T.K. (J) CITATION:<table cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;margin-left:8.5pt"><tbody><tr style="height:12pt"><td style="width:129pt"><p clas...

Judges: J S Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 14 Contractual Transactions Of State Or Its Instrumentality Essential Requisites Non Arbitrariness, Fairness In Action And Due Consideration Of Legitimate Expectation Ignoring The Highest Bid Negotiations For Higher Offer And Acceptance Thereof Validity Of Administrative Law Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Forms Part Of Non Arbitrariness And Rule Of Law To Be Determined In The Larger Public Interest Open To Judicial Review Headnote The Appellant Corporation Invited Tenders For Sale Of Stocks Of Damaged Food Grains The Respondent S Bid Was The Highest Since The Appellant Was Not Satisfied About The Adequacy Of The Amount Offered Even In The Highest Tender, It Invited All The Tenders To Participate In The Negotiations, Instead Of Accepting The Highest Tender During The Course Of Negotiations, The Respondent Refused To Revise The Rates In Its Offer On The Basis Of The Highest Bid Made During The Negotiations, The Appellant Disposed Of The Stocks Of Damaged Foodgrains, Rejecting The Highest Tenders The Respondent, Whose Tender Was The Highest, Challenged The Decision Of The Appellants By Filing A Writ Petition Before The High Court It Was Contended That The Action Of The Appellant Was Arbitrary And Hence Violative Of Art 14 Of The Constitution The High Court Accepted The Contention And Allowed The Writ Petition Being Aggrieved By The High Court S Decision The Appellant Corporation Preferred The Present Appeal It Was Contended On Behalf Of The Appellant That There Being No Right In The Person Submitting The Highest Tender To Claim Acceptance Thereof, And Since All Tenderers Were Given Equal Opportunity To Participate In The Negotiations And To Revise The Bid Before Acceptance, The Action Of The Appellant Was Not Arbitrary The Respondent Contended That Since No Cogent Reasons Were Indicated For Rejecting All The Tenders And For Deciding To Dispose Of The Stock By Negotiating With The Tenderers For Procuring A Higher Price, Such A Decision Was Arbitrary Allowing The Appeal

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:JIVENDRA NATH KAUL ETC.Vs. RESPONDENT:THE COLLECTOR/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT24/07/1992 BENCH:VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) BENCH:VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) SAWANT, P.B.SINGH N.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 AIR 85 ACT:U.P. Kehhetra Samiti and Zilla Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961:Sec...

Judges: J S Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 14 Contractual Transactions Of State Or Its Instrumentality Essential Requisites Non Arbitrariness, Fairness In Action And Due Consideration Of Legitimate Expectation Ignoring The Highest Bid Negotiations For Higher Offer And Acceptance Thereof Validity Of Administrative Law Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Forms Part Of Non Arbitrariness And Rule Of Law To Be Determined In The Larger Public Interest Open To Judicial Review Headnote The Appellant Corporation Invited Tenders For Sale Of Stocks Of Damaged Food Grains The Respondent S Bid Was The Highest Since The Appellant Was Not Satisfied About The Adequacy Of The Amount Offered Even In The Highest Tender, It Invited All The Tenders To Participate In The Negotiations, Instead Of Accepting The Highest Tender During The Course Of Negotiations, The Respondent Refused To Revise The Rates In Its Offer On The Basis Of The Highest Bid Made During The Negotiations, The Appellant Disposed Of The Stocks Of Damaged Foodgrains, Rejecting The Highest Tenders The Respondent, Whose Tender Was The Highest, Challenged The Decision Of The Appellants By Filing A Writ Petition Before The High Court It Was Contended That The Action Of The Appellant Was Arbitrary And Hence Violative Of Art 14 Of The Constitution The High Court Accepted The Contention And Allowed The Writ Petition Being Aggrieved By The High Court S Decision The Appellant Corporation Preferred The Present Appeal It Was Contended On Behalf Of The Appellant That There Being No Right In The Person Submitting The Highest Tender To Claim Acceptance Thereof, And Since All Tenderers Were Given Equal Opportunity To Participate In The Negotiations And To Revise The Bid Before Acceptance, The Action Of The Appellant Was Not Arbitrary The Respondent Contended That Since No Cogent Reasons Were Indicated For Rejecting All The Tenders And For Deciding To Dispose Of The Stock By Negotiating With The Tenderers For Procuring A Higher Price, Such A Decision Was Arbitrary Allowing The Appeal

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:S.V. CHANDRA PANDIAN AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:S.V. SIVALINGA NADAR AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT11/01/1993 BENCH:AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH:AHMADI, A.M. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M. RAMASWAMY, K.CITATION:1993 SCR (1) 58 1993 SCC (1) 589 JT 1993 (1) 278 1993 SCALE (1)141 ACT:Arbitration Act 1940:Section...

Judges: J S Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 14 Contractual Transactions Of State Or Its Instrumentality Essential Requisites Non Arbitrariness, Fairness In Action And Due Consideration Of Legitimate Expectation Ignoring The Highest Bid Negotiations For Higher Offer And Acceptance Thereof Validity Of Administrative Law Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Forms Part Of Non Arbitrariness And Rule Of Law To Be Determined In The Larger Public Interest Open To Judicial Review Headnote The Appellant Corporation Invited Tenders For Sale Of Stocks Of Damaged Food Grains The Respondent S Bid Was The Highest Since The Appellant Was Not Satisfied About The Adequacy Of The Amount Offered Even In The Highest Tender, It Invited All The Tenders To Participate In The Negotiations, Instead Of Accepting The Highest Tender During The Course Of Negotiations, The Respondent Refused To Revise The Rates In Its Offer On The Basis Of The Highest Bid Made During The Negotiations, The Appellant Disposed Of The Stocks Of Damaged Foodgrains, Rejecting The Highest Tenders The Respondent, Whose Tender Was The Highest, Challenged The Decision Of The Appellants By Filing A Writ Petition Before The High Court It Was Contended That The Action Of The Appellant Was Arbitrary And Hence Violative Of Art 14 Of The Constitution The High Court Accepted The Contention And Allowed The Writ Petition Being Aggrieved By The High Court S Decision The Appellant Corporation Preferred The Present Appeal It Was Contended On Behalf Of The Appellant That There Being No Right In The Person Submitting The Highest Tender To Claim Acceptance Thereof, And Since All Tenderers Were Given Equal Opportunity To Participate In The Negotiations And To Revise The Bid Before Acceptance, The Action Of The Appellant Was Not Arbitrary The Respondent Contended That Since No Cogent Reasons Were Indicated For Rejecting All The Tenders And For Deciding To Dispose Of The Stock By Negotiating With The Tenderers For Procuring A Higher Price, Such A Decision Was Arbitrary Allowing The Appeal

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:R. BANERJEE AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:H.D. DUBEY AND ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT13/03/1992 BENCH:AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH:AHMADI, A.M. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.CITATION:1992 AIR 1168 1992 SCR (2) 221 1992 SCC (2) 552 JT 1992 (2) 436 1992 SCALE (1)690 ACT:Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:Sect...

Judges: M H Kania, Cj And Ray, J

11 November, 1992·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4090 of 1991.From the Order dated 7.2.1991 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Original Application No. 11 of 1991.K.K. Venugopal, B.R.L. Iyengar, E.C. Vidyasagar, D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, L.R. Singh and Shahid Rizvi for the Appellant.G. Ra...