Amendment of Plaint in Partition Suit – High Court allowed respondents No. 1 and 2 to amend plaint for declaring a compromise decree as null and void – Appellant challenged this amendment, arguing it changed the nature of the suit from partition to declaration and was impermissible at the trial's end stage. [Paras 2, 3, 3.1]

Legal Principles on Amendment and Trial – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC prohibits amendments after trial commencement unless due diligence is proven – Respondents failed to show due diligence in their amendment application filed at the trial's end. [Paras 3.1, 8]

Challenge to Compromise Decree – According to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, a compromise decree can only be challenged in the court that passed it – Respondents' plea for declaring the decree null and void was time-barred under the Limitation Act. [Paras 3.4, 7]

Limitation Act – Challenge to Compromise Decree – Time Barred Amendment – The Court held that the application to amend the plaint seeking to challenge a compromise decree was time barred. The application, filed more than five years after the decree, was beyond the statutory limitation period for challenging a decree, thereby accruing rights in favor of the appellant that could not be disrupted through late amendments. [Para 12.1]

Judicial Estoppel – Impact of Consent Decree – Binding Nature unless Set Aside – The Court reiterated the principle of judicial estoppel, noting that a consent decree is binding and operates as an estoppel unless set aside by an order under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. [Para 7]

Prejudice to Appellant and Suit Nature – Amendment, filed after 5 years of compromise decree, would cause undue prejudice to appellant and change the fundamental nature of the suit – Amendment sought was barred by limitation, impacting appellant's accrued rights. [Paras 12, 12.1]

Parties to Compromise Decree – Not all parties to the original compromise decree were part of the present litigation, further questioning the maintainability of the amendment. [Para 13]

Decision – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint – Respondents ordered to pay costs of ₹1,00,000/- to the appellant. [Para 14]

Reconsideration of Asian Resurfacing Judgment – Concerning High Court's power in interim order management in criminal and civil cases – Reevaluation of whether automatic vacation of interim orders after six months, directed under Asian Resurfacing, aligns with the principles of justice. [Paras 1-4, 36-37]

Constitutional Law – Powers of Supreme Court under Article 142 – Held – The Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 are extensive but cannot be used to contravene substantive statutory provisions or principles of natural justice. Directions for automatic vacation of interim orders, applicable to all High Courts, exceed the scope of Article 142 and are not permissible. [Para 36, 37]

Interim Orders – Automatic Vacation – Inadmissibility – Held – Interim orders granted by High Courts should not automatically expire merely due to lapse of time. Such a directive cannot be issued under the Supreme Court’s Article 142 powers. The termination of interim orders must follow judicial processes and adhere to principles of natural justice. [Para 36, 37]

High Courts – Powers and Functions – Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution – Held – High Courts, being constitutional courts, are not subordinate to the Supreme Court. Their powers under Articles 226 and 227 include issuing interim orders and should not be unduly restricted. The Supreme Court’s directions should not undermine the independent functioning and powers of High Courts. [Para 23, 24]

Judicial Legislation – Limitations – Held – The Supreme Court, while exercising its powers, should avoid entering the domain of legislation, which is the exclusive prerogative of the legislature. Setting time limits for the disposal of cases or issuing blanket orders for automatic vacation of stays amounts to judicial legislation and is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. [Para 28, 29]

Natural Justice – Importance in Judicial Decisions – Held – Adherence to the principles of natural justice is fundamental in the judicial decision-making process. Orders impacting the rights of parties, including vacating interim orders, require proper judicial examination and cannot be determined automatically or arbitrarily. [Para 17, 35]

Guidelines for Granting and Vacating Interim Relief – High Courts should consider guidelines for granting ex-parte ad-interim relief and prioritize hearing applications for vacating such relief. While detailed reasons may not be required, orders should indicate consideration of relevant factors [Para 34, 37d].

Disposition – Directions in Asian Resurfacing Overruled – The Supreme Court overruled the directions issued in Asian Resurfacing regarding automatic vacation of stay and fixed timelines for case disposal. Emphasized the need for judicial discretion and adherence to principles of natural justice in dealing with interim orders. [Para 38]

Property Ownership Dispute - Contest over ownership and possession of a house in Ishwaripura Ward, Katni - Plaintiff, Savitri Bai, claimed ownership based on a registered Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979, whereas the first defendant asserted her possession through a Will dated 23.03.1977 - Trial court and First Appellate Court sided with the first defendant, but High Court favored the plaintiff - Supreme Court set aside High Court's decision, restoring Trial and First Appellate Courts' judgments [Paras 1-5, 9-10, 16-17].

Will's Validity and Sale Deed Scrutiny - Will in favor of Meghraj, son of the first defendant, was contested - Supreme Court found the Will duly proved, meeting requirements under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sale Deed signed by the first defendant deemed irrelevant as Meghraj was not a party to it [Paras 8, 14-15].

Evidence Assessment - High Court's disregard for the Will and overemphasis on the first defendant's signature on the Sale Deed critiqued - Supreme Court highlighted the first defendant's lack of education and her signing multiple sale deeds in good faith, without fully understanding the implications [Paras 11-14, 16].

Decision - Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal - Set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the decisions of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court - Parties to bear their own costs [Para 17].

Property Rights - Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions - Land Ownership - Scheme for Alternative Accommodation - The Supreme Court adjudicated on a special leave petition arising from a judgment of the High Court concerning the demolition of unauthorized constructions on government-owned land. The petitioner, not claiming ownership, was directed to vacate the premises by a specified date. The Court ordered the petitioner to remove belongings and apply for alternative accommodation as per the scheme outlined by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). Demolition was sanctioned post the deadline, with provision for documenting and returning belongings. The order extended to similar cases upon compliance with its terms, ensuring equitable treatment.

Criminal Law - Bail - Voluntary Marriage - Accusations of Abduction and Rape - The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant who was accused of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The appellant sought bail contending that the victim had voluntarily married him, as per her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The Court noted that the victim's age was disputed, with the appellant claiming she was of marriageable age, while the complainant alleged she was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court granted bail to the appellant, considering his custody since December 2022 and subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court. [Para 3-6]

Income Tax – Deduction of Tax at Source – Section 194-H – The Supreme Court clarified the applicability of Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning tax deduction at source on commission or brokerage payments. The issue involved the assessment of whether cellular service providers were liable to deduct tax at source on the income/profit component in the payments received by distributors/franchisees from third parties. [Para 1, 32-42]

Agency Relationship – Principal and Agent – The Court examined the legal relationship between principal and agent, distinguishing it from other relationships like employer-employee and principal-principal. It emphasized the necessity of a principal-agent relationship for the application of Section 194-H, underscoring the technical nature of agency law and the importance of control exercised by the principal over the agent's conduct. [Para 6-11, 37-41]

Franchisee-Distributor Agreements – Independent Contractor – Analyzed the nature of franchisee-distributor agreements in the context of cellular service providers. The Court observed that despite strict regulations and close relationships in such agreements, the parties involved often operate as independent contractors rather than agents, thereby not attracting the applicability of Section 194-H. [Para 39-40]

Decision – Non-Applicability of Section 194-H – The Court held that Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the income/profit component in the payments received by distributors/franchisees from third parties. It clarified that cellular service providers are not legally obligated to deduct tax at source on such transactions, given the absence of a principal-agent relationship. The judgments of the High Courts of Delhi and Calcutta were set aside, and the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgments of High Courts of Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Bombay were dismissed. [Para 42]

Rejection of Default Bail by High Court – Appellant aggrieved by the rejection of default bail in connection with FIR.No.152/2022 for alleged possession of 340 gms of smack (morphine) – High Court’s decision based on incomplete charge-sheet filed without FSL/Chemical examiner report. [Para 2]

Consideration for Regular Bail – Supreme Court declined to entertain the default bail but considered regular bail due to the appellant spending more than 1 year and 11 months in custody and the delay in framing charges and trial conclusion. [Paras 6, 8]

Question of Conscious Possession of Contraband – A debatable question of fact concerning the appellant’s conscious possession of the contraband – To be determined by the Trial Court at an appropriate stage. [Para 9]

Application of Section 37 of the Act – The twin test of Section 37 of the Act not invoked against the appellant at this stage. [Para 9]

Bail Granted – Considering the totality of circumstances and without expressing views on the merits, appellant granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds, reporting to the local police station twice a month, and passport deposition. Bail may be cancelled if appellant found involved in another case. [Paras 10-11]

Curative Petition Procedure and Maintainability - Question of maintainability of curative petitions after open court dismissal of review petitions - Analysis of Rule 5 of Order XV and Rule 2(1) of Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - The Registrar's refusal to register curative petitions based solely on the ground of review petitions being dismissed in open court found to be inappropriate. [Paras 1, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22]

Curative Petition - Maintainability and Procedure - curative petitions as a means to rectify miscarriages of justice, the Court scrutinized the relevant provisions under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and pertinent case laws. The judgment clarified the Registrar's role and the procedural nuances in dealing with curative petitions, especially when the corresponding review petitions were dismissed in open court. [Para 1-14, 18-21]

Judicial Review of Registrar's Decision - The Court held that the decision to register or reject a curative petition is a judicial matter and should not be solely at the Registrar's discretion. It underscored that the Registrar’s refusal to register a curative petition based solely on the review petition’s dismissal in open court is not in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Court established that such matters should be presented before a judicial bench for appropriate adjudication. [Para 10, 13, 18-19]

Specifics of Filing Curative Petitions - The judgment provided clarity on the process of filing curative petitions. It specified the necessity of including an application to be excused from the requirement of averring that the review petition was dismissed by circulation, in cases where the review petition was dismissed in open court. The procedure to be followed by the Registry in such cases was also elaborated upon. [Para 20-21]

Decision on the Appeals - While the Court set aside the Registrar's order for not being in line with the prescribed rules, it declined to entertain the curative petitions in the case at hand. The Court concluded that the appellants failed to present sufficient grounds warranting the invocation of curative jurisdiction, and thus, saw no merit in remanding the matter back to the Registrar. [Para 22-23]

Disposition - The Court disposed of the appeal and related miscellaneous applications, affirming the non-entertainment of the curative petitions filed by Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries and others. The decision was extended to cover similar appeals arising out of the Registrar's order, thereby bringing a conclusive end to these proceedings. [Para 24-26]

Tenancy and Ejectment – Ejectment of Tenants from Temple Properties – The Supreme Court dealt with petitions involving tenants occupying shops in temple properties managed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The tenants were declared encroachers post-termination of their lease/licence, leading to ejectment orders. [Para 1-2]

Dispute Resolution – Amicable Settlement – The Court noted the efforts of counsel leading to a mutually agreeable resolution between the landlords (temple authorities) and tenants. Specific terms for ejectment and continued occupation under certain conditions were agreed upon. [Para 3-4]

Terms of Settlement – Specific Conditions for Ejectment and Continued Occupation – The Court outlined detailed conditions for the ejectment of 19 tenants who failed to clear arrears and for 51 tenants allowed a further six-month occupation under revised rent rates of 2015. Conditions included no property damage, adherence to municipal by-laws, clearance of statutory dues, and reduced rent payment for the COVID-19 pandemic period. [Para 4(a)-(i)]

Development Rights – Preferential Treatment for Existing Tenants – In case of future property development, the existing tenants (51 in number) were granted preferential treatment in shop allotment, subject to participation in the allotment process and matching the highest bid price. [Para 4(f)]

Compliance and Undertaking – Filing of Undertaking by Tenants – Tenants were directed to file an undertaking agreeing to the terms within three weeks. Non-compliance could lead to ejectment proceedings and contempt actions. [Para 4(g)-(j), 5]

Order – Disposal of Petitions and Applications – The Court disposed of the petitions and any pending applications in the terms agreed upon by the parties. [Para 5]