Special Leave Petition – Pre-arrest Bail – Petitioner, a practicing lawyer, seeks pre-arrest bail against FIR No. 19 of 2022 lodged by his wife – Both sides adequately represented by counsel – Special Leave Petition heard and disposed of. [Para 1, 6] 

Dowry Articles – Contested Claims – Respondent No. 2 alleges the dowry articles have not been returned, a claim contested by the petitioner. [Para 3] 

Cooperation with Investigation – The State confirms that the petitioner has joined the investigation – The Court mandates continued cooperation as a condition for bail. [Para 4, 5] 

Bail Conditions – Pre-arrest bail granted under the condition of furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 – Petitioner must continue cooperating with the investigation and must not misuse the liberty granted. [Para 5] 

Family Circumstances – The Court takes into consideration the family circumstances involving three children (one adopted) in its decision to grant pre-arrest bail. [Para 5] 

Civil Appeal – Termination from service of probationary Judicial Officer – Lack of confirmation in service – Initiation of departmental inquiries – High Court’s decision not to proceed with inquiries and discharge the appellant – No provision for deemed confirmation – Dismissal of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution upheld. [Para 1-4]

Delay and Leave – Supreme Court condones the delay in filing the appeal and grants leave – Appellant dissatisfied with the decision of the Kerala High Court which affirmed the denial of his application for restoration of statutory appeal.

Background and Facts – The appellant, a dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, had his registration canceled by the Sales Tax Officer. The appellant initially appealed but later withdrew to avail a Government Amnesty Scheme, which he failed to benefit from.

Statutory Appeal – Significance of statutory remedies emphasized – The appellant had withdrawn the initial appeal to comply with the Amnesty Scheme’s conditions. The Court observed that the appellant should be allowed to restore his appeal and be heard on its merits.

Administrative Oversight – Both the appellate authority and the High Court erred in not allowing the appellant’s application for the restoration of his appeal – Supreme Court sets aside these orders.

Interim Relief – The appellant has the liberty to seek interim relief, which should be considered expeditiously.

Disposition – The appeal is allowed, and parties are directed to appear for a hearing on the merits before the appellate authority. No costs imposed.

Civil Appeal – Suit for Specific Performance – Limitation – Agreement to sell land – Payment of advance amount – Refusal by the seller to perform the contract – Notice of refusal – Commencement of limitation period – Second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether notice of refusal given – Suit filed beyond limitation period – Suit for specific performance barred by limitation – Decree set aside. [Para 20-27]

Civil Procedure – Constructive Res Judicata – Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Whether principles of constructive res judicata or Order II Rule 2 applicable – Not decided – Suit barred by limitation – Decision based on limitation – Setting aside of decree for specific performance. [Para 19]

Contract Act – Promise to extend time for performance – Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Refusal and forbearance – Opposites – Refusal to perform contract – Notice of refusal – Commencement of limitation period – Suit filed beyond limitation period – Suit for specific performance barred by limitation – Decree set aside. [Para 24]

Civil Procedure – Specific Performance – Allotment of Trust property eastwards – Bearing on performance of contract – No bearing – Suit for specific performance not conditional on disposal of partition suit – Suit for specific performance not barred. [Para 25-26]

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of powers to do substantial justice – Settlement between parties – Direction for payment of Rs. 50,00,000 as settlement amount – Directions for payment of interest in case of non-compliance – Exercise of power under Article 142. Appeal Allowed.  [Para 29]

Conviction and Appeal – Original Conviction and Subsequent Appeals

The appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 of IPC for the murder of Smt. Keshari Mahato. The High Court affirmed the decision. Special Leave Petition was filed, and leave was granted for A-1 (Bhaktu Gorain) and A-3 (Bandhu Gorain). [Para 2-3]

Circumstances of Offense – Factual Background and Witnesses

On the morning of September 27, 1993, five accused persons allegedly surrounded and assaulted the deceased, Smt. Keshari Mahato, resulting in her death. Multiple family members witnessed the event and subsequently testified. [Para 4-5]

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility and Consistency

The testimonies of Lakshmi Mahato (PW-1), Sudhir Mahato (PW-2), Rampada Mahato (PW-3), and Bijali Mahato (PW-4) were deemed credible, consistent, and corroborative of each other. All these witnesses survived cross-examination without significant discredit. [Para 6-11]

Additional Witnesses – Post-Occurrence and Chance Witnesses

Raghu Mahato (PW-6) as a post-occurrence witness, and Dr. A.K. Hazari (PW-9) as the medical examiner, provided additional corroborative evidence that supported the case of the prosecution. [Para 12, 13]

Forensic Evidence – Post-mortem Examination and Injuries

Dr. A.K. Hazari (PW-9) detailed the severe injuries on the deceased, confirming they were consistent with the weapons described and were sufficient to cause death. [Para 14]

Common Intention – Appellants’ Pre-planned Act

The accused had a common intention to commit the crime, rejecting the submission that they simply wanted to 'teach a lesson' to the deceased for her alleged witchcraft activities. The presence of deadly weapons and the nature of the injuries caused confirmed this common intention. [Para 16-18]

Decision – The argument that the appellants lacked a common intention to kill the deceased was rejected. Their prior altercation and the severe nature of the inflicted injuries showed premeditation and common intent. The convictions were thus upheld. [Para 17-18]

Territorial Jurisdiction Dispute – Section 138, 142(2)(a)N.I. Act -  The case involves a jurisdictional dispute regarding dishonoured cheques. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, erroneously held no territorial jurisdiction, denying the appellant a chance to remedy the situation. Procedural defects should not obstruct substantial justice.

Exercise of Constitutional Powers – The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 406 of the Code to rectify the jurisdictional error. The Court recognized the lapse in providing proper legal guidance to the appellant and ordered the trial to continue in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.

Non-Precedential Nature – The order was passed in consideration of the unique circumstances of the case and is not to be treated as a precedent.

Limitation Period – Controversy arises concerning the effective date of service of summons for computing the limitation period for filing a written statement in the Delhi High Court’s Commercial Division. Examination of two different modes of service. [Para 1-5]

Service of Summons – Code of Civil Procedure, Order V Rule 2 – Service of summons should include a copy of the plaint, as contended by the petitioner. The Court agrees with this legal interpretation. [Para 6-9]

Fact and Law – The High Court’s disbelief in incomplete service of the plaint is maintained by the Supreme Court, stating it is a question of fact that they do not wish to reappreciate at this stage. [Para 10-12]

Decision – The petition is dismissed, and pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. [Para 13]

Mining Lease - Dispute over the grant of mining lease for Dolomite - Multiple applications filed by different parties - Various orders issued by state authorities - Confusion over the status of the land and the mining lease - Appellants challenging the grant of mining lease to Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. [Para 1-2]

Background - A detailed account of the historical applications, orders, and disputes related to the mining lease for Dolomite in the specified area - Repeated applications, rejections, and recalls of orders - Legal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih to obtain the mining lease. [Para 2.1-2.14]

Mining Lease - Eligibility under Concession Rules and MMDR Act, 1957 - Interpretation of Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016 and Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 - Rule 61 of Concession Rules, 2016 makes applications for mining lease of minor minerals ineligible if received prior to the rules' effect, with an exception if a Grant Order or Letter of Intent had been issued - Analysis of whether the respondents' case falls under the proviso to Rule 61 - High Court's findings that the proviso does not apply to the facts of the case. [Para 5-8]

Policy Change and Revocation of Orders - Impact on eligibility - Reference to a policy specifying the mandatory requirement of a Conversion Certificate for mining lease - Dismissal and revocation of earlier orders - Irrelevance of earlier orders after revocation - Disposition of Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003 exparte - Claim that the application dated 06.03.1998 should be considered in accordance with the law. [Para 9-10]

Amendment Act, 2015 - Object and purpose - Shift towards auctioning mineral resources - Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 mandates ineligibility of applications received before 12.01.2015 - Exceptions for specific situations - Protection for applications under Section 11-A, reconnaissance permit or prospecting license holders, and those with previous approvals or Letters of Intent issued before the Amendment Act. [Para 14]

Mining Lease – Interpretation of the State Government's letter of approval – Whether the letter constitutes a Letter of Intent – Examination of legal definitions and relevant cases – Rejecting the contention that the letter is a Letter of Intent due to the lack of previous Central Government approval – Clarification that the letter was recommendatory and not a commitment to enter into a future contract – Not covered by clause (c) of Section 10-A of the Act. [Para 15-16]

Raiyat Land – Restrictions on the use of Raiyat land for mining – Provisions of the WBLR Act, 1955, regarding Raiyat land and its usage – The contradiction in classifying land as 'Dungri' and granting it as Raiyat land for cultivation – Legal issues surrounding the consent letters of landowners (Raiyats) and changes in ownership – Uncertainty regarding the Respondent's eligibility for Rule 61 benefits – Non-impleadment of WBMDTCL – The remand order is not appropriate at this stage. [Para 17-19]

Ownership of Land – The appellants' claim of ownership of 20.87 acres of the land in question – No obstacle to granting a mining lease for this portion to Respondent No. 1 – The remainder of the claim is rejected – No costs awarded. [Para 20-22]

Appeal is partly allowed, and the impugned judgment is set aside, with directions for the execution of a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favor of Respondent No. 1. The rest of the claim by Respondent No. 1 is dismissed. No costs are awarded. [Para 22]

Civil Appeal – Rejection of Plaint Under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC – Appellant sought rejection of the plaint based on bar of res judicata – Learned Single Judge rejected the plaint, while the Division Bench of High Court reversed the decision – Supreme Court held that the issue of res judicata could not be decided under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC at this stage. [Para 2-6]

Scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC: The Court clarified that Rule 11 allows it to only look into the averments made in the plaint and, at most, documents produced along with the plaint. Defense and documents relied upon by the defendant cannot be considered while deciding an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. [Para 5]

Res Judicata: The Supreme Court clarifies that the plea of res judicata could not be decided at this stage. The issue involves consideration of pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court, and the judgment of the Appellate Courts. The issue will be framed for future proceedings. [Para 4,6]

Final Conclusion and Disposition: The Supreme Court agrees with the Division Bench's final conclusion that the suit needs to be decided on merits, with a modification that the issue of res judicata remains open for future proceedings. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. [Para 7-8]