Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96(3), Or. 23 Rr. 3 & 3-A and Or. 43 R. 1-A(2) — Compromise decree — Essentialities of: The scheme of Or. 23 R. 3 is to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Compromise between parties to proceedings encourages amicable settlement. It is an agreement between parties. Courts cannot impose compromise on unwilling party. Person questioning lawfulness of compromise must approach the same court which recorded compromise. After repeal of Or. 43 R. 1(m), no appeal lies against compromise decrees. Compromise decree operates as estoppel and binds parties thereto until it is set aside by competent court. Where a party to compromise denies execution of such compromise, right has been given under Or. 43 R. 1-A(2) to raise a challenge thereto. S. 96(3) would not bar such appeals. S. 96(3) is applicable where factum of compromise or appeal is not disputed. Civil suit filed by stranger to that proceeding challenging legality of compromise is not maintainable. Such stranger, who was not party to compromise, would not have cause of action to file separate suit to challenge legality of compromise. [Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh, (2020) 6 SCC 629]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Ss. 47, 38 and 42: Execution of an award/decree can be only to the extent of what has been awarded/decreed and not beyond the same. Moreover, what is awarded or decreed must be independently capable of execution. Thus, arbitration award determining only the price of land cannot be directed to be executed as suit for specific performance of agreement to sell the land, with a direction for execution of a sale deed of the land in question. Moreover, such award determining the price of land alone, could not be independently executed. [Rajasthan Udyog v. Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd.(2020) 6 SCC 660]
Constitution of India — Arts. 30, 29, 45, 21-A, 14 and 19 — Aided Non-Government Madrasahs (aided minority schools) — Permissible regulation of appointment of teachers: The rights of minorities under Art. 30 are not absolute. The validity of selection and nomination of teachers by statutory body by following statutory procedure under the W.B. Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, affirmed. State Government, held, can nominate teachers to be appointed in said minority institutions. Such nomination of teachers and composition of body nominating them should comply with constitutional objectives and national interest. Ss. 8 and 10 to 12 of the W.B. Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 and the W.B. Madrasah Service Commission Recruitment (Selection and Recommendation of Persons for Appointment and Transfer to the posts of Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2010 providing for the above, held, comply with constitutional objectives and national interest and are not ultra vires Art. 30(1). However, slight modification and proper interpretation of the provisions of the Commission Act, 2008 clarified and directed accordingly, to bring them in conformity with constitutional objectives and principles established by precedents. [Mohd. Rafique v. Contai Rahamania High Madrasah, (2020) 6 SCC 689]
Constitution of India — Arts. 32 and 21: In this case, there was mala fide PIL against sale and use of soft drinks like Coca Cola, Thums Up, allegedly in the interest of public health but without any expert report. Exemplary costs of Rs 5,00,000 was imposed. [Umedsinh P Chavda v. Union of India, (2020) 6 SCC 684]
Courts, Tribunals and Judiciary — Virtual Court/Videoconferencing — Outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19): As there was necessity of reducing physical presence in court premises for maintenance of social distancing as per guidelines and continued dispensation of justice, holding of courts through videoconferencing from Supreme Court level to District Court level, validated. [Guidelines for court functioning through videoconferencing during Covid-19 Pandemic, In re.,(2020) 6 SCC 686]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 397, 399, 401(2), 173(2), 156(3) and 203 — Revision against dismissal of criminal complaint under S. 203 CrPC: Grant of opportunity of hearing to accused, is essential. [Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh v. Satish Atmaram Talekar, (2020) 6 SCC 625]
Election — Local Government/Bodies/Municipalities/Panchayats/Autonomous and Other Bodies — Recall/Removal from Office/No-Confidence Motion: The applicable statutory rules providing for voting on no-confidence motion by secret ballot have binding effect. Hence, revoting or fresh voting, directed on the no-confidence vote in question, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the same had not been done by secret ballot. Such revoting, held, must be by way of secret ballot in accordance with the 1966 Rules. [Laxmi Singh v. Rekha Singh, (2020) 6 SCC 812]
Energy, Power and Electricity — Electricity — Generation and Transmission/Supply/Distribution of electricity — Standby charges: In this case, TPC had an agreement with MSEB for standby supply of electricity and BSES/REL used to purchase electricity from TPC. At the relevant time, TPC was paying an amount of Rs 24.75 crores per month i.e. Rs 297 crores p.a. to MSEB by way of standby charges which was built into the tariff and the said amount was recovered by TPC from its customers who in turn recovered it from their retail consumers. TPC under the Principles of Agreement dt. 31-1-1998 was bound to supply standby power as and when required by BSES/REL and even after providing the standby facility of 275 MVA to BSES/REL, TPC still enjoyed the standby facility of 550 MVA from MSEB. Government of Maharashtra formed a Committee to resolve the issue of quantum of standby charges required to be paid by BSES/REL to TPC and passed an Order dt. 19-1-1998 whereby stipulating a sum of Rs 3.5 crores p.m. should be paid by BSES/REL to TPC by way of standby charges. The standby charges were enhanced from Rs 24.75 crores per month to Rs 30.25 crores per month with effect from 1-12-1998 i.e. from Rs 297 crores to Rs 363 crores annually and TPC instead of requiring a pro rata share of the incremental standby charges from BSES/REL purported to divide the amount of Rs 30.25 crores in the ratio of 50: 50. APTEL passed an order dt. 20-12-2006 and directed that 23% of the standby charges qua MSEB for the period in question should be borne by BSES/REL and balance should be borne by TPC. In this case, order passed by Technical and Judicial Members of APTEL, was upheld. [Tata Power Co. Ltd. v. Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 641]
Energy, Power and Electricity — Electricity — Tariff — Determination of tariff — S. 38 of the Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948: Interest on capital provided by participating Government i.e. double benefit qua computation of tariff is not grantable, when applying the normative debt equity ratio, the appellant (a statutory body constituted under the DVC Act, 1948) is already given the benefit of return on capital on the normative equity portion and also interest on the loan portion. [Damodar Valley Corpn v. CERC, (2020) 6 SCC 795]
Human and Civil Rights — Humanitarian and Natural Disasters, Epidemics and Pandemics — COVID-19 Pandemic: Ratha Yatra, Puri, and any religious or secular activity connected therewith, directed to be not held this year in the interest of public health. The right to freely profess and propagate religion under Art. 25 of the Constitution, is subject to health. Undisputedly, Ratha Yatra gathering would bring together 10-12 lakh people for a period of 10-12 days, which in light of COVID-19 Pandemic, would be a grave health risk. [Odisha Vikash Parishad v. Union of India, (2020) 6 SCC 682]