Civil Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Plaintiffs sought specific performance of a sale agreement, initially presenting the plaint with deficit court fee – Delay in representing the plaint with the requisite fee was condoned by the trial court without notifying the defendants – High Court struck off the suit, holding that the trial court erred in exercising its discretion without analyzing the plaintiffs' bona fides [Paras 2-10, 38-39].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Second defendant, a pendente lite purchaser, challenged the delay condonation – Supreme Court reiterated that a pendente lite purchaser is entitled to protect their interest and can be impleaded to contest the suit – High Court found valid grounds for the second defendant’s challenge [Paras 15-19].

Court Fees and Limitation – Proper valuation and payment of court fees is primarily a matter between the plaintiff and the court, but the Tamil Nadu Act permits defendants to raise objections – Court's discretion under Section 149 CPC allows for deficit court fee to be paid after the limitation period if the initial filing was within time – Trial court’s exercise of discretion was found lacking due to insufficient explanation for delay [Paras 20-37].

Legal Principles – Court emphasized that discretion under Section 149 CPC must be exercised judiciously, ensuring no unfair advantage is conferred – Plaintiffs failed to provide legally acceptable explanation for the delay in paying the deficit court fee, leading to rejection of the condonation of delay [Paras 36-37].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's order striking off the suit and setting aside the condonation of delay upheld – Plaintiffs failed to justify the delay in representing the plaint with the required court fee [Paras 40].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Appellant challenged the High Court's decision that reversed the trial court's order rejecting the plaint filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell property – Trial court rejected the plaint for not disclosing a cause of action and for non-compliance with Order 7 Rule 14(2) CPC – High Court allowed the appeal against rejection of the plaint [Paras 2-3, 6].

Specific Performance and Powers of Attorney – To succeed in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must show a subsisting agreement and the authority of the agent under a power of attorney – In this case, the plaintiff failed to produce the power of attorney document, nor provided reasons for not filing a registration copy, thereby violating Order 7 Rule 14(2) CPC [Paras 11-12].

Cause of Action – Supreme Court emphasized that the plaint must disclose a complete cause of action – A power of attorney must explicitly authorize the agent to execute the sale deed – Here, the power of attorney only specified limited acts, not including the execution of a sale agreement [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Review – Supreme Court reaffirmed that the trial court can reject a plaint at any stage if it does not disclose a cause of action – High Court erred in allowing the appeal by overlooking the absence of material facts in the plaint – Principles from previous judgments emphasized the need for clear cause of action in plaints [Paras 6-10, 17-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside – Order of the learned single Judge rejecting the plaint restored – Costs awarded to the appellant [Paras 22].

Preventive Detention – Constitutional Validity – Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA to the extent it empowers the competent authority to order preventive detention for activities prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange – Supreme Court upheld the validity of COFEPOSA, stating it is a constitutional measure aimed at preventing greater evils impacting national security and economic stability – The Court reiterated the principle that preventive detention can be used to prevent acts prejudicial to state security even if such acts are not criminal offenses per se [Paras 1-5, 27-29, 36-39].

Legislative Power – The Court reaffirmed the Parliament’s authority to enact preventive detention laws under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution – Held that COFEPOSA serves the legitimate purpose of protecting state security and the national economy, thus falling within the constitutional mandate [Paras 48-49].

Judicial Precedents – Cited various precedents where preventive detention laws were upheld – Noted that preventive detention laws must conform to the constitutional safeguards, including procedural protections under Article 22 [Paras 40-46].

Impact of Repeal of FERA – Petitioners argued that the repeal of FERA and the enactment of FEMA, which treats foreign exchange violations as civil offenses, made preventive detention under COFEPOSA obsolete – Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that COFEPOSA addresses broader security concerns that go beyond the scope of FEMA [Paras 50-56].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Constitutional validity of Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA upheld – Preventive detention under COFEPOSA deemed necessary for the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange and for preventing activities detrimental to national security [Paras 47, 52].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Determination – Appellant Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) sought review of the Supreme Court's judgment affirming the High Court's enhanced compensation for land acquired for Industrial Model Township in Manesar – HSIDC challenged the reliance on certain sale deeds for determining compensation [Paras 2-9].

Review Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court reiterated the limited grounds for review under Article 137 of the Constitution and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – Review jurisdiction does not allow re-argument of the appeal or correction of erroneous decisions unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter not within the knowledge of the applicant at the time of the decision [Paras 10-18].

Evaluation of Evidence – The court examined the new evidence presented by HSIDC regarding the genuineness of sale deed Exhibit P1 and found it insufficient to establish an error in the original judgment – Held that no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated – The argument that sale deeds reflected inflated prices was rejected [Paras 6-8, 19-20].

Judicial Precedents – Cited various precedents including Parsion Devi, Haridas Das, S. Nagaraj, Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde, Smt. Meera Bhanja, and Lily Thomas to emphasize the scope and limits of the review jurisdiction [Paras 10-17].

Decision: Review petitions dismissed – No grounds for review established – High Court's judgment and compensation rates upheld [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Right to Cross-Examination – Appellant, a Sub Divisional Officer in BSNL, facing trial for demanding and receiving a bribe, sought recall of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination after their examination-in-chief – Trial Court and High Court denied the recall, citing lack of initial request to defer cross-examination – Supreme Court held that denial of cross-examination would result in serious miscarriage of justice, emphasizing the importance of cross-examination in testing the credibility of witnesses [Paras 1-7, 9-10, 12-16].

Mistake by Counsel – Supreme Court accepted the explanation that the appellant's counsel mistakenly believed cross-examination could be conducted after the Trap Laying Officer's testimony – Court emphasized the need to avoid penalizing the appellant for counsel's mistake, ensuring a fair trial by allowing recall of witnesses for cross-examination [Paras 7, 10-11].

Section 311 CrPC – Supreme Court reiterated that Section 311 confers wide discretionary power on courts to summon and examine witnesses at any stage if essential for a just decision – Emphasized judicious exercise of this power to prevent failure of justice [Paras 12-15].

Judicial Precedents – Court referred to precedents emphasizing the duty of courts to discover the truth and ensure fair trials, reinforcing the principle that cross-examination is crucial for assessing witness credibility [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Trial Court directed to recall prosecution witnesses No. 1 and 2 for cross-examination by the appellant – Proceedings to be expedited with specific hearing dates assigned for each witness [Paras 17].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Appellants convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC for assaulting and causing the death of the deceased – High Court upheld conviction and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000 each – Supreme Court considered the circumstances and reduced the sentences of both appellants [Paras 2-4].

Incident and Background – The deceased, an Income Tax Inspector, objected to a nuisance being committed near his house by Sudhir, leading to a verbal altercation – The next day, the appellants, related to Sudhir, assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death – Appellant Bishnu Sarkar exhorted the assault while Madhab Sarkar inflicted the fatal injuries [Paras 3-4].

Age and Health Considerations – Appellant Bishnu Sarkar, over 65 years old, had already served 1.5 years in jail and was suffering from age-related ailments – Court took a lenient view in his case due to his age and health condition [Paras 5-6].

No Premeditation or Intent to Kill – Court noted the lack of evidence for premeditation or intent to kill – Incident arose from a sudden quarrel with no previous enmity, mitigating factors leading to reduced sentences [Paras 8].

Reduction of Sentences – Appellant Bishnu Sarkar's sentence reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment – Appellant Madhab Sarkar's sentence reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment – Sentence of fine and default imprisonment remained unaltered [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Sentences modified as indicated – Three years rigorous imprisonment for Bishnu Sarkar and seven years for Madhab Sarkar – Fine and default imprisonment unaltered [Paras 8-9].

Local Self-Government – Locus Standi – The appellant, Village Panchayat Calangute, challenged the orders of the Bombay High Court's Goa Bench, which dismissed their writ petitions questioning the actions of the Additional Director of Panchayat – The Supreme Court addressed whether a Village Panchayat established under Section 3 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, has the locus to file writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution [Paras 1-2].

Powers and Functions of Panchayats – Detailed analysis of the constitutional provisions and the Goa Panchayat Raj Act – Emphasized that Panchayats are institutions of self-governance endowed with powers and authority for economic development and social justice – Reviewed the statutory framework, including the duties of Sarpanch and powers related to regulation of building constructions and water supply management [Paras 10-19].

Judicial Review and Public Interest – Supreme Court held that the Panchayat, representing the interests of village residents, has the right to challenge orders that affect public welfare, such as unauthorized constructions blocking access to essential resources – Highlighted the role of Panchayats in enforcing legal compliance and safeguarding public interest [Paras 20-22].

Case Analysis – Reviewed precedents where local bodies and Panchayats were recognized to have the locus standi to file writ petitions – Cited relevant cases to support the Panchayat's standing, reinforcing the principle that local self-government bodies can seek judicial intervention to uphold public rights [Paras 23-26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Writ petitions filed by the appellant restored to their original numbers for adjudication on merits – High Court directed to issue notice to respondents and decide writ petitions on merits – Appellant permitted to apply for interim relief, to be decided by the High Court [Paras 27-28].

Adherence to Schedule – Admission and Affiliation – Petitioners challenged the denial of affiliation for not meeting the cut-off date – Supreme Court emphasized strict adherence to the schedule for admission and affiliation set by previous judgments – No exceptions to the prescribed schedule permitted – Authorities directed to process applications within the stipulated timeframe [Paras 1-19].

Statutory Obligations – Recognition and Affiliation – Court highlighted the statutory obligation of universities and state authorities to comply with the timeframes for recognition and affiliation as per NCTE Regulations and previous court judgments – Any deviation or delay amounts to contempt of court [Paras 20-26].

Doctrine of Repugnancy – Conflict Between State and Central Laws – Discussed the principle of repugnancy where state laws conflict with central laws, particularly in the context of educational regulations – Central law prevails in case of direct conflict [Paras 27-33].

Decision – Writ Petitions and Appeals Disposed of – Held – Petitioners directed to comply with the stipulated schedules – Authorities to consider applications for affiliation within three months – No relief granted to institutions failing to meet cut-off dates – Directions issued for strict adherence to schedules in future [Paras 34-36].

Arbitration – Survivability of Arbitration Agreement – Arbitration clause naming two arbitrators who passed away – Whether the arbitration agreement survives the death of the named arbitrators – Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause does not automatically terminate upon the death of named arbitrators – Parties can appoint substitute arbitrators unless expressly prohibited [Paras 1-24].

Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – The appointment of substitute arbitrators must follow the same procedure as the initial appointment – Court emphasizes a liberal interpretation to support the efficacy of arbitration [Paras 14-17].

Arbitration Clause Interpretation – Words "at any time" in the arbitration clause – Court interpreted it contextually and reasonably to mean the agreement remains active as long as disputes exist, not limited to the lifetime of the named arbitrators [Paras 18-22].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court justified in appointing a substitute arbitrator – Arbitration clause survives the death of the named arbitrators [Paras 23-24].