2010_v 11_pi.pdf

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

1/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

2/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

3/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

4/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

5/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

6/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

7/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

8/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

9/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

10/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

11/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

12/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

13/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

14/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

15/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

16/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

17/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

18/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

19/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

20/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

21/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

22/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

23/155

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.47 48M. CHANDRA v . M. THANGAMUTHU & ANR.

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

24/155

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(1991) Supp. (2) SCC 267 referred to Para 10

(2006) 6 SCC 94 referred to Para 10

(1987) 1 SCC 254 referred to Para 11AIR 1958 SC 255 referred to Para 11


AIR 1996 SC 112 referred to Para 11



1975 (1) SCC 589 referred to Para 13


(1965) 1 SCR 849 referred to Para 18

AIR 1958 Bom 296 referred to Para 19

1970 (1) SCC 605 referred to Para 21







AIR 2006 SC 543 distinguished Para 31

(1984) 2 SCC 91 relied on Para 47

(1994) 6 SCC 241 distinguished Para 49(2007) 12 SCC 796 distinguished Para 49

(1984) Supp. SCC 77 distinguished Para 49

certificate, there was no reason to disbelieve theduplicate that she had submitted, as the petitioner hasfailed to provide a reasoned rebuttal to the evidenceadduced by the appellant to prove her case. There wasnothing on record to show that the community certificatewas issued illegally or in contravention of the validprocedure. The election petitioner should have examinedthe person in charge while the certificate was beingissued to bring to light any alleged malpractice in theissuance of the said certificate. The validity of theissuance of the community certificate is presumed unless

shown otherwise by the respondent no.1, who clearlyfailed to do so. It is also baffling to note that theconversion certificate from the Arya Samaj was notexamined in detail by the respondents inspite of the HighCourt making a strong observation in this regard. Noproof by way of documents or oral evidence wasprovided to show how the certificate was granted and

what procedure was followed. The evidence produced is,contradictory and smacks of political rivalry. [Paras 56,57, 58] [86-H; 87-A-H; 88-A-D]

Case Law Reference:

(1965) 1 SLR.849 relied on Para 8



1993 Supp. (2) SCC 229 referred to Para 9






8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

25/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

26/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

27/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

28/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

29/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

30/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

31/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

32/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

33/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

34/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

35/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

36/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

37/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

38/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

39/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

40/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

41/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

42/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

43/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

44/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

45/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

46/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

47/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

48/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

49/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

50/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

51/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

52/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

53/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

54/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

55/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

56/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

57/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

58/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

59/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

60/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

61/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

62/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

63/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

64/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

65/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

66/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

67/155

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

AA

135 136COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA v . STEELAUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

(1888) 13 AC 595 referred to para 28

1980 (1) SCR 910 relied on para 28

1974 ICR 120 referred to. Para 69

1963 Suppl. SCR 676 referred to. Para 78

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

68/155

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

B

C

D

E

F

G

H


(1979) 1 SCC 92 relied on para 33



1999 (2) SCR 728 referred to para 34



1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 131 referred to para 42



(1863), 14 C.B. (N.S.) 180 referred to para 49(1935) 1 KB 249 referred to para 49

(1991) Supp1 SCC 600 referred to para 60


(1978) 1 SCC 48 referred to para 61


(1982) 3 SCC 338 referred to para 62



(1972) ECR 0933 referred to para 65


[1979] 2 SCC 368 referred to para 69

1992 (2) SCR 1 referred to Para 80


1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 136 referred to. Para 86

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7779 of 2010.

From the Judgment & Order dated 15.02.2010 of the

Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. 1 of2009.

Gopal Subramaniam, SG, Tarun Gulati, Suhail Nathani,Neil Hildreth, Samir Gandhim, Rahul Rai, Sparsh Bhargava,Kishore Kunal, Rony John, Praveen Kumar, Shahi Mathews forthe Appellant.

H.N. Salve, R.F. Nariman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, P.S. Shroff,Ruchi A. Mahajan, Harman Singh Sandhu, Jai Mohan, ChetnaRai, (for Suresh A. Shroff & Co.), Sunil Kumar Jain, AneeshMittal, K.P.S. Channi for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. The application for leave to

appeal is allowed.

2. The decision of the Government of India to liberalize itseconomy with the intention of removing controls persuaded theIndian Parliament to enact laws providing for checks andbalances in the free economy. The laws were required to beenacted, primarily, for the objective of taking measures to avoidanti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance as well

as to regulate mergers and takeovers which result in distortionof the market. The earlier Monopolies and Restrictive Trade

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

69/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

70/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

71/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

72/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

73/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

74/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

75/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

76/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

77/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

78/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

79/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

80/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

81/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

82/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

83/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

84/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

85/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

86/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

87/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

88/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

89/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

90/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

91/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

92/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

93/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

94/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

95/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

96/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

97/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

98/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

99/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

100/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

101/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

102/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

103/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

104/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

105/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

106/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

107/155

A

B

A

B

215CH. NARAYANA RAO v . UNION OF INDIA & ORS.[DEEPAK VERMA, J.]

(1990) 2 SCC 715 , the period shall not be taken intoconsideration for the purpose of reckoning seniority.Furthermore, it is one thing to say that an appointment ismade on an ad-hoc basis but it is another thing to say thatinter se seniority would be determined on the basis laid

down in another rule.”

22. We are, therefore, fortified in our reasoning as

PYARE MOHAN LALv.

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.(Writ Petition (C) No. 382 of 2003)

SEPTEMBER 10, 2010

[J.M. PANCHAL, DEEPAK VERMA AND DR. B.S.CHAUHAN JJ ]

[2010] 11 S.C.R. 216

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

108/155

C

D

E

F

G

H

C

D

, , gadopted in the aforesaid Appeal.

23. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are ofthe considered view that no relief can be granted to theAppellant. His seniority has been correctly worked out only from

the date he had passed the Stenography Test as contemplatedunder the Rules approved by Staff Selection Commission.

24. Thus, the appeal being devoid of any merit andsubstance is hereby dismissed but with no order to costs.

R.P. Appeal dimissed.

CHAUHAN, JJ.]

Service law:

Compulsory retirement – Judicial review – Scope of.

Compulsory retirement – Adverse entries in the ACRs – Significance of, while retiring a person compulsorily – Held: The adverse entries remain part of the record for overall consideration to retire a government servant compulsorily – The object always is public interest – Such entries do not lose significance, even if the employee has subsequently been promoted – The law requires the Authority to consider the

“entire service record” of the employee before assessing him for compulsory retirement irrespective of the fact that the adverse entries were not communicated to him or that he was promoted earlier in spite of those adverse entries – A single adverse entry regarding the integrity of an employee, even,in remote past is sufficient to award compulsory retirement – Doctrine – Washed off theory.

Compulsory retirement – Judicial Officer compulsorily retired in public interest – Held: The case of a Judicial Officer is required to be examined, treating him different from other wings of the society, as he is serving the State in a different capacity – His case is considered by a Committee of Judges of the High Court duly constituted by the Chief Justice and then the report of the Committee is placed before the Full

Court – A decision is taken by the Full Court after due 216

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

109/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

110/155


A

B

A

B

221 222PYARE MOHAN LAL v . STATE OF JHARKHAND &

ORS.

retirement and the State Authorities acted accordingly. Nofault can be found with the decision making process orwith the decision. The original service record of thepetitioner was placed before this Court alongwith thereport submitted by the Judicial Commissioner, who after

taking into consideration a large number of factsrecorded that the general reputation of the petitioner wasnot good, but no one had approached with any specific


AIR 1995 SC 1161 relied on Para 11

AIR 2002 SC 1345 relied on Paras 12, 16,23



8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

111/155

C

D

E

F

G

H

C

D

E

F

G

H

g , pp y pcase against his general reputation. [Paras 30, 31] [237-G-H; 238-A-F]

5. There was no factual foundation in the contentionof the petitioner that adverse entries were not made in

bona fide manner and as per the requirement prescribedby circulars etc., and, therefore, the consequential orderof compulsory retirement was illegal. The petitioner hadsought quashing of the order of compulsory retirementand not quashing of the adverse entries. Relief notspecifically sought cannot be granted by the court.Therefore, there was no occasion to probe the issue

further. In view of the same, there was no cogent reasonto interfere with the impugned order. [Paras 32, 33] [238-G-H; 239-A-B]

Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1981SC 70, relied on.

Case Law Reference:

AIR 1992 SC 1020 relied on Paras 8, 20


















CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.

382 of 2003.

Sunil Kumar, C.K. Sucharita for the Petitioner.

Ashok Mathur Anil K. Jha, Santosh Kumar for theRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

112/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

113/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

114/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

115/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

116/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

117/155


A

B

A

B

235 236PYARE MOHAN LAL v . STATE OF JHARKHAND &ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

to contend that a bench of two judges cannot be overruledby a bench of three judges. We must regard this as a finalseal to the controversy.”

26. In view of the above, the law can be summarised tostate that in case there is a conflict between two or more

judgments of this court, the judgment of the larger Bench is tobe followed. More so, the washed off theory does not haveuniversal application. It may have relevance while considering

(ii) Efficiency – Average

(iii) Net result – out-turn capable ofimprovement

1999-2000 (i) Promptness in disposal – Average


(iii) Reputation – Not good

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

118/155

C

D

E

F

G

H

C

D

E

F

G

H

pp y gthe case of government servant for further promotion but not ina case where the employee is being assessed by theReviewing Authority to determine whether he is fit to be retainedin service or requires to be given compulsory retirement, as the

Committee is to assess his suitability taking into considerationhis “entire service record”.

27. The instant case is to be examined in the light of theaforesaid settled legal propositions.

28. Some of the entries in the ACRs’ of the petitioner ofthe last years, which are relevant for this purpose are being

mentioned here as under:

Year Remarks

1996-97 (i) Knowledge – Average

(ii) Promptness in disposal – Out turn Poor

(iii) Net Result – Average

1997-98 (i) Promptness in Disposal – Average


(iii) Net result – Average officer capableof improvement

1998-99 (i) Promptness in disposal – Average

(iii) Reputation Not good

Is he fit for exercise of any enhancedpower – No

Beside these, adverse remarks made by the inspectingJudge against the petitioner are given as under:

Year Remarks

30.8.1997 (i) Knowledge – Average, extensive studyrequired.

(ii) Promptness in disposal – Not upto

mark

(iii) Reputation – Some whispers are therebut nothing concrete could be found.

2001-02 (i) Judgment – Average i.e. B

(ii) Efficiency – Average (B)

(iii) Integrity – Seriously Doubtful

29. It is evident from the aforesaid service record of thepetitioner that he remained an average officer throughout hisservice career and could never improve. His out turn had been poor; he had been given adverse entries regarding his integrity/ reputation as not good in the years 1999-2000 and remarks

to that effect by the Inspecting Judges in 1997 and 2001-2002.

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

119/155

A

B

A

B

239PYARE MOHAN LAL v . STATE OF JHARKHAND &ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]``

writ petition to the said adverse entries. Petitioner soughtquashing of order of compulsory retirement dated 20.5.2003and not quashing of the adverse entries. Relief not specificallysought cannot be granted by the court. Therefore, there is nooccasion for us to probe the issue further.

33. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reasonto interfere with the impugned order. The petition lacks meritand is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD.v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.(Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010)

SEPTEMBER 13, 2010

[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act

[2010] 11 S.C.R. 240

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

120/155

C

D

E

F

G

H

D.G. Writ Petition dismissed.

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,1957 – s. 11(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) – Mineral Concession Rules,1960 – rr. 59, 60 and 35 – Mining lease – Grant of – Renewal of mining lease in favour of ‘S’ Company but not for the entire

area– Applications by ‘S’ for lease over certain area within the deleted area – Rejected by State Government – Notification u/r.59(1) by State Government notifying large area for re-grant of mining lease including area applied by ‘S’ – Invitation of applications from public – Fresh application by ‘S’, ‘MSPL’ and ‘K’ pursuant to the Notification – However, application by ‘J’ made only prior to the Notification – Recommendation by State Government to Central Government for approval of

proposed grant in favour of ‘J’ and ‘K’ which was subsequently approved by Central Government – Writ petition challenging the recommendation – Single Judge of High Court quashing the grant in favour of ‘J’ and ‘K’ – Division Bench setting aside the order – On appeal, held: State Government cannot justify grant based on criteria that are de hors the MMDR Act and MC Rules – State Government’s recommendation and the

proceedings of Chief Minister was contrary to the provisions of s. 11 and rr. 59 and 60 and not valid in law – J’s application made prior to the Notification could not be entertained along with the applications made pursuant to the Notification – Proposed investment in mines and in the industry based on the minerals is a relevant factor – Criteria of captive consumption not a controlling factor to grant fresh lease – State Government has no authority under the Act to make

240

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

121/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

122/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

123/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

124/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

125/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

126/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

127/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

128/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

129/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

130/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

131/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

132/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

133/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

134/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

135/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

136/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

137/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

138/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

139/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

140/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

141/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

142/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

143/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

144/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

145/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

146/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

147/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

148/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

149/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

150/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

151/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

152/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

153/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

154/155

8/20/2019 2010_v 11_pi.pdf

155/155

2010_v 11_pi.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 2010_v 11_pi.pdf