Public Premises Act – Sections 3 & 4 – Constitutional Challenge and Appointment of Estate Officer – Dismissed – Writ petitions/appeals assailed (i) Section 3 and its second proviso as violative of Article 14 (“judge in his own cause”), (ii) show cause under Sections 4(1)-(2), and (iii) appointments under Allocation of Business Rules – Held: Section 3 valid; officer of a statutory authority can be appointed as Estate Officer for premises controlled by that authority; “no man a judge in his own cause” triggers only on proof of personal bias/interest or prior decision – not shown on facts; challenge to Section 4 notices fails – appeals/writs dismissed [Paras 7–10, 13–14, 17].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Dual Procedure & Speedy Eviction – Validity Upheld – Northern India Caterers’ view explained/overruled by larger Bench in Maganlal Chhaganlal; special, speedier procedure for eviction from public premises is a guided class and not arbitrary; opinion in Special Courts Bill, 1978 affirms Maganlal reasoning – No violation of Article 14 [Paras 8–10].

Repugnancy – Article 254(1)/(2) – Maharashtra Rent Control Act vs. Public Premises Act – Central Law Prevails – Premises of nationalised banks/statutory corporations fall under Public Premises Act; by Article 254(1) and the proviso to Article 254(2), later Parliamentary law prevails even over State law with Presidential assent; Accountant & Secretarial Services applied – Tenant cannot claim protection of State Rent Act against proceedings under Public Premises Act [Paras 5, 11–12].

Bias/Impartiality – Estate Officer from Same Authority – Test – Doctrine of “no man judge in his own cause” attracted only if personal bias/interest or prior participation in the very matter is shown – Mere employment with the statutory authority insufficient – Delhi Financial Corporation v. Rajiv Anand followed – On ASG’s statement, the officer involved in eviction matters would not preside; no bias made out [Paras 13–14, 17].

Administrative Law – Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 & Article 77 – Directory – Decentralization of Appointment Power – Validity – Rules are administrative/directory; breach does not ipso facto vitiate appointment – Power to appoint Estate Officers decentralized by O.M. dated 29.11.1972 authorizing Ministries/Departments to appoint for undertakings under their control; appointment by Finance Ministry valid [Paras 15].

Notifications – 29.07.1988 and 25.01.1993 – No Vitiation – Appointee being a Gazetted Officer (Assistant General Manager, SBI), nothing turns on alleged supersession – proceedings to continue [Para 16].

Decision – Appeals and writ petitions dismissed – Estate Officer to proceed and dispose expeditiously – No costs [Para 17].

Contract – Conditional Tender/Accord & Satisfaction – Section 8, Contract Act – Railway sent cheques with express condition that retention/encashment would be “full and final settlement”; consignee encashed cheques and later wrote protest – Held: Acceptance by conduct; protest must precede encashment to avoid accord; absent proof of timely protest, balance claim barred – Appeals dismissed [Paras 2–8, 15–18, 19].

Acceptance by Conduct – Mode Prescribed by Offer – Where offer stipulates return of cheque if not accepted in full and final terms, encashment without prior reservation constitutes unequivocal acceptance; offeree cannot resile after encashment [Paras 15–17].

Burden of Proof – Timing of Protest – Onus on claimant to plead and prove that protest/non-acceptance was communicated before encashment; in absence of pleadings/evidence of dates, Court presumes acceptance by conduct [Para 18].

Distinction Drawn – Protest Before Encashment vs. After – Gauhati view in “Assam Bengal Cereals” (protest before encashment, delayed encashment) distinguished; principle in “Rameshwarlal Bhagchand” (post-encashment protest ineffective) applied on facts [Paras 9–11].

Precedents Re: “Under Protest” & Section 63 – “Under protest” may negate accord if reservation is contemporaneous (see Amar Nath Chand Prakash); Section 63 cases like Kapur Chand Godha turned on clear “full satisfaction” endorsements—here facts show unconditional acceptance by encashment; MP HC decision in Gangaram Bhagwandas turned on contrary facts (no acceptance in full satisfaction), hence inapplicable [Paras 12–14, 16].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Orders of Railway Claims Tribunal and High Court upholding full and final settlement by encashment affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 19].

Companies Act – Scheme of Arrangement – Entitlement of Pre-scheme Unsecured Creditors – Payment Directed – The appellants challenged the Calcutta High Court’s decision refusing payments under a Court-sanctioned Scheme on the ground that their claims had not been adjudicated – Held: The appellants were pre-scheme unsecured creditors whose claims had been adjudicated by the Registrar and accepted by the Company Judge – The High Court erred in ordering re-adjudication and withholding disbursement from funds earmarked solely for unsecured creditors – Supreme Court restored the right to receive payments and directed immediate release [Paras 24-27, 36].

Companies Act – Section 529A – Inapplicability to Running Concerns – Workers’ Priority Not Invocable – The respondents argued that workers’ dues must take priority under Section 529A – Held: Since the winding-up was stayed under Section 466 and the company continued as a going concern, Section 529A was not applicable – The protective umbrella of workers’ priority becomes relevant only during actual winding-up proceedings, not under a revived Scheme of Arrangement [Paras 30, 34].

EPF Act – Section 11(2) – No Charge over Court-Earmarked Funds – The workers' unions sought priority for Provident Fund dues relying on Section 11(2) of the EPF Act – Held: The statutory charge under Section 11(2) is over the assets of the establishment, not over funds earmarked by specific court orders for unsecured creditors – Workers’ claims under the EPF Act do not override prior directions of this Court allocating funds for a distinct class of creditors [Paras 29-30, 32].

Company Law – Finality of Registrar’s Adjudication – Re-Adjudication Impermissible – The High Court Division Bench directed fresh adjudication of the appellants’ claims – Held: Such direction was erroneous since the Registrar had already adjudicated the claims, which were accepted in binding orders by both the Single Judge and earlier Division Bench – Principle of finality of adjudication upheld [Paras 25-26, 36].

Evidence – Workers’ Objections Found Unsubstantiated – The workers’ unions objected to payments to the appellants alleging self-serving disbursements – Held: No concrete evidence was provided to substantiate these claims – The Court found that the Registrar had examined the claims with the assistance of a Chartered Accountant and that the process was transparent and fair [Para 35].

Disbursement of Funds – Release of Dues Directed – Supreme Court clarified that the funds with the Registrar were meant exclusively for unsecured creditors under the Scheme – All other similarly placed creditors had been paid – Appellants were wrongfully excluded – Held: Registrar directed to release dues and return the Bank Guarantees furnished by the appellants – Appeals allowed; workers' claims to this fund rejected [Paras 36-37].

Service Law – Voluntary Retirement – Disciplinary Proceedings Dropped – Retiral Benefits Directed – Rule 592, Punjab CSR – Appeals Dismissed – Respondent sought voluntary retirement citing ill health during pendency of disciplinary proceedings – Department dropped the proceedings and, following assurance to the High Court, accepted voluntary retirement w.e.f. 05.06.1969, yet withheld benefits – Held: Having represented to the High Court that appropriate orders would be passed and having in fact accepted voluntary retirement, the State could not later resist payment on technical pleas under Rule 592 – Appeals dismissed and High Court’s directions for release of retiral/pensionary benefits sustained [Paras 2-5, 7, 10, 12].

Administrative Law – Representation to Court – Estoppel/Fairness – When a responsible officer assures the Court and passes a consequential order, the State must honour it – If acceptance was erroneous, the authority ought to have recalled it after following natural justice; having not done so, State bound by its order and Court’s direction – Judicial process cannot be trifled with [Paras 7-8, 10-11].

Procedure – New Pleas in Review – Not Permissible – The contention that Rule 592 barred pension/VR and that VR rules were not in force was either not raised or not pursued in writ proceedings – Such issues could not be introduced effectively in review; proper remedy, if submissions were ignored, was to approach the High Court appropriately – Review rightly dismissed [Paras 8-9].

Service Consequences – Dropping of Disciplinary Proceedings – Non-Acceptance of VR – Deemed Continuation – Where proceedings are dropped and VR is not accepted, employee would be deemed in service till superannuation, logically entitling him to retiral benefits under law – State directed to pay benefits pursuant to its own position before the High Court [Para 10].

High Court Directions – Medical Retirement Treatment – Pension Window – Not Interfered With – High Court treated the case as retirement on medical grounds and limited pensionary arrears to three years and two months preceding the writ filing date – Supreme Court, in the peculiar facts, declined interference [Paras 5, 12].

Costs – State’s Conduct Deprecated – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on the State; prior GPF payment direction noted [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s orders affirmed – State to release retiral/pensionary benefits as directed; costs of ₹10,000 to respondent [Para 12].

Criminal Law - Rape and Abduction – Sections 366 and 376 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted of abducting and raping the prosecutrix based on her statement under Section 164 CrPC and medical evidence – The conviction by the Trial Court and its affirmation by the High Court were supported by reliable and sufficient prosecution evidence – Held: No ground to interfere with findings of guilt under Sections 366 and 376 IPC [Paras 1-3].

Criminal Sentencing – Reduction in Sentence – Changed Circumstances Considered – Sentence Reduced – The prosecutrix had since been married and was settled in her life – This fact was affirmed by her father’s statement as well – Held: In view of the peculiar facts and to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of seven years was reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment [Para 3].

Article 136 – Scope of Interference – Supreme Court’s Limited Intervention – The Court exercised its discretion under Article 136 to modify only the sentence and not the conviction – Held: Modification of sentence justified considering subsequent developments and absence of aggravating factors [Para 3].

Final Relief – Sentence Modified – Conviction Maintained – The Court modified the judgment of the High Court to the extent of reducing the sentence to three years rigorous imprisonment – Appeal partly allowed accordingly [Para 4].

Departmental Inquiry – Disagreement with Enquiry Officer – Natural Justice – Rule 3(1), Rule 18(3) CCS (Conduct) Rules – Remand Ordered – Inspector (Central Excise) was exonerated by Enquiry Officer; Disciplinary Authority recorded tentative disagreement and sought reply but passed removal order without considering the employee’s representation filed before communication of the order – Held: When disagreeing with exoneration, Disciplinary Authority must record tentative reasons, furnish them, and give a real opportunity; even if no reply/late reply, the Authority must independently re-appraise the record before recording guilt; failure vitiates the penalty – Orders of Disciplinary, Appellate, Revisional Authorities, CAT and HC set aside; matter remitted; appellant deemed under suspension; back wages subject to final outcome [Paras 14-18, 20].

Opportunity to Represent – “Prejudice” Not a Pre-condition – Rule 50(3) SBI Rules (pari materia) – Where the Authority differs from the Enquiry Officer, the right to make an effective representation to persuade acceptance of favourable findings is integral; the ‘prejudice’ test does not dilute this requirement – Followed: PNB v. Kunj Behari Misra; SBI v. K.P. Narayanan Kutty [Paras 16-17].

Communication of Order – Dispatch/Service – Legal Effect – A dismissal/removal order attains effect upon communication/service; until dispatch, the Authority retains jurisdiction to consider a pending representation filed before communication – Followed: State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika; Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba [Paras 18-19].

Standard of Proof & CBI Closure – Relevance in Departmental Proceedings – Though departmental standard is preponderance of probabilities, closure report after thorough investigation is a relevant circumstance; Authority must apply mind to the enquiry record in light of such closure and cannot rest solely on tentative reasons – Direction to re-consider accordingly [Para 18].

Extension of Time to Reply – Principles – Even where time extensions had lapsed and Authority contemplated decision, receipt of the employee’s representation prior to communication required consideration; refusal without examination constitutes denial of fair opportunity [Paras 14-15, 18-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Removal order dated 08.04.1997 and consequential appellate/revisional/CAT/HC orders set aside – Matter remitted to Disciplinary Authority for fresh decision after considering the representation and granting personal hearing – Appellant deemed under suspension; back wages to abide by final decision [Para 20].

Civil Law - Pleading Amendment – Scope under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Liberal Interpretation Favoured – Amendment Allowed – Plaintiffs, as beneficiaries of a Trust, sought to amend plaint to include relief for sale of trust-held shares and reinvestment for better returns – Trial Court allowed amendment – High Court reversed, holding it introduced new and inconsistent case – Supreme Court held: Amendment did not alter basic structure of suit or cause of action – Even if relief is changed, real controversy remains intact – Courts should not enter merits at amendment stage – Amendment allowed [Paras 9–13, 20–22].

Trust Law – Beneficiaries’ Rights – Sections 60 and 61 of Indian Trusts Act – Amendment Consistent – Appellants contended that amendment sought to enforce accountability of trustee and better application of trust assets – Respondents argued amendment sought re-writing of trust deed – Supreme Court held: Seeking sale of assets and reinvestment for beneficiary benefit is not beyond scope of Sections 60 and 61 – Pleading amendments consistent with enforcement rights of beneficiaries under Trusts Act [Paras 14–15].

Civil Procedure – Stage of Amendment – Post-Issues Framing Permissible – Amendment Not Barred – Though issues were framed and pleadings completed, proposed amendment arose from continuing cause of action and events during pendency – Held: Real controversy test must prevail – Amendment that aids complete adjudication should not be barred by procedural stage [Paras 12, 20–21].

Abuse of Process – Allegation of Mala Fide – Court Cautions Against Prejudging Merits – High Court observed amendment was not bona fide and politically motivated – Supreme Court held: Courts should not decide truth or falsehood of claims at amendment stage – No evidence of mala fides – Plaintiffs’ suit based on plausible grievance as trust beneficiaries [Paras 13, 21].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's order refusing amendment set aside – Amendment of plaint restored – Trial to proceed on amended pleadings – High Court directed to dispose of suit within six months [Paras 21–22].

Criminal Law - Preventive Detention – COFEPOSA – Pre-execution interference under Article 226 – Detention Quashed – Appellant challenged detention order before execution alleging coercion, torture, retracted confession and non-consideration of vital material – Held: Case falls within exceptions (iii) and (iv) of Alka Subhash Gadia – order passed for a wrong purpose and on vague/extraneous grounds due to withholding of relevant status report and unexplained delay – Detention set aside [Paras 9–11, 12–15, 18–20].

COFEPOSA – Non-placement of Vital Documents – Subjective Satisfaction Vitiated – Status report dated 15.02.2005 allegedly negating detention was not placed before detaining authority – State termed it “internal correspondence” – Held: Non-placement of relevant and vital material vitiates subjective satisfaction; principle reinforced by K.S. Nagamuthu – Detention unsustainable [Paras 13–14, 19–20].

Delay – Live Link and Proximity – Unexplained Delay Fatal – Raid on 26.05.2004; detention order only on 31.03.2005; no prosecution or show cause even thereafter – Applying T.A. Abdul Rahaman, undue and unexplained delay snaps live link between alleged activities and purpose of detention – Detention invalid [Paras 15–18, 20].

Customs Act Section 108 Confession – Retraction and Medical Evidence – Appellant retracted confession at first opportunity; medical officer noted injuries contemporaneously – While redemption certificates by DGFT do not by themselves nullify detention, cumulative factors of retraction, injuries and lack of prosecutorial action undermine satisfaction for preventive detention [Paras 3, 6, 12, 15–16, 20].

Alka Subhash Gadia Doctrine – Limited Grounds for Pre-execution Quash – Applied – Supreme Court reiterates limited pre-execution review yet intervenes where order is for wrong purpose and based on vague/extraneous grounds; distinguishes cases where mere delay in execution is pleaded without more [Paras 9–11, 20].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Detention order dated 31.03.2005 quashed – Grounds (iii) and (iv) of Alka Subhash Gadia attracted – No costs [Para 20].

Land Acquisition – Section 28A Redetermination vis-à-vis Final Appellate Award – Appeals Allowed – Notifications under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1); compensation enhanced by Reference Court under Section 18; while SLPs were pending, Collector redetermined compensation under Section 28A for non-reference holders – Held: “Compensation payable” under Section 28A means the compensation finally payable to Section 18 reference claimants as modified in appeal; applicants under Section 28A cannot retain a higher amount than that finally awarded to Section 18 claimants – Excess, if any, is refundable – Directions issued to redetermine in accordance with this Court’s judgment dated 29.04.1997 in UOI v. Mangatu Ram [Paras 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12].

Parity, Merger & Restitution – Equal Treatment of Landowners under Same Notification – Outcome: Parity Enforced – Rationale: Section 28A is an equity-advancing provision extending to non-reference holders the benefit of judicial enhancement; when appellate courts reduce compensation in reference matters, principles of merger and restitution require corresponding alignment for Section 28A beneficiaries to avoid the incongruous result of non-reference holders receiving more than reference claimants [Paras 6, 8, 10].

Writ Petitions – Delay/Laches – High Court Dismissal on Delay Set Aside in Effect – Union’s challenge to 28A orders filed in 1995—before appellate reduction in 1997 – Held: At the time of 28A orders (1990) they were justified; challenge prior to appellate modification would have been premature; appeals allowed with prospective alignment to final compensation—Collector directed to recompute and pay within three months [Paras 5, 9, 12].

Section 18 v. Section 28A – Scope & Entitlement – Outcome: Section 28A Pegged to Final Section 18 Result – Detailed Reasoning: Section 28A confers the same benefit as that ultimately due to reference claimants; decree of the Reference Court must be understood as the decree as modified by superior courts; applicants under Section 28A may be directed to refund excess consequent upon reduction in appeal [Paras 8, 10].

Ancillary – Payment Status & Limitation – Outcome: Administrative Directions – Court noted no payments yet made under Section 28A; limitation objections against some respondents not pressed by UOI and hence not considered [Paras 11, 13].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s dismissal on delay does not preclude alignment – Collector directed to redetermine compensation payable to respondents in accordance with this Court’s decree dated 29.04.1997 (UOI v. Mangatu Ram) and to pay within three months [Para 12].