Liquor License – Discretionary Power – Appellant contested the High Court's issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the grant of a distillery license to the respondent – Supreme Court held that the granting of such licenses is within the exclusive privilege and discretion of the state, and no citizen has a fundamental right to claim it – The High Court's mandamus directing the issuance of a license was found to be improper [Paras 2-12, 16-35].

State Policy and Exclusive Privilege – State has exclusive rights over the trade of liquor, which is inherently harmful – The state can choose to restrict, regulate, or completely prohibit such trade – Supreme Court reiterated that liquor policy decisions are within the state's domain and cannot be interfered with lightly by the courts [Paras 21-24, 26-28].

Application of Article 14 – While the state must act reasonably and cannot discriminate arbitrarily when granting privileges, the respondent failed to establish a legal right or prove discriminatory treatment compared to similarly situated applicants – Supreme Court emphasized that compliance with conditions does not automatically entitle an applicant to a license [Paras 29-32].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – No order as to costs [Para 35].

Contract Law – Termination and Forfeiture – Appellant challenged the termination of a contract by NHAI for collecting user fees on National Highway No. 3, alleging non-compliance with natural justice and lack of basis for the decision – Supreme Court upheld the termination and forfeiture, noting substantial compliance with principles of natural justice and sufficient material supporting the decision [Paras 2-15].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Court found that the appellant was given a fair hearing and the opportunity to present its case – The procedure adopted, including show-cause notice and personal hearing, met the requirements of fairness and did not prejudice the appellant [Paras 8-15].

Section 74 of Contract Act – Penalty and Performance Security – Forfeiture of performance security was justified under the terms of the contract – Invocation of the bank guarantee, however, was deemed unjustified as the authority had already recovered more than the contracted amount – Remedy for excess recovery lies in civil action, not writ jurisdiction [Paras 22-25].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Termination of contract and forfeiture of performance security upheld – Invocation of bank guarantee deemed unjustified – Appellant advised to seek remedy through civil action for any claims of excess recovery [Paras 26-29].

Impleadment – Order 1 Rule 10 CPC – Appellant challenged the orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court rejecting their application for impleadment as defendants in a suit for specific performance – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant, being a subsequent purchaser, is a necessary and proper party for the complete and effective adjudication of the suit [Paras 1-43].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – Transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is not void but subject to the outcome of the litigation – The appellant, having acquired the property with notice of the pending suit and injunction, is bound by the result of the suit [Paras 23-26, 46-52].

Specific Performance – Section 19 of Specific Relief Act – Suit for specific performance may be enforced against subsequent purchasers unless they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the original contract – Appellant's knowledge of the pending suit and injunction precludes them from claiming such status [Paras 30-31, 45-47].

Order 22 Rule 10 CPC – Assignment and Devolution – Appellant's application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC can also be considered under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, which allows the continuation of a suit by or against the person upon whom interest has devolved during the pendency of the suit [Paras 53-57].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court set aside – Appellant to be added as a party defendant – Appellant permitted to raise defenses available to the original defendants [Paras 42-43, 57-58].

Land Ownership – Title and Possession – Appellant contested the Respondent's title over the disputed land, arguing that the courts below misdirected themselves in determining the issue – Supreme Court held that the lower courts failed to consider whether the vendor had valid title, which was necessary to determine the validity of the sale deed in favor of the Respondent [Paras 3-10].

Evidence Act – Section 90 – Presumption of Genuineness – Supreme Court criticized the High Court for incorrectly applying Section 90 of the Evidence Act, which presumes the genuineness of documents after 30 years, to the sale deed dated 11.11.1959 – The correct period for consideration is from the date the document is offered, not the date of the appeal decision [Paras 6-7].

Revenue Records – Not Conclusive Proof of Title – Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title – Courts below erred in holding that such records constituted ownership evidence – Revenue records merely raise a presumption of possession, not title [Paras 10-14].

Admission Against Interest – Supreme Court emphasized that the Respondent's letter admitting that it had been cheated by the vendor, who had no title over the land, should have been given due weight – Such admissions weaken the Respondent's claim [Paras 8, 15].

Estoppel – No Estoppel Against Statute – Acceptance of municipal or agricultural tax payments by a person does not estop the State from challenging ownership – There can be no estoppel against the statute [Para 14].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Judgments of the lower courts set aside – Respondent's suit for declaration of title and injunction dismissed [Para 17].

Review Petition – Maintainability – Order 47 Rule 7 CPC – Appellant challenged the High Court's order dismissing their review petition of the main judgment which was not itself challenged – Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, reiterating that without challenging the main judgment, an SLP against the order rejecting the review petition is not maintainable [Paras 5-8, 11].

Merger Doctrine – Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Case – Appellant's reliance on Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Dugal Kumar was dismissed, with the Supreme Court stating that the judgments in Shanker Motiram Nale and other similar cases, which were not considered in Eastern Coalfields, still hold precedence – The principle that the main order and review order merge was not upheld in Eastern Coalfields, making it non-precedential [Paras 9-11].

Previous Precedents – Reaffirmed the rulings in Shanker Motiram Nale, Suseel Finance and Leasing Co. v. M. Lata, and M.N. Haider and Ors. v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan that an SLP challenging only the order rejecting a review petition is barred under Order 47 Rule 7 of CPC [Paras 7-8].

Decision:

SLP dismissed – Application for impleadment as party respondent also dismissed [Paras 12-13].

State Definition – Article 12 – Appellant contested being classified as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution – Supreme Court upheld that Balmer Lawrie and Company Ltd., a government company with pervasive government control, is a State for purposes of Article 12 – Company is subject to writ jurisdiction [Paras 1-27].

Employment Termination – Unconscionable Clauses – Supreme Court held that Clause 11(a) of the appointment letter allowing termination without cause is unconscionable and violates Article 14 of the Constitution – Such a hire-and-fire policy is unjust and arbitrary [Paras 28-29].

Public Authority – Criteria and Control – Court applied criteria including administrative, financial, and functional control by the government to determine that the company operates as a public authority – Factors such as monopoly status, government directives, and government-appointed directors indicated significant government control [Paras 6-17, 27].

Judicial Review – Public Character and Unfair Terms – Supreme Court emphasized that public authorities cannot impose unfair or unreasonable contract terms – Actions bearing public character and public interest are subject to judicial review – Employment terms must be equitable and just [Paras 19-20].

Subsequent Developments – Impact on Rights – Court considered the impact of subsequent developments on rights and remedies, emphasizing the need for just and updated relief based on current circumstances [Para 20].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Orders of the High Court upheld – Respondents entitled to arrears of wages, terminal benefits, and statutory entitlements – Terms and conditions in employment contracts to be non-arbitrary and equitable [Paras 28-30].

Substitution of Legal Representatives – Exemption under Order 22 Rule 4(4) – Appellant challenged abatement of suit for not substituting legal representatives of a deceased defendant – Trial court dismissed the suit, but First Appellate Court and High Court reversed, finding exemption applicable – Supreme Court affirms, holding that substitution was unnecessary as the deceased was ex parte [Paras 1-11].

Amendment History – Order 22 Rule 4(4) – Historical context of the 1976 amendment to CPC discussed – Legislative intent to expedite proceedings by exempting substitution for non-contesting defendants emphasized – Courts below rightly exercised exemption to prevent abatement [Paras 5-9].

Contempt Petitions – Allegations of contempt between parties – Supreme Court finds no merit in contempt petitions, dismissing them while urging focus on merits of the main suit [Paras 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Abatement set aside – Suit to proceed on merits – Contempt petitions dismissed.

Criminal Procedure – Evidence for Framing Charges – Appeal concerning whether depositions recorded under Chapter XV CrPC before Magistrate's cognizance constitute evidence for framing charges under Chapter XIX – Magistrate’s initial enquiry found the dispute civil, but dissatisfaction led to issuing process under Section 202 CrPC – High Court’s erroneous consideration of Chapter XV depositions as evidence for framing charges [Paras 1-12].

Right to Cross-Examination – Essential for Fair Trial – Accused entitled to cross-examine witnesses under Section 244 CrPC – Evidence recorded in presence of accused necessary for framing charges – High Court wrongly assumed opportunity for cross-examination existed at initial stage [Paras 13-19].

Judicial Interpretation – Section 246 CrPC – Requires framing charges based on evidence presented in the presence of accused – Cross-examination crucial to ensure reliability and fairness – Precedents affirm accused’s right to cross-examine before charge framing [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Sessions Judge order restored – Costs imposed on Respondent No. 2-company to be deposited in SCBA Lawyers' Welfare Fund within two weeks [Para 24].

Regulatory Compliance – SEBI Regulations – Respondent's application for registration as CRA rejected by SEBI for not providing audited annual accounts of promoters – SAT directed SEBI to reconsider application without requiring two additional years’ accounts – SEBI’s appeal focuses on regulatory interpretation and the necessity of audited accounts for verifying net worth [Paras 1-14].

Eligibility Criteria – Audited Accounts – Regulation 4(e) and Form A require evidence of continuous net worth of Rs. 100 crores – SAT ruled Chartered Accountant’s certificate sufficient, SEBI contended that audited accounts are necessary – SEBI Act and CRA Regulations mandate strict adherence to criteria [Paras 15-23].

SEBI’s Authority – Verification of Information – SEBI's right to request further information or clarification under Regulation 7 – Court upholds SEBI's authority to seek audited accounts for proper assessment – Delay in rejection of application beyond regulatory timelines addressed [Paras 24-28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – SAT order upheld – SEBI to process Respondent’s application based on existing submissions, including audited accounts for additional years – Costs not imposed [Paras 29-30].