Constitutional Law - Article 14 Violation - Town Planning Scheme - Validity:

Article 14 of the Constitution of India was violated by Section 192(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, which allowed land to be taken for town planning schemes without compensation, leading to the provision being declared void prospectively from 15.07.1994. This did not affect schemes already implemented and completed before this date. [Paras 1-17]

Municipal Law - Finalization and Implementation of Town Planning Scheme - Civil Appeal:

The Municipal Committee issued notices under a Town Planning Scheme, which was challenged by the appellant on grounds of non-finalization and incorrect demarcation. The appellant argued that the Scheme had not become final as objections remained unresolved. The Supreme Court held that the objections had been duly considered and rejected by the Municipal Committee in 1980, thus finalizing the Scheme. The need for fresh demarcation was recognized due to errors in the initial demarcation report. [Paras 18-35]

emarcation and Implementation - Procedural Directives-Supreme Court directed a fresh demarcation to be conducted by the Patwari within two months to determine the existence of a 30-feet road as per the revenue records. The Scheme's implementation would depend on the results of this demarcation, with both parties required to adhere to the outcome. [Para 35]

Decision - Fresh Demarcation Ordered:

Appeal disposed of with an order for a fresh demarcation to verify the existence of the road per the revenue record, ensuring proper implementation of the Town Planning Scheme based on accurate demarcation results. [Paras 34-36]

Road Safety - Implementation and Enforcement of Existing Laws - Supreme Court's direction to the Central and State Governments to strictly enforce existing road safety laws under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Emphasis on licensing, certification of fitness of vehicles, adherence to vehicle capacity limits, and use of road safety devices. The necessity for robust enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with road safety norms. [Paras 24-28]

Infrastructure and Maintenance - Road Engineering - Central and State Governments directed to integrate road safety in road design and conduct regular road safety audits. Identification and rectification of 'black spots' on highways and roads where frequent accidents occur. Mandate for regular maintenance to ensure roads are traffic-worthy, considering available resources. [Paras 29]

Public Awareness and Education - Road Safety Education - Directions to the Central and State Governments to continue and enhance efforts in educating citizens on road safety, starting from a young age. Implementation of road safety education in school curricula and public awareness campaigns. [Paras 30]

Emergency Response and Post-Accident Care - Directions to improve post-accident medical response. Central and State Governments to ensure availability of ambulances, trauma centers, and medical facilities. Adoption of best practices for quick removal of accident victims to medical facilities. Addressing jurisdictional disputes and financial barriers that delay medical attention to victims. [Paras 31]

Constitution of Monitoring Committee - Establishment of a Committee by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to monitor the implementation of Supreme Court directives on road safety. The Committee to submit periodic reports to the Court on the state of enforcement, suggestions for legislative changes, and deficiencies in implementation. [Paras 33-35]

Decision - Directions Issued Under Article 142 - Supreme Court issued directions under Article 142 for strict enforcement of existing road safety laws, enhancement of road safety infrastructure, public education on road safety, and improvement of emergency response systems. States impleaded as respondents to ensure accountability and implementation of directives. [Paras 32-35]

Environmental Law - Illegality of Mining Operations - Suspension of Environmental Clearances - Supreme Court holds that the deemed mining leases in Goa expired on 22.11.1987 and the renewal period expired on 22.11.2007 - Mining operations post-22.11.2007 declared illegal - Order of Government of Goa dated 10.09.2012 and MoEF order dated 14.09.2012 suspending mining operations and environmental clearances upheld - Directions issued for strict regulation of mining activities. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠1−71Paras1−71

Environmental Impact - Protection of Ecosystems - Mining Dumps - Supreme Court finds that dumping of minerals outside the leased area is not permissible under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder - Directions issued for creation of a permanent fund for sustainable development and inter-generational equity. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠1−71Paras1−71

Interim Measures - Cap on Mining - Expert Committee Recommendations - Until final report, a maximum annual excavation of 20 million MT allowed - Strict monitoring and regulation by Department of Mines and Geology, Goa State Pollution Control Board, and other statutory bodies. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠1−71Paras1−71

Decision - Supreme Court upholds the suspension of mining operations and environmental clearances - Declares mining post-22.11.2007 illegal - Orders creation of a permanent fund for sustainable development and caps annual excavation at 20 million MT pending final report. 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑠1−71Paras1−71

Limitation Act, 1963 - Calculation of Limitation Period – Civil Appeal against High Court order affirming lower courts' judgments on limitation period for filing suit – Respondent filed suit seeking seniority and continuity of service from 1964 despite fresh appointment in 1967 after termination – Representation-based delay in filing suit – Held that mere making of representations does not extend limitation period absent statutory provision – Suit filed 13 years post-cause of action deemed barred by limitation. [Paras 1-15] Employment Law - Fresh Appointment and Seniority Claims – Analysis – Held – Respondent's service termination due to unauthorized absence – Fresh appointment in 1967 considered new employment – Claim for continuity of service from original appointment date rejected – Limitation period starts from the date of fresh appointment or final seniority list publication, not from rejection of representations. [Para 12-14] Decision – Dismissal of Suit for Limitation Bar – Court sets aside High Court and lower courts' decisions – Suit dismissed as barred by limitation – Appeal allowed, no order as to costs. [Para 15]

\

Administrative Law - Cancellation of Tender Process - Validity and Arbitrariness - Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Kandla Port Trust to cancel the tender process initiated in 2005 due to a significant delay in obtaining Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) clearance. The decision to cancel was found to be in larger public interest as the market rates had escalated significantly, and re-tendering would fetch a higher premium. The court finds the action neither arbitrary nor mala fide. The Port Trust acted within its administrative powers, prioritizing public interest over private interests. [Paras 16-23]

Promissory Estoppel - Applicability in Administrative Actions - The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply in the present case. The letter of intent (LOI) issued to the appellant did not amount to a concluded contract, and the appellant did not alter its position to its detriment based on the LOI. The cancellation of the tender process due to supervening public interest overrides any individual equity claimed by the appellant. [Paras 24-26]

Contract Law - Concluded Contract - Judicial Review under Article 226 - Supreme Court holds that the LOI did not constitute a concluded contract. The terms of the tender process reserved the right of the Port Trust to cancel the tender, and the formal allotment was contingent upon obtaining CRZ clearance, which was delayed by over five years. The court emphasizes that disputes purely in the realm of contract law should be pursued in civil courts, and the writ jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the administrative action. [Paras 27-34]

Decision: The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision and upholding the cancellation of the tender process by the Kandla Port Trust. The court awards costs against the appellant. [Para 37]

Presumption of Marriage - Long Cohabitation - Legitimate Children:Criminal Law - Validity of Observations on Marriage: Special Leave Petition filed by an Advocate challenging the Madras High Court’s judgment which suggested that long-term cohabitation could presume a valid marriage, thereby legitimizing children born from such unions. Supreme Court reiterates that such observations were case-specific and supported by precedent, dismissing concerns over the universal application of these principles. [Paras 1-11]

Marriage and Cohabitation - Legal Presumptions - Rebuttal:Judicial Approach - Evidence Requirement: Held – Courts have historically presumed marriage and opposed concubinage when continuous cohabitation is proven, though such presumptions can be countered with strong evidence. The Supreme Court, referencing multiple cases, underscores this legal standpoint while addressing the appeal's context. [Paras 7-9]

Decision - Disposal of Special Leave Petition:No Universal Application - Case-specific Observations: Supreme Court finds that the High Court’s observations regarding the institution of marriage were confined to the specific facts of the case under review, reaffirming the legitimacy of children born from such cohabitation. The SLP is disposed of without further deliberation. [Paras 9-11]

Civil Procedure - Hearing Appeals - Order 41 CPC - Dismissal in Default vs. Merits:Appeal filed by appellant dismissed in default due to non-appearance of counsel on the hearing date - High Court erred by deciding on merits instead of dismissal for default - Appeal dismissed on the grounds of procedural error but no sufficient cause shown for recall of dismissal. [Paras 1-19]

Ex-parte Hearing of Appeal - Applicability of Order 41 Rule 17 CPC:Where the appellant fails to appear, appeal should be dismissed in default, not on merits - High Court's decision on merits transgressed procedural limits prescribed under Order 41 Rule 17 CPC. [Para 13]

Sufficient Cause for Non-Appearance - Requirement under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC:High Court correctly found no sufficient cause for non-appearance of counsel - No reasonable grounds presented for absence on the date of hearing - Application for recall of dismissal rightly dismissed. [Para 18]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals:Appeals dismissed due to lack of procedural adherence by High Court - High Court’s decision to dismiss on merits overturned - Appeals dismissed for failure to establish sufficient cause for non-appearance. [Paras 16-19]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Summary Trial Procedures – Writ Petition for Guidelines – Banking sector significantly affected by delays in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the NI Act – Petitioners seek uniform procedures for summary trials to expedite disposal of cases – Supreme Court emphasizes the need for speedy trial and prescribes detailed procedural guidelines for magistrate courts – Guidelines to be followed for scrutinizing complaints, issuing summons, managing examination of witnesses, and ensuring trials are conducted expeditiously. [Paras 1-22]

Constitutional Law – Article 32 – Writ of Mandamus – Petition under Article 32 seeking mandamus for legislative and policy changes to address delays in cheque dishonour cases – Supreme Court directs compliance with guidelines to facilitate efficient handling of such cases, emphasizing legislative intent behind amendments to the NI Act for speedy trial and reduced case backlog. [Paras 3-5, 18-19]

Criminal Procedure – Sections 262 to 265 – Summary Trials – Procedures under CrPC Sections 262 to 265 applied to trials under Section 138 of the NI Act – Court elucidates the importance of following summary trial procedures for swift justice – Comprehensive steps outlined for magistrates to follow during the trial process to ensure quick resolution. [Paras 10, 15-17]

Decision:

Directions Issued for Expeditious Disposal of Cheque Dishonour Cases – Supreme Court provides clear guidelines for magistrate courts dealing with Section 138 cases to ensure prompt and efficient trials – Directions include steps for scrutinizing complaints, issuing summons, handling affidavit evidence, and conducting day-to-day trials – Emphasis on adopting a pragmatic approach and utilizing technological aids for service of summons. [Paras 21-23]

Company Law - Priority of Claims in Liquidation - Civil appeals against High Court judgment regarding claims of ONGC for dues owed by Ambica Mills (in liquidation) - High Court ruled ONGC could not claim preferential payment over secured creditors and workmen under Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 - Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that ONGC's claim did not create an enforceable charge on the assets of Ambica Mills, and ONGC could not be treated as a secured creditor. [Paras 1-26]

Enforceability of Undertakings - Analysis - Held - The interim order dated 15th April 1987 and the undertaking provided by Ambica Mills did not create an enforceable charge on the company’s assets - ONGC’s undertaking not to encumber or alienate assets did not specify particular immovable assets and thus did not constitute a secured charge - Priority of claims must be determined in accordance with statutory provisions. [Para 22-23]

Registration of Charges - Interpretation - Held - Charges on company assets must be registered under Section 125 of the Companies Act to be enforceable against liquidators and creditors - ONGC's claim lacked such registration, therefore, it could not be considered a secured creditor. [Para 20-21]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals - The civil appeals by ONGC were dismissed, affirming that ONGC could recover its dues at par with other unsecured creditors - The Gujarat High Court’s findings were upheld, ensuring compliance with statutory provisions regarding liquidation. [Paras 24-26]