APEX COURT – public auction – suit for refund of deposited amount as four additional conditions are incorporated after auction – entitled for refund with interest – In the first place, the appellant ensured compliance of the term because he deposited 1/4th amount of Rs. 10,45,000/- on the same day, i.e.,11.01.1996 by cheque. Secondly, the respondents also accepted 23 the cheque from the appellant because deposit of money by cheque was one of the modes of payment. Had it not been so, the respondents would not have accepted the cheque from the appellant. Thirdly, the stop payment was done when the appellant received the acceptance letter containing four additional conditions to which he was not agreeable. He had, therefore, every right to wriggle out of the auction proceedings and stop further payment towards the transaction. Such action on the part of the appellant (bidder) did not amount to a breach of clause 4 so as to give right to the State to forfeit the security deposit.= we are of the considered opinion, that the appellant did not commit any breach of the term(s) and condition(s) of the notice inviting bids and on the other hand, it was the respondents who committed breaches. In 24 these circumstances, the State had no right to forfeit the security amount and instead it should have been returned when demanded by the appellant.- after cancellation of the auction proceedings in question, the plot in question was re-auctioned by the State and the same fetched Rs.134.00 lakhs as against appellant’s bid amount of Rs.53,50,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute this fact. In such circumstances, we find that the respondent did not suffer any monetary loss in the transaction and on the other hand earned more money as against what they would have got from the appellant. It is for this additional reason also, we are of the view that the action on the part of the respondents(State) in 25 forfeiting the security deposit of the appellant was wholly unjustified. = state should act as Honest Person do not dependant on technicalities “…..we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily reply on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest person.” = We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that both the Courts below were not justified in their respective reasoning and the conclusion in dismissing the appellant’s suit. The appellant’s suit should have been decreed against the respondents. -The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed with cost throughout. Impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and the Trial Court are set aside and the appellant’s (plaintiff) suit is decreed against the 27 respondents (defendants). It is declared that letter dated 24.02.1996 of the respondents forfeiting the security deposit of the appellant is illegal and bad in law. A money decree for refund of Rs.3 lakhs is accordingly passed in favour of the appellant(plaintiff) and against the respondents (defendants) along with interest payable on Rs.3 lakhs at the rate of 9% p.a. from 01.02.1996 till realization.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7665 OF 2009 Suresh Kumar Wadhwa ….Appellant(s) VERSUS State of M.P. & Ors. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the final judgment and order dated 21.11.2006 passed… Read More APEX COURT – public auction – suit for refund of deposited amount as four additional conditions are incorporated after auction – entitled for refund with interest – In the first place, the appellant ensured compliance of the term because he deposited 1/4th amount of Rs. 10,45,000/- on the same day, i.e.,11.01.1996 by cheque. Secondly, the respondents also accepted 23 the cheque from the appellant because deposit of money by cheque was one of the modes of payment. Had it not been so, the respondents would not have accepted the cheque from the appellant. Thirdly, the stop payment was done when the appellant received the acceptance letter containing four additional conditions to which he was not agreeable. He had, therefore, every right to wriggle out of the auction proceedings and stop further payment towards the transaction. Such action on the part of the appellant (bidder) did not amount to a breach of clause 4 so as to give right to the State to forfeit the security deposit.= we are of the considered opinion, that the appellant did not commit any breach of the term(s) and condition(s) of the notice inviting bids and on the other hand, it was the respondents who committed breaches. In 24 these circumstances, the State had no right to forfeit the security amount and instead it should have been returned when demanded by the appellant.- after cancellation of the auction proceedings in question, the plot in question was re-auctioned by the State and the same fetched Rs.134.00 lakhs as against appellant’s bid amount of Rs.53,50,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute this fact. In such circumstances, we find that the respondent did not suffer any monetary loss in the transaction and on the other hand earned more money as against what they would have got from the appellant. It is for this additional reason also, we are of the view that the action on the part of the respondents(State) in 25 forfeiting the security deposit of the appellant was wholly unjustified. = state should act as Honest Person do not dependant on technicalities “…..we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily reply on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest person.” = We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that both the Courts below were not justified in their respective reasoning and the conclusion in dismissing the appellant’s suit. The appellant’s suit should have been decreed against the respondents. -The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed with cost throughout. Impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and the Trial Court are set aside and the appellant’s (plaintiff) suit is decreed against the 27 respondents (defendants). It is declared that letter dated 24.02.1996 of the respondents forfeiting the security deposit of the appellant is illegal and bad in law. A money decree for refund of Rs.3 lakhs is accordingly passed in favour of the appellant(plaintiff) and against the respondents (defendants) along with interest payable on Rs.3 lakhs at the rate of 9% p.a. from 01.02.1996 till realization.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR= Even if the appeal against conviction preferred by the Petitioner be treated as a continuation of the criminal case, = Even if the appeal against conviction preferred by the Petitioner be treated as a continuation of the criminal case, the words “judicial proceedings” will naturally have to be read in the context of the rules as being confined to a proceeding related to conduct in service which led to conviction on a criminal charge. To read into it the pendency of an appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction under Section 306 IPC to withhold full pension would be doing complete violence to Rule 69 and shall be completely beyond its jurisdiction and scope – The Petitioner is held entitled to full pension from date of superannuation alongwith gratuity and other superannuation benefits, if any. The Respondents shall pay interest on Gratuity as provided for in Rule 68 of the Pension Rules or any statutory interest as the case may be. Relying on (1994) 2 SCC 406 (R.R.Bhanot v. Union of India) the Petitioner is held entitled to interest on the arrears of pension @12% p.a. from the date of superannuation till the actual date of payment.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12437 / 2012 H.R. Choudhary S/o Late Shri Kana Ram Choudhary, aged about 69 Years, D-40, Chomu House, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur (retired on 31.12.2004 —-Petitioner Versus 1. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Jaipur. 2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Corporate Office,… Read More HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR= Even if the appeal against conviction preferred by the Petitioner be treated as a continuation of the criminal case, = Even if the appeal against conviction preferred by the Petitioner be treated as a continuation of the criminal case, the words “judicial proceedings” will naturally have to be read in the context of the rules as being confined to a proceeding related to conduct in service which led to conviction on a criminal charge. To read into it the pendency of an appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction under Section 306 IPC to withhold full pension would be doing complete violence to Rule 69 and shall be completely beyond its jurisdiction and scope – The Petitioner is held entitled to full pension from date of superannuation alongwith gratuity and other superannuation benefits, if any. The Respondents shall pay interest on Gratuity as provided for in Rule 68 of the Pension Rules or any statutory interest as the case may be. Relying on (1994) 2 SCC 406 (R.R.Bhanot v. Union of India) the Petitioner is held entitled to interest on the arrears of pension @12% p.a. from the date of superannuation till the actual date of payment.

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT = suit for partition and separate possession = can not be considered as Exclusive possession = However, having regard to their claim that the third defendant is entitled only to 1/4th share, their exclusive possession pleaded by them cannot be taken as a plea of a stranger claiming exclusive right over the entire property but as a joint owner. Though the property is settled in favour of first plaintiff and first defendant under the Will Ex.A3, the possession and enjoyment of the first item of property by the third defendant cannot be taken as one by a person who is entitled to be in possession as an exclusive owner. It was only because Dr.Jayaraman died, suddenly in a road accident, the property is in the enjoyment of third defendant as a person living along with Dr.Jayaraman during his life time and not as a person having independent title ; Since the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, came after the death of Dr.Jayaraman and the succession opens immediately upon the death of Dr.Jayaraman, a specific ground was raised in the appeal memorandum that the third defendant is entitled to 1/4th share in items 5 to 9. = State Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.= As pointed out earlier, items 5 to 9 of the suit properties are allotted to Dr.Jayaraman in a family partition and it has been held by the trial Court that they are his ancestral properties. After the death of Dr.Jayaraman in the year 2002, his two daughters are entitled to equal share as that of Dr.Jayaraman and as a result, the plaintiffs and first defendant are entitled to 5/12 share and the first wife of Dr.Jayaraman, namely, the second plaintiff and third defendant, the illegitimate son of Dr.Jayaraman are entitled to 1/12 share. This is by virtue of the State Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=129549&Table_Main_Txt=cheordtext BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.10.2017 Reserved on: 02.01.2017 Delivered on: 09.10.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Appeal Suit (MD) No.291 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2008 and 1 of 2014   1.Ezhilmathi 2.Karthikeyan : Appellants / Defendants 2 & 3 -Vs- 1.Karthika : 1st Respondent/1st Plaintiff 2.Megalai : 2nd… Read More MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT = suit for partition and separate possession = can not be considered as Exclusive possession = However, having regard to their claim that the third defendant is entitled only to 1/4th share, their exclusive possession pleaded by them cannot be taken as a plea of a stranger claiming exclusive right over the entire property but as a joint owner. Though the property is settled in favour of first plaintiff and first defendant under the Will Ex.A3, the possession and enjoyment of the first item of property by the third defendant cannot be taken as one by a person who is entitled to be in possession as an exclusive owner. It was only because Dr.Jayaraman died, suddenly in a road accident, the property is in the enjoyment of third defendant as a person living along with Dr.Jayaraman during his life time and not as a person having independent title ; Since the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, came after the death of Dr.Jayaraman and the succession opens immediately upon the death of Dr.Jayaraman, a specific ground was raised in the appeal memorandum that the third defendant is entitled to 1/4th share in items 5 to 9. = State Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.= As pointed out earlier, items 5 to 9 of the suit properties are allotted to Dr.Jayaraman in a family partition and it has been held by the trial Court that they are his ancestral properties. After the death of Dr.Jayaraman in the year 2002, his two daughters are entitled to equal share as that of Dr.Jayaraman and as a result, the plaintiffs and first defendant are entitled to 5/12 share and the first wife of Dr.Jayaraman, namely, the second plaintiff and third defendant, the illegitimate son of Dr.Jayaraman are entitled to 1/12 share. This is by virtue of the State Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT- Service Matter – directing to recruit the full time and part time Masalchies, who have put in more than 15/10/5 years of service in their respective units for recruitment to the posts of Attenders, the petitioner, who is also a part time masalchie, comes before us by way of this writ petition, seeking for such recruitment as an Office Subordinate. = Central Government, State Government and their instrumentalities have right to engage daily wagers on the agreed wages, on contractual basis, ad hoc and temporary basis and there is no prohibition in the Constitution or under any law of the land. However, their appointment should be in accordance to law. – Merely because the masalchies were not appointed by following the procedure prescribed for the post into which they are absorbed, it cannot be said in all cases, that their initial appointment itself was with ulterior motive. The penury of the petitioner and the likes may be one of the reasons for them to accept the employment with meagre wages. But, however, our sympathies to the petitioner, who has worked in the same capacity, with meagre wages, for several years, do not permit us to apply the circular to the petitioner as it is only issued as one time measure, as is made clear by the circular of the High Court dated 26.07.2014 by the words that the circular is only one time arrangement and would be applicable to the existing incumbents as on the date of the circular. With that thought, we can only recommend to the High Court to consider the case of the petitioner and other similarly placed employees and to explore the possibility and feasibility of issuing a circular similar to the circular issued earlier.

http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14375&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN & THE HONBLE SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI WRIT PETITION No.41594 OF 2015 11-10-2017 A.Narsimha Reddy…. PETITONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … RESPONDENTS COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: MR. P. VENKATESHWER RAO COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: GP FOR LAW &… Read More AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT- Service Matter – directing to recruit the full time and part time Masalchies, who have put in more than 15/10/5 years of service in their respective units for recruitment to the posts of Attenders, the petitioner, who is also a part time masalchie, comes before us by way of this writ petition, seeking for such recruitment as an Office Subordinate. = Central Government, State Government and their instrumentalities have right to engage daily wagers on the agreed wages, on contractual basis, ad hoc and temporary basis and there is no prohibition in the Constitution or under any law of the land. However, their appointment should be in accordance to law. – Merely because the masalchies were not appointed by following the procedure prescribed for the post into which they are absorbed, it cannot be said in all cases, that their initial appointment itself was with ulterior motive. The penury of the petitioner and the likes may be one of the reasons for them to accept the employment with meagre wages. But, however, our sympathies to the petitioner, who has worked in the same capacity, with meagre wages, for several years, do not permit us to apply the circular to the petitioner as it is only issued as one time measure, as is made clear by the circular of the High Court dated 26.07.2014 by the words that the circular is only one time arrangement and would be applicable to the existing incumbents as on the date of the circular. With that thought, we can only recommend to the High Court to consider the case of the petitioner and other similarly placed employees and to explore the possibility and feasibility of issuing a circular similar to the circular issued earlier.

AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT- writ of Mandamus to declare Statute 13(3) made under the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Act, 2008 (for short the Act), and the procedure prescribed by the respondents for selection of candidates for admission into the six year integrated B-Tech programme for the academic year 2017-18, as illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Presidential Order, and in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 371(D) of the Constitution of India, and to strike down the same.= Statute 13 (3) of the Act violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, and is liable to be struck down on this ground alone= It is only students, who were admitted prior to the date of the judgment, who were directed by the Supreme Court not to be disturbed. We had by the order dated 14.07.2017, while issuing notice before admission, directed the respondent-University to reserve six seats, among the seats remaining unfilled as on the date of the order, in the S.V. University local area. These six seats have, admittedly, not been filled-up till date. As a consequence of our order, declaring Statute 13(3) made under the Act ultra vires Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, the respondent- university shall consider all eligible candidates, strictly in the order of their inter-se merit, for admission to the six un-filled seats in the six year integrated engineering course. This exercise shall be completed, and the selected students shall be admitted, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14380&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO Writ Petition No.21836 of 2017 04-10-2017 A.Sateesh Reddy and others … Petitioners   The Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies and others .. Respondents   Counsel for the petitioners : Sri P.Veerabhadra Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Ms.M.Vidyavathi, Standing Counsel… Read More AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT- writ of Mandamus to declare Statute 13(3) made under the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Act, 2008 (for short the Act), and the procedure prescribed by the respondents for selection of candidates for admission into the six year integrated B-Tech programme for the academic year 2017-18, as illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Presidential Order, and in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 371(D) of the Constitution of India, and to strike down the same.= Statute 13 (3) of the Act violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, and is liable to be struck down on this ground alone= It is only students, who were admitted prior to the date of the judgment, who were directed by the Supreme Court not to be disturbed. We had by the order dated 14.07.2017, while issuing notice before admission, directed the respondent-University to reserve six seats, among the seats remaining unfilled as on the date of the order, in the S.V. University local area. These six seats have, admittedly, not been filled-up till date. As a consequence of our order, declaring Statute 13(3) made under the Act ultra vires Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, the respondent- university shall consider all eligible candidates, strictly in the order of their inter-se merit, for admission to the six un-filled seats in the six year integrated engineering course. This exercise shall be completed, and the selected students shall be admitted, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT = the Writ Petition in a contractual matter is not maintainable. In respect of bank guarantees, the satisfaction of the beneficiary is final with regard to breach of the covenants between the beneficiary and the person on whose behalf the bank guarantee was issued and the bank has no other alternative except to honour the payment under the guarantee. In the case before me, though the respondents satisfy the requirement of State, no relief can be granted in the present Writ Petition in the absence of any element of public law. The contract between the petitioners and the respondents are purely private contracts. The first point is answered accordingly.- Hence, I am of the opinion that the present Writ Petition challenging the letter dated 26.07.2017 is not maintainable and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14379&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO Writ Petition No. 28092 of 2017 10-10-2017 M/s Jaiprakash-Gayatri Joint Venture, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory G. Venkateswara Rao and others Petitioners State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Amaravati, Gun Counsel for the Petitioners :Sri S. Ravi, learned… Read More AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT = the Writ Petition in a contractual matter is not maintainable. In respect of bank guarantees, the satisfaction of the beneficiary is final with regard to breach of the covenants between the beneficiary and the person on whose behalf the bank guarantee was issued and the bank has no other alternative except to honour the payment under the guarantee. In the case before me, though the respondents satisfy the requirement of State, no relief can be granted in the present Writ Petition in the absence of any element of public law. The contract between the petitioners and the respondents are purely private contracts. The first point is answered accordingly.- Hence, I am of the opinion that the present Writ Petition challenging the letter dated 26.07.2017 is not maintainable and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT – MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM = The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence and material available on record, granted compensation of Rs.5,56,000/- as against the claim of Rs.11,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount in the Court and apportioned the same among the petitioners. -The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation. While the petitioners sought for enhancement of compensation, the respondents Corporation contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant. On consideration of the order passed by the Tribunal, it does not appear that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive or exorbitant, except the rate of interest granted @ 9% per annum ;since the rate of interest appears to be on higher side, following the decision of the Apex Court in DHARAMPAL AND OTHERS Vs. U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , this Court feels it appropriate to award interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. = the appeal filed by the respondents Corporation is partly allowed by reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the compensation amount.

http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14374&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.Nos.189 OF 2006 and batch 06-10-2017 Naseemunnisa Begum and others. Appellants Puligadda Narasimha and others. . Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Smt. S. Vani Counsel for the respondents: Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy SC for APSRTC <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1.MANU/SC/7680/2008 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA… Read More AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT – MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM = The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence and material available on record, granted compensation of Rs.5,56,000/- as against the claim of Rs.11,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount in the Court and apportioned the same among the petitioners. -The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation. While the petitioners sought for enhancement of compensation, the respondents Corporation contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant. On consideration of the order passed by the Tribunal, it does not appear that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive or exorbitant, except the rate of interest granted @ 9% per annum ;since the rate of interest appears to be on higher side, following the decision of the Apex Court in DHARAMPAL AND OTHERS Vs. U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , this Court feels it appropriate to award interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. = the appeal filed by the respondents Corporation is partly allowed by reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the compensation amount.