Land Acquisition – Limitation for Re-determination – Appellants' land acquired under Sections 4 and 6 in 1994-95; award made on 14.12.1995 – Appellants filed applications under Section 28A after the reference court’s award dated 3.4.2006 – Application for re-determination filed on 18.7.2006 rejected for being 4 days late – Supreme Court affirmed strict adherence to statutory limitation periods, rejecting argument for extension based on date of knowledge of award [Paras 1-14].

Statutory Interpretation – Strict Construction – Section 28A requires application within 3 months from the date of the court's award, excluding time for obtaining a copy – Court emphasized literal interpretation of unambiguous statutory language – Rejected arguments for liberal interpretation or extension of limitation based on personal hardship or equitable grounds [Paras 8-13].

Precedent – Consistent Application – Affirmed previous rulings that limitation for filing under Section 28A starts from award date, not from the date of knowledge – Reiterated that law of limitation aims to ensure legal certainty and diligence, and courts have no discretion to extend statutory periods on equitable grounds [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s decision to reject applications for re-determination under Section 28A upheld – Reaffirmed the principle that inconvenience or hardship cannot override clear statutory mandates [Para 14].

Contempt of Court – Misconduct by Advocate-on-Record (AOR) – Suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against AOR for failing to appear in court – AOR had filed numerous cases without taking responsibility for their conduct – Supreme Court criticized the AOR’s conduct as 'unbecoming' and highlighted the duties and responsibilities of an AOR under the Supreme Court Rules [Paras 1-24].

Professional Conduct – Duties of Advocates-on-Record – Emphasized the professional obligations of AORs to appear in court and manage cases responsibly – Court underlined the importance of maintaining high standards of professional ethics and responsibility [Paras 9-19].

Misconduct and Discipline – Court’s Power to Revoke AOR Status – Discussed the Supreme Court's authority to revoke or suspend the privilege of practicing as an AOR for misconduct – Reinforced the need for strict adherence to professional conduct and accountability in the legal profession [Paras 6-8, 21].

Decision: The Court censured the conduct of Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, issued a warning, and directed him to improve his conduct over the next year. Failure to do so would result in further proceedings.

Contempt of Court – Misconduct by Advocate-on-Record (AOR) – Suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against AOR for failing to appear in court – AOR had filed numerous cases without taking responsibility for their conduct – Supreme Court criticized the AOR’s conduct as 'unbecoming' and highlighted the duties and responsibilities of an AOR under the Supreme Court Rules [Paras 1-24].

Professional Conduct – Duties of Advocates-on-Record – Emphasized the professional obligations of AORs to appear in court and manage cases responsibly – Court underlined the importance of maintaining high standards of professional ethics and responsibility [Paras 9-19].

Misconduct and Discipline – Court’s Power to Revoke AOR Status – Discussed the Supreme Court's authority to revoke or suspend the privilege of practicing as an AOR for misconduct – Reinforced the need for strict adherence to professional conduct and accountability in the legal profession [Paras 6-8, 21].

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the borrower before the High Court.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellants convicted for the murder of Babu – High Court upheld conviction based on the testimony of eyewitnesses PWs 2 and 3, who were present at the scene – Supreme Court finds no reason to disbelieve the prosecution's evidence and affirms the High Court's decision [Paras 1-14].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – PWs 2 and 3 corroborated the events leading to Babu's death – Minor contradictions in their statements considered negligible – Evidence of eyewitnesses supported by medical records and accident register (Exh. P-18) [Paras 10-12].

Motive – Love Affair and Enmity – Prosecution established motive based on the conflict between Arumugam @ Arupaiyan and Palanichami, which led to the attack on Babu – Evidence showed that A-1 to A-3 had a clear motive for the crime [Paras 4-5, 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed by the Supreme Court.

SARFAESI Act – Taking Possession of Secured Assets – Banks invoked Section 14 without first attempting possession under Section 13(4) – High Court ruled that banks must attempt possession under Section 13(4) before invoking Section 14 – Supreme Court held that banks can directly invoke Section 14 without first attempting possession under Section 13(4) if resistance is anticipated [Paras 1-42].

Right to Appeal – Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides for an appeal against measures under Section 13(4) – Borrowers argued that direct invocation of Section 14 deprives them of the right to appeal – Supreme Court clarified that appeal under Section 17 is available after possession is taken, regardless of the method used [Paras 29-32].

Procedure Compliance – Compliance with Rule 8 – High Court required compliance with Rule 8 even for possession under Section 14 – Supreme Court disagreed, stating Rule 8 applies only to possession under Section 13(4) – Magistrate’s satisfaction under Section 14 is sufficient for possession without Rule 8 compliance [Paras 33-36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's orders set aside – Possession orders by Magistrates under Section 14 upheld – Borrowers entitled to seek restoration of property under Section 13(8) [Paras 40-43].

Criminal Law – Intentional Insult – Appeal against issuance of process under Section 504 IPC – Complainant alleged that the accused intentionally insulted her, provoking her to breach the peace – Magistrate took cognizance and issued process – Supreme Court held that at the complaint stage, Magistrate needs only to be prima facie satisfied of sufficient grounds to proceed – Detailed discussion on merits not required [Paras 1-12].

Ingredients of Section 504 IPC – Intentional insult must provoke breach of peace or other offense – Complaint must be read as a whole – Specific words need not be reproduced in the complaint – Magistrate can infer intent from circumstances and conduct – Supreme Court found prima facie case made out [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Issuance of process under Section 504 IPC upheld by the Supreme Court.

Arbitration – Survival of Arbitration Clause – Dispute arose under previous agreements containing arbitration clause – New agreement (Exit paper) without arbitration clause superseded earlier agreements – Supreme Court held that arbitration clause does not survive when the contract containing it is superseded/novated by a later contract without such clause [Paras 6-8].

Novation of Contract – Exit paper signed by both parties did not include arbitration clause – New agreement comprehensively covered terms and conditions, rendering previous agreements void – Arbitration clause in previous agreements cannot be invoked for disputes under new agreement [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's order upheld, rejecting the application to refer dispute to arbitration under previous agreements [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Production of Original Complaint – Appellant sought production of original complaint leading to Anti-Corruption Bureau inquiry – Special Sessions Court and High Court rejected the application – Supreme Court held that the complaint triggered the inquiry but was not the basis for the charge-sheet or relied upon by the prosecution – No prejudice to accused from non-disclosure [Paras 1-10].

Fair Trial – Access to Documents – Reference to V.K. Sasikala case – Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the complaint was not part of the police report or in court custody – Emphasized the principle of fair trial and non-relevance of the complaint to the prosecution's case [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Special leave petition dismissed – High Court's order upheld, rejecting the request for the original complaint [Para 12].

Service Law – Seniority – Respondent promoted to Reader and given seniority from date of promotion – Claimed retrospective seniority from date of vacancy – High Court granted relief, finding hostile discrimination as ten others were granted retrospective seniority – Supreme Court found no evidence of discrimination as respondent governed by different rules [Paras 1-7].

Service Rules – Applicability – Distinction between promotions under different rules – Respondent's seniority governed by Rule 21 of 1990 rules, not by 2005 amended rules applicable to others – No entitlement to retrospective seniority without explicit provision in rules [Paras 6-15].

Legal Precedents – Applicability – High Court misapplied Keshav Chandra Joshi case, which dealt with seniority between direct recruits and promotees – Incorrectly inferred retrospective seniority principle [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Seniority of respondent to be reckoned from date of promotion [Para 17].