Civil Appeal – Amendment of Plaint – Whether the amendment incorporating the prayer for declaration of ownership was barred by limitation – Suit founded on title, and the dispute was about possession and adverse possession – Amendment allowed by Trial Court – High Court held amendment barred by limitation – Appeal allowed, setting aside High Court's judgment – Remand to High Court for deciding the merits of the suit and counter-claim – Direction to frame additional substantial questions of law and give priority to the disposal of the case. [Para 6-23]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 20 of the NDPS Act – Appeal against judgment and order of conviction by High Court – Acquittal by Trial Court – Dispute regarding the applicability of Section 50 of the NDPS Act – Interpretation of the expression "to search any person". [Para 1-18]

Analysis of Applicability of Section 50 of NDPS Act - Search of persons - Interpretation of the phrase "to search any person" - Whether Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies when searching articles not on the body of the person - Examination of related provisions in the CrPC - Importance of avoiding allegations of planting evidence by the prosecution - Consideration of the need for strict regard to decency in conducting searches, especially of females - Conclusion that "to search any person" refers to searching the body or wearing apparel of the person and the procedure under Section 50 applies in such cases - Distinction between searching a person and searching a building, conveyance, or place - Relevance of safeguarding the rights of the accused in narcotics cases. [Para 27-36]

Search and Seizure – Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act – Importance of informing the person being searched of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – The purpose and significance of this safeguard – Consequences of non-compliance – Recovery of illicit articles from the person of the accused during an illegal search – Consequences of such a recovery – The burden of proof regarding compliance with Section 50 – Observations on the fairness of the trial and the legitimacy of the judicial process – Emphasis on conducting fair trials even in cases involving drug offenses. [Para 40-49]

Compliance Requirements - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) – Section 50 – Compliance Requirements - The principles regarding when Section 50 can be said to be complied with are clarified as follows:

(i) Section 50 provides both a right and an obligation. The person about to be searched has the right to have his search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate if he so desires, and it is the obligation of the police officer to inform such person of this right before proceeding to search the suspect.

(ii) Where the person to be searched declines to exercise this right, the police officer is free to proceed with the search. However, if the suspect declines to exercise his right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, the empowered officer should take it in writing from the suspect that he would not like to exercise his right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and may be searched by the empowered officer.

(iii) Before conducting a search, it must be communicated in clear terms, though it need not be in writing and is permissible to convey orally, that the suspect has a right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

(iv) Only two options of either being searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate must be given, who must also be independent and in no way connected to the raiding party.

(v) In the case of multiple persons to be searched, each of them must be individually communicated of their right, and each must exercise or waive the same in their capacity. Any joint or common communication of this right would be in violation of Section 50.

(vi) Where the right under Section 50 has been exercised, it is the choice of the police officer to decide whether to take the suspect before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, but an endeavor should be made to take him before the nearest Magistrate.

(vii) Section 50 is applicable only in case of search of a person of the suspect under the provisions of the NDPS Act, and would have no application where a search was conducted under any other statute in respect of any offence.

(viii) The burden is on the prosecution to establish that the obligation imposed by Section 50 was duly complied with before the search was conducted.

(ix) Any incriminating contraband, possession of which is punishable under the NDPS Act and recovered in violation of Section 50 would be inadmissible and cannot be relied upon in the trial by the prosecution, however, it will not vitiate the trial in respect of the same. Any other article that has been recovered may be relied upon in any other independent proceedings. [Para 64]

Drug Trafficking - Drug abuse as a social malady and its impact on society and the economy - The use of illicit money generated from drug trafficking for illegal activities, including terrorism - The need to prevent those involved in drug trafficking from escaping justice on technical grounds. [Para 122]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 - Compliance with the provisions of Section 50 - Recovery from a bag - Appellant charged with an offence under the NDPS Act - High Court's findings on guilt and Section 50 compliance - Appellant's appeal dismissed. [Para 125-126]

Disposition - Appellant's appeals dismissed, and pending applications disposed of accordingly. [Para 127]

Electricity Tariffs – Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity – Challenge to orders fixing tariffs by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission – Appellant GRIDCO Ltd. challenging various orders related to annual revenue requirements (ARR), bulk supply tariff (BST), transmission tariff (TT), retail sale tariff (RST), and more – Multiple appeals arising from different years – Complex issues of tariff determination, licenses, and financial years involved – Introduction to the case and entities involved. [Para 1-22]

Judicial Review - Scope of Appeals under Section 125 of the Electricity Act - Limited scope for interference in appeals under Section 125 - Appeals to this Court only on substantial questions of law - Findings of fact generally not reopenable in such appeals. [Para 23]

Quasi-Judicial Nature of Commission's Tariff Fixation - Commission exercises quasi-judicial powers under Section 62 of the Electricity Act - Dual functions of the Commission under Sections 61 and 62 explained - Tariff determination legislative but appealable - Importance of distinguishing legislative and quasi-judicial functions. [Para 24-25]

Expertise of Commission and Appellate Tribunal - Qualifications of members of the Commission and Appellate Tribunal - Members are experts in their respective fields - Factual findings of these bodies to be respected - Court slow to interfere with such findings. [Para 25]

Appeals by Commission against Appellate Tribunal's Orders - Commission's act of preferring appeals against its own orders corrected by the Appellate Tribunal questioned - Commission's role in quasi-judicial matters - Propriety and legality of such appeals in question. [Para 26]

Locus Standi of DISCOMS - DISCOMS' right to challenge Commission's orders - DISCOMS can be aggrieved parties in tariff determination affecting them - Relevance of DISCOMS' locus standi in certain cases. [Para 27]

Principal Loan Amount in BST - Appellate Tribunal's view on allowing the principal loan amount to pass through BST - Distinction between principal loan amount and interest - Principal loan amount not allowed to pass through twice - Interest may be allowed to pass through in proportion to outstandings. [Para 28-29]

Treatment of Export Earnings - Appellate Tribunal's stance on excluding export earnings from GRIDCO's revenue - Earnings from export of power considered as revenue - Export earnings to be treated as receivable in the relevant year - Consistency with past approach by the Commission. [Para 30]

Simultaneous Maximum Demand (SMD) - Appellate Tribunal's direction to consider the increase in quantum of energy for SMD determination - Need for proportionate increase in SMD to account for increased power purchase. [Para 31]

Truing-Up Exercise - Appellate Tribunal's directive for the Commission to undertake truing-up exercise for earlier financial years. [Para 32]

De Novo Consideration of ARR and BST - Appellate Tribunal's direction for de novo consideration of ARR and BST for the financial year 2006-2007 - Consideration of contentions based on findings of subsequent years. [Para 33-34]

Civil Appeal - Determination of ARR and BST for the financial years 2007-2008 - DISCOMS challenging the order of the Commission - Locus of DISCOMS to challenge ARR and BST established - Uncovered revenue gap in DISCOMS' ARR - Appellate Tribunal rightly held DISCOMS had the right to challenge the Commission's orders. [Para 36]

Interest on principal loan - Appellate Tribunal held against GRIDCO - Interest to be treated as the cost of the loan, not included in the ARR - No error in the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal. [Para 37]

Cross-appeals on truing-up exercise - DISCOMS contended the Commission did not consider certain clauses and policies - Appellate Tribunal confirmed revocation of licenses - No interference in these appeals. [Para 38]

Challenge to the order dated 29th November 2012 - GRIDCO's appeal against increased BST - Appellate Tribunal upheld DISCOMS' argument regarding the sale of surplus power - Sale of surplus power treated as revenue of GRIDCO - Appellate Tribunal referred to earlier judgments - Commission's view challenged - Decline to entertain the appeal. [Para 39]

Appeal by OPTCL regarding TT and ARR for the financial year 2006-2007 - Disallowed advance against depreciation - Appellate Tribunal held in favor of OPTCL regarding depreciation - Repair and maintenance cost reduced based on CERC norms - Contingency reserves allowed - Interest on wheeling income increased - Transmission loss issue left open - Direction to Commission to rework TT. [Para 40-45]

Appeals by WESCO, NESCO, and SESCO regarding ARR and TT of OPTCL for 2007-2008 - Appellate Tribunal upheld DISCOMS' claims on advance against depreciation - Repair and maintenance expenses reduced - Contingency reserves allowed - Interest on wheeling income increased - Transmission loss issue left open - Direction to Commission to rework TT. [Para 46-50]

Appeal by M/s. Orissa Power Transport Corporation Limited (OPTCL) regarding TT and ARR for the financial year 2006-2007 - Appellate Tribunal restored the Commission's order disallowing advance against depreciation - Repair and maintenance cost reduced - Contingency reserves allowed - Interest on wheeling income increased - Transmission loss issue left open - Direction to Commission to rework TT. [Para 51-55]

Appeal by the Commission against its own order regarding ARR and RST of DISCOMS for 2006-2007 - Appellate Tribunal upheld DISCOMS' argument regarding interest on NTPC bonds - Direction to Commission to allow the difference in interest - No interference in the appeal. [Para 52-58]

Appeal by DISCOMS regarding ARR and RST of DISCOMS for the financial years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 - Appellate Tribunal partly allowed DISCOMS' appeals - Required funds for loss reduction, but reset loss trajectory if funds are not available - Adjustment of loss levels based on ground realities - Direction to reset loss levels for certain years - Direction to follow earlier judgment regarding notional sales - Direction to Commission to expedite report on employees' expenses - No interference in review. [Para 59-73]

Appeal by the Commission against ARR and RST orders for the financial years 2008-2009, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 - Appellate Tribunal upheld its earlier judgments - No interference. [Para 74]

Appeal by DISCOMS against the order for the financial year 2013-2014 - Appellate Tribunal directed the Commission to implement its earlier orders - Direction to implement earlier orders - Dismissal of appeals by the Commission. [Para 75]

Appeal by the Commission and GRIDCO against the order dated 30th November 2014 - Appellate Tribunal considered DISCOMS' appeals challenging the Commission's order - No interference in the appeals. [Para 76]

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]

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.