Civil Appeal – Allotment of Land – Change of Activity – Discrepancy in Allotment Rate – Appellant, a public sector undertaking, allotted land for IT-related activity – Respondent seeks change to Hospitality sector – Dispute arises over the applicable rate for change – Audit objection claims loss due to incorrect rate – Interpretation of allotment terms and applicable rate for change – Proceedings before Single Judge and Division Bench – Allegations of unjustified demand and abuse of process – Challenge to delay and application of Limitation Act – Examination of relevant clauses in the allotment and agreement – Whether appellant entitled to higher rate for change in activity – Discussion on audit objection and prevailing rates – Admissibility of Limitation Act – Appeal filed. [Para 1-19]

Land Conversion Charges – Rate of conversion charges for change of land use from IT sector industry to Hospitality sector – Appellant initially demanded a higher rate but later realized the audit objection was correct – Resolution of the 141^st Board Meeting determined the rate as per government guidance value – Appellant obligated to adhere to the Board’s decision. [Para 20-22]

Public Interest – Appellant is a state-owned corporation, and any loss affects the public exchequer – Respondent shifted purpose from IT industry to Hospitality sector – Non-recovery of conversion charges would not be in public interest – All similarly situated allottees have paid per the 141^st Board Meeting decision. [Para 21]

Clerical Error – Clerical staff and officers applied an incorrect tentative rate for conversion charges – Mistake cannot override the Board’s decision in the 141^st Meeting – Bona fide mistake could have been corrected. [Para 22]

Audit Objections – Respondent’s objections to the audit report regarding financial loss due to conversion charges are contrary to the 141^st Board Meeting decision – No fault found with the audit objections – Terms and conditions in the Letter of Allotment and Lease Agreement upheld. [Para 23]

Binding Terms – Letter of Allotment and Lease Agreement stipulated a tentative rate, and the final rate would be binding – Respondent bound by the rate determined in the 141^st Board Meeting. [Para 24]

Delay in Appeal – Appellant filed review applications, causing delay in filing the appeal – Division Bench failed to exercise discretion to condone the delay – Prejudice and financial loss to the public entity – Delay should have been condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [Para 25]

Timely Rate Determination – Argument that final rate should have been determined earlier is not valid – Final rate determined in the 141^st Board Meeting before the respondent’s application – No merit in relying on the phrase ‘as soon as it may be’ in Clause 13(b) or the judgment in Prakash Dal Mill case. [Para 26]

Decision – The demand for conversion charges is upheld, and the appeal is allowed – Impugned judgments set aside – Respondent’s writ petition dismissed. [Para 28]

Civil Appeal – Eviction from a tenanted shop under Section 13-B of the Act – Tenant challenges the eviction order – Grounds raised by the tenant for leave to defend the eviction application examined – Tenant disputes the ownership of the landlord and argues that the summary eviction is not maintainable – Tenant also claims that the landlord possesses other shops, which disqualifies the eviction under Section 13-B – High Court and Rent Controller reject the tenant's pleas – Matter brought to the Supreme Court – Court holds that the tenant failed to disclose facts disentitling the landlord from obtaining an eviction order under Section 13-B – Court dismisses the appeal. [Para 13-19]

Civil Appeal – Eviction from a tenanted shop under Section 13-B of the Act – Tenant challenges the eviction order – Grounds raised by the tenant for leave to defend the eviction application examined – Tenant disputes the ownership of the landlord and argues that the summary eviction is not maintainable – Tenant also claims that the landlord possesses other shops, which disqualifies the eviction under Section 13-B – High Court and Rent Controller reject the tenant's pleas – Matter brought to the Supreme Court – Court holds that the tenant failed to disclose facts disentitling the landlord from obtaining an eviction order under Section 13-B – Court dismisses the appeal. [Para 13-19]

Civil Appeal – Eviction proceedings – Challenge to the Order of Eviction – Grounds for eviction under Section 13-B of the Act – Appellant seeks relief from eviction – Maintaining the eviction application – Status of the Respondent as a Non-Resident Indian – Ownership of the tenanted premises – Denial of the landlady-tenant relationship – Maintainability of a joint Application for eviction – Appellant's plea against eviction of a dead person – Dismissal of the Application for leave to defend – Rent Controller's findings in favor of the Respondent – High Court's affirmation of the eviction order – Appellant's limited challenge before the High Court – Scope of consideration in the Civil Appeal – Additional documents filed in a connected Appeal – Failure to make out a case for interference – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1-19]

Civil Appeal – Application for directions to issue Sale letter – Applicant (original Respondent No.6) seeking Sale letter for property based on full and final payment of auction amount with interest – Multiple extensions sought by the Applicant – Compliance with statutory provisions and court orders questioned – Application for directions questioned on grounds of maintainability. [Para 1-18]

Banking and Financial Regulations – Mortgage of property as security for credit facilities – Initiation of proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Applicability of Rule 9 regarding the time of sale and payment of purchase price. [Para 6]

Extension of Time – Court’s previous orders extending time for depositing the balance sale amount due to the COVID-19 pandemic – Statutory limitations and applicability of orders granting extensions – Clarification on when lockdown restrictions were lifted required for precise calculation of extended period. [Para 15-16]

Supreme Court’s Powers – Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Limitations on the exercise of inherent powers – Inability to bypass statutory provisions or extend time limits beyond what is explicitly allowed – Application of Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code. [Para 17-18]

Maintainability of Miscellaneous Application – Filing of repeated applications in the disposed Civil Appeal without legal foundation – Strong disapproval by the Court of such practices – Questioning the maintainability of the application seeking directions. [Para 18]

Remedy – Court clarifies that the applicant is free to seek other permissible remedies under the law, including a refund of the amount deposited. [Para 19-20]

Decision – Miscellaneous Application No.1735 of 2022 dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability and failure to comply with the statutory and court-imposed timelines. [Para 20]

Civil Appeal – Extension of Limitation – COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the filing of written statements – Orders of the Supreme Court extending the period of limitation – High Court's rejection of applications for extension of time – Appellants seek to take their written statements on record – Orders passed post-Sagufa Ahmed case distinguishable – Orders of the Supreme Court dated 08.03.2021 and subsequent orders extended the period for computing outer limits within which delay can be condoned – Applications filed by appellants are within the extended time – High Court's judgment set aside, and written statements directed to be taken on record. [Para 1-22]

Criminal Appeal - Challenge to High Court's Orders - Dismissal of writ petitions by Division Bench - Appellants seeking relief related to arrest orders - Apprehension of action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Interim protection granted by Delhi High Court - Anticipatory bail - Orders of remand questioned - Interpretation of Section 19 of the Act - No challenge to constitutional validity - Request for 'reading down' and 'reading into' the provisions - Allegation of abuse of power and unconstitutional arrest - Writ petitions seeking quashing of arrest and remand orders - Punjab & Haryana High Court's misunderstanding of the nature of the challenge - Division Bench's failure to recognize the distinction - Arrests made in connection with the second ECIR. [Para 2-12]

Arrest Validity - Money Laundering Case - Arrest under Section 19 of the Act of 2002 - Issue of arrest validity and remand orders examined - High Court's casual approach questioned - Compliance with Section 19 requirements crucial. [Para 13]

Legal Safeguards - Analysis of relevant case law - Section 19 of the Act of 2002 - Inbuilt safeguards for arrest - Recording of reasons, informing the grounds of arrest, and timely production before the Court - Stringent standards for arrest in money laundering cases. [Para 14]

Role of Magistrate - Interaction between Section 19 and Section 167 Cr.P.C - Magistrate's duty to ensure compliance with safeguards - Failure to comply may lead to release of the arrestee - Importance of Section 19 requirements. [Para 15-16]

Constitutional Aspect - Arrest's impact on constitutional rights - Remand orders cannot cure constitutional violations during arrest - Importance of judicial scrutiny in remand orders. [Para 17]

Remand Order Scrutiny - Deficiency in the remand order dated 15.06.2023 - Failure to assess compliance with Section 19 - Lack of proper justification for custodial interrogation - Need for a thorough examination of arrest procedures. [Para 18]

Sequence of Events - Chronological overview of the arrest and summons - Ambiguities in summons served - Arrests of Roop Bansal, Basant Bansal, and Pankaj Bansal - Questions raised about the timing and legality of arrests. [Para 19]

Judicial Review - Challenge to Arrest and Remand Orders - Examination of ED's Conduct - Expectation of Transparency and Probity in ED's Actions - Allegations of Abuse of Power and Vindictive Conduct - Consideration of Malafides and Colorable Exercise of Power - Lack of Bonafides Demonstrated in ED's Actions - Failure to Inform Appellants About Second ECIR Before Arrests - Timing and Diligence of Investigation Questioned - [Para 20-25]

Necessity for ED to Inform Arrested Persons About Grounds for Arrest - Constitutional and Statutory Rights Related to Grounds for Arrest - Discrepancies in Conveying Grounds of Arrest in Different Regions - Importance of Providing Written Grounds for Legal Counsel and Due Process - Obligation to Furnish a Written Copy of Grounds of Arrest - [Para 26-35]

Arrest and Remand Orders Set Aside, Appellants to Be Released Unless Required in Another Case - No Costs Awarded. [Para 36]

Criminal Appeal – Suspension of Sentence – Applicant seeks suspension of sentence during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal – Conviction for conspiracy and murder – Alleged conspiracy to eliminate the deceased – Conviction under Sections 302, 120B, and 201 IPC – High Court's dismissal of the appeal – Co-accused granted benefit of doubt – Applicant's custody period and medical issues concerning his daughter considered – Sentence suspended, and the applicant directed to be released on bail. [Para 1-6]

Civil Appeal - Property Rights - Petitioner claims joint family property/Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property was mortgaged by petitioner's father as a guarantor - Father as Karta of HUF had the right to mortgage HUF property - No legal necessity or betterment of the estate established - Impugned judgment upheld - Special leave petitions dismissed.

Delay in Trial Proceedings – Petitioner accused of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Persistent delays in the commencement and continuation of trial for approximately 25-26 years, attributed to the petitioner's filing of multiple frivolous petitions.

Judicial Directions – Multiple directions issued by the High Court and approved by the Supreme Court to conclude the trial within a specified time frame, yet petitioner succeeds in stalling the trial proceedings through frivolous applications.

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of discretion by both the Trial Court and the High Court in dealing with meritless interlocutory applications – No infirmity found in the orders of the High Court.

Abuse of Process – Record of previous impositions of costs for filing frivolous petitions and concealing material facts – Supreme Court holds that misuse and abuse of legal process need to be dealt with firmly.

Cost Imposition – Dismissal of all three petitions filed by the petitioner with costs amounting to Rs. 3 Lakhs to be deposited with the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association for welfare activities.

Miscellaneous – All pending applications stand disposed of, with the stipulation for proof of cost deposit within a specified time frame.