Rent Control – Determination of Fair Rent – Appeal against High Court order dismissing challenge to fair rent determination – Application for fair rent can be made by both landlord and tenant even during the currency of contractual tenancy – Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal, affirming that the Rent Control Act provisions override contractual agreements and allow for fair rent determination to protect both parties [Paras 1-16].

Contractual Tenancy – Application for Fair Rent – Appellants argued that landlord cannot apply for rent enhancement during subsisting tenancy – Court rejected the argument, relying on precedents and statutory interpretation – Determination of fair rent is crucial to prevent exploitation of either party under the Rent Control Act [Paras 8-13].

Majority vs. Minority Judgments – Reliance on Majority Judgment – Appellants' reliance on minority judgment in M/s. Raval and Co. was rejected – Court adhered to majority opinion and subsequent seven-Judge Bench approval in V. Dhanapal Chettiar case [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court found no merit in the appellants' submissions – Affirmed that fair rent can be fixed during the currency of contractual tenancy to ensure equitable treatment of both landlord and tenant [Para 16].

Mining Law – Transportation of Iron Ore – Legislative Policy – Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Minerals Concession Rules grants lessees six months to remove mineral ore after lease termination – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, permitting transportation of royalty-paid iron ore mined before 15.03.2018 – State of Goa’s decision to allow such transportation upheld [Paras 1-37].

Judicial Review – Consistency with Supreme Court Orders – The High Court's interpretation restricting transportation was found incorrect – Orders dated 04.04.2018 and 11.05.2018 by the Supreme Court Bench allowed transportation of royalty-paid iron ore – Legislative intent and policy considered [Paras 19-32].

Environmental and Regulatory Compliance – Strict Monitoring – State to ensure only iron ore mined before 15.03.2018 is transported – Compliance with all other directions from Goa Foundation-II judgment mandated [Para 37].

Decision: Appeals allowed. The Supreme Court upheld the State of Goa’s decision dated 21.03.2018, allowing the transportation of royalty-paid iron ore mined prior to 15.03.2018. Transportation must be completed within six months from the judgment date.

Service Law – Recruitment and Promotion – Deputation and Absorption – Appointment of respondent on deputation as Project Engineer (Electrical) in NOIDA and subsequent absorption challenged by appellants – Regulation 16 of 1981 Regulations permits appointment by deputation – Recruitment and Promotion Policy 2005 inconsistent with 1981 Regulations and not implemented – Absorption of respondent upheld [Paras 7-16, 20-22].

Eligibility for Promotion – Ineligibility of Appellants – Appellants lacked requisite 8 years of experience as Assistant Project Engineer at the time of respondent’s appointment and absorption – Not eligible for promotion, challenge to appointment not maintainable – Appellants have no locus standi to challenge the appointment [Paras 23-25].

Legal Precedents – Absorption Rules – U.P. Absorption Rules 1984 and 1987 Regulations applicable – Absorption of respondent valid under statutory regulations – Respondent relieved from parent department and absorbed in NOIDA [Paras 19, 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellants’ challenge to the appointment and absorption of the respondent. The appellants were ineligible for promotion, and the respondent’s absorption was in accordance with the applicable regulations. No order as to costs.

Mercy Petition – Judicial Review – Grounds for Review – Quick consideration and rejection of mercy petition by the President not grounds for judicial review – Delay may warrant review, but swift rejection suggests thorough consideration not predetermined stance – Petitioner’s arguments on non-application of mind and solitary confinement found unsubstantiated [Paras 35-36].

Relevant Materials – Requirement – President’s decision on mercy petition must consider all relevant materials – Affidavit of Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs confirms all necessary documents were placed before the President – Contention of petitioner regarding non-consideration of materials dismissed [Paras 19-23].

Solitary Confinement – Misinterpretation – Petitioner’s claim of solitary confinement rejected based on affidavit of Director General Prisons – Petitioner kept in a single room with access to common areas, not solitary confinement under legal definitions [Para 29].

Legal Precedents – Limited Grounds for Review – Reaffirmation of established principles for judicial review of executive decisions on mercy petitions – Relevant cases discussed including Shatrughan Chauhan and Narayan Dutt [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. The Supreme Court found no grounds to exercise judicial review of the President’s rejection of the mercy petition. Petitioner’s arguments on quick rejection, non-application of mind, and solitary confinement were not substantiated.

Anticipatory Bail – Duration and Termination – Interpretation of Section 438 CrPC – Consideration of whether anticipatory bail should be limited to a fixed period and end when the accused is summoned by the court – Conflicting decisions analyzed – Emphasis on the discretion of courts to set conditions, including duration, based on case specifics – Normal rule should be not to limit anticipatory bail to a fixed period unless justified by circumstances [Paras 42-43, 7.5].

Discretion of Courts – Conditions Imposed – Courts have the discretion to impose conditions while granting anticipatory bail, including limiting its operation period – Such conditions should ensure balance between individual liberty and investigation requirements – Reference to decisions by Constitution Bench and subsequent conflicting judgments [Paras 2.3, 3.6, 7.3].

Legal Precedents – Clarification of Law – Detailed examination of judgments including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh – Reaffirmation of Constitution Bench’s stance that anticipatory bail should not be time-bound as a rule but can be limited if circumstances demand [Paras 2.8, 3.4, 7.4].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed. Clarification provided on the discretionary power of courts regarding the duration and conditions of anticipatory bail. Courts may limit the duration based on case-specific circumstances, but this should not be the general rule.

Town Planning – Lapsing of Reservation – Appellants purchased property subject to reservation under the development plan – Notice under Section 127 by previous owners did not result in lapsing of reservation due to issuance of declaration under Section 126(4) within ten years – Revised Development Plan re-confirmed the reservation [Paras 4-9, 25-27].

Acquisition and Compensation – Delay in Acquisition – No acquisition steps taken for over two decades after declaration under Section 126(4) – Appellants to wait ten years from the revised plan effective date for fresh notice under Section 127 – No invocation of Article 142 for equitable relief due to appellants’ knowledge of reservation at purchase [Paras 32-37].

Judicial Review – Interpretation of Statutes – Provisions of Sections 49 and 127 read in conjunction with revised Development Plans – No merit in appellants’ contention based on previous owners’ notice – Future course of action clarified for appellants [Paras 21-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Appellants must wait ten years from May 15, 2012, to issue a new notice under Section 127 of the Act unless acquisition steps are taken. No order as to costs.

Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 111

Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra and others (2018) 2 SCC 784

Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and others (2007) 7 SCC 555

Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra 2011 (3) SCC 1

Hasmukhrai V. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra and others (2015) 3 SCC 154

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association and others (1998) Supp. SCC 55

Prafulla C. Dave and others v. Municipal Commissioner and others (2015) 11 SCC 90

Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satvabhamabai Bhimaii Dawkher (2013) 5 SCC 627

Specific Relief – Bona Fide Purchaser – Defendant No. 2 contested the decree for possession, arguing he was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the agreement between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. Courts below assumed connivance between defendants without substantial evidence – Specific performance set aside [Paras 1-12].

Readiness and Willingness – The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract at the time of filing the suit and on the due date was not sufficiently proved – The courts below erred in their concurrent findings [Paras 9-10].

Compensation – In lieu of specific performance, the defendant No. 2 (appellant) directed to pay Rs. 350,000 to the plaintiff, inclusive of the earnest money – Amount to be paid within three months, failing which it will carry interest at 12% per annum [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part. The decree for specific performance set aside, and the appellant directed to compensate the plaintiff with Rs. 350,000.

Insurance Policy – Interpretation of Terms – Heavy rainfall causing damage to insured coal stock – Dispute over whether such damage falls under 'flood and inundation' clause – Terms 'flood' and 'inundation' held to encompass damage caused by excessive rainfall leading to accumulation of water – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Appointment of Chartered Accountant – Not Equivalent to Appointment of Second Surveyor – Chartered Accountant appointed to verify accounts not equivalent to appointing a second surveyor under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 – No procedural breach found [Para 6].

Flood and Inundation – Definitions and Application – Pluvial floods (surface floods) caused by excessive rainfall considered within the ambit of 'flood and inundation' – Damage due to heavy rainfall falls within policy coverage [Paras 8-12].

Consistent Judicial Interpretation – NCDRC's consistent view on damage due to heavy rainfall supporting the claim upheld [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Appellant directed to pay the sum awarded by the NCDRC to the respondent within eight weeks.

Election Law – Recounting of Votes – Allegations of irregularities in the counting of votes and acceptance of invalid votes in favor of the returned candidate – Election Tribunal found evidence supporting the appellant's claims and ordered a recount – High Court’s single judge upheld this order – Division Bench reversed it without detailed analysis – Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s order for recount [Paras 1-14].

Judicial Review – Prima Facie Case – Tribunal and single judge properly evaluated evidence and allegations – Supreme Court emphasized necessity of detailed examination of evidence before reversing such findings [Paras 9-11].

Election Result – Declaration of Validity – After recount, appellant found to have more valid votes than the returned candidate – Supreme Court declared appellant as duly elected [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The order of recount by the Election Tribunal was upheld, and the appellant was declared duly elected.