Maritime Law – Port Dues and Anchorage Charges – Vessel sold in public auction free of encumbrances – Dispute over liability for port dues and anchorage charges accrued prior to sale – Vessel docked at Mumbai Port since March 23, 2020 – Appellant contended charges should be borne by previous owner – Supreme Court held liability from the date of sanction of sale falls on the purchaser [Paras 1-25].

Port Dues – Definition and Liability – Port dues under Section 50-B applicable when vessel enters port without discharging/taking cargo or passengers – Anchorage fees determined based on duration of docking – Supreme Court clarified anchorage charges post-sale fall under purchaser’s responsibility, calculated from sale date [Paras 23-24].

Auction Terms – Free from Encumbrances – Vessel sold “as is where is” basis free of existing liens – Pre-sale liabilities not foisted on purchaser – Anchorage charges accrued from sale sanction date to removal date – Purchaser liable for costs from date of physical possession [Paras 10-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Appellant liable for anchorage charges from date of sale sanction [Paras 25].

Execution of Decree – Identifiability of Suit Property – Decree can only be executed if the suit property is easily identifiable – Dispute over exact boundaries of Plot No. 4/4 vs. Plot No. 4/5 – Court mandates precise demarcation by Local Commissioner [Paras 45-47, 51].

Possession and Mesne Profits – Determination and Restoration – Appellant directed to restore any excess land wrongfully claimed, including Plot No. 4/5 or land belonging to Delhi Government – Mesne profits to be computed afresh from 1st March 2006 till possession relinquishment [Paras 54-56].

Legal Standards – Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3 CPC – Plaint must include sufficient property description for identification – Decree execution based on exact property identification to avoid wrongful possession claims [Paras 49-50].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Executing Court to decide applications afresh, appointing Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner to demarcate and transfer possession of Plot No. 4/4 – Excess land to be restored to Appellant – Mesne profits computed in accordance with modified decree [Paras 55-56].

Right of Appeal – Statutory Basis – Appeal rights are conferred by statute and are not automatic – Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC can only be entertained on substantial questions of law, not on factual findings of lower courts [Paras 1-2, 36-37].

Substantial Question of Law – Definition and Tests – To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable, of general public importance, or directly affecting parties' rights – Well-settled legal principles applied to facts do not constitute substantial questions of law – Criteria laid out in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons, Santosh Hazari, and other precedents reiterated [Paras 27-32].

Second Appeal – High Court’s Jurisdiction – High Court can interfere only when substantial questions of law are involved – Mere reappreciation of evidence is not warranted – Findings of fact by First Appellate Court should be respected unless material evidence is ignored or wrong legal principles applied [Paras 23-25, 33-35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 361 of 1984 restored [Para 38].

Insolvency Law – Withdrawal of Application – Before Committee of Creditors (CoC) Constitution – Section 12A of IBC allows withdrawal of an application admitted under Sections 7, 9, or 10 upon approval by 90% voting shares of the CoC – Prior to CoC constitution, applicant can withdraw the application without CoC approval – NCLT’s inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules allow withdrawal to meet ends of justice [Paras 23-24, 28-29].

Settlement of Disputes – Inherent Powers of Tribunal – IBC aims to resolve insolvency efficiently, promoting economic growth – NCLT can permit withdrawal of CIRP applications to facilitate business operations and settlements, preventing undue hardship on corporate debtors [Paras 26-27].

NCLAT Interim Order – Scope of Appeal – Interim order staying CoC constitution but allowing CIRP process continuation – Settlement application under Section 12A pending – Supreme Court finds no substantial question of law warranting interference – NCLT directed to decide settlement application promptly [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – NCLT to expeditiously decide settlement application in accordance with observations [Para 32].

Insolvency Law – Financial Debt – The appellant challenged the initiation of CIRP against Doshi Holdings, arguing that no disbursement was made to Doshi Holdings and thus no financial debt existed. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Authority, stating that Doshi Holdings was party to the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements in a dual capacity as borrower and pledgor. The approval of a resolution plan for one borrower does not discharge a co-borrower from liability [Paras 33-34, 36-37].

Contract Law – Pledge and Guarantee – The court differentiated between contracts of indemnity, guarantee, and pledge, stating that a pledgor per se may not be a financial debtor. However, in this case, Doshi Holdings was found to be a borrower in addition to being a pledgor [Paras 35-36].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Authority, affirming the initiation of CIRP against Doshi Holdings [Para 38].

Administrative Law – Retrospective Effect – It is a settled principle that Parliament and State Legislatures have plenary powers to legislate prospectively and retrospectively, subject to constitutional and judicially recognized restrictions. Retrospective legislation must be expressly provided by the Legislature in the Statute. Administrative/executive orders or circulars cannot be applied retrospectively without legislative competence [Paras 29-30].

Infrastructure Charges – BSNL revised charges for Active Links leased to telecom operators through circular dated 12th June 2012, making it effective from 1st April 2009. The Tribunal held that retrospective application from 1st April 2009 was unsustainable and that the revised charges should apply prospectively from 1st April 2013 [Paras 27-30].

Competence to Revise Charges – Tribunal upheld BSNL's authority to revise rates but restricted retrospective application. Court held BSNL could not apply revised charges retrospectively but could apply a notional 10% annual increase from 1st April 2013, making it reasonable and justified [Paras 31-32].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Tribunal’s orders modified. BSNL permitted to revise rates based on 10% annual increase from 1st April 2013, and raise demands accordingly. Tribunal’s decision on retrospective application from 1st April 2009 set aside [Para 32].

Transfer of Property – Rights of Lessor’s Transferee – Under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, if a landlord transfers leased property, the transferee shall possess all the rights of the original landlord. Attornment by the lessee is not necessary. Therefore, upon lawful transfer, the new owner steps into the shoes of the original landlord, acquiring all rights and responsibilities [Paras 1-27].

Eviction – Denial of Title – The tenant's denial of the landlord's title was found to be malafide, unsupported by admissible evidence, and contrary to the registered sale deed held by the respondent. The eviction order based on such denial, as well as on grounds of non-payment of rent and the landlord's requirement for own use, was upheld [Paras 17-26].

Concurrent Findings – Interference by Supreme Court – The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence. In this case, the findings were based on substantial evidence and were upheld [Paras 10-13, 27-30].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The court upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority, and High Court, affirming the eviction order. Two months’ time was granted to the appellants to vacate the premises [Para 30].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – The Supreme Court reiterated that the compensation of Rs. 60 lakhs per family as determined in its order dated February 8, 2017, is final and cannot be broken down into a per hectare calculation for individual claims. The order provided a full and final settlement for project affected families, including those who had not been compensated fully or partially, and was issued under Article 142 of the Constitution to resolve the ongoing controversy comprehensively [Paras 27-28].

Jurisdiction – Article 142 – The order passed by the Supreme Court under Article 142 is not susceptible to further clarification or modification through miscellaneous applications. The final compensation package determined by the court represents a comprehensive settlement, and any claims for additional compensation beyond the stipulated amount of Rs. 60 lakhs per family are not permissible [Paras 28-29].

Decision – Application Dismissed – The court dismissed the miscellaneous application seeking further compensation beyond the Rs. 60 lakhs per family as per the order dated February 8, 2017. The court affirmed that the order was final and binding, and any additional claims were not warranted [Para 29].

Environmental Law – Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance – The court held that ex post facto environmental clearance should not be granted routinely but may be permissible in exceptional cases considering all relevant environmental factors. Where adverse consequences of denial outweigh the benefits of granting ex post facto approval, such approval may be granted if the establishment conforms to pollution norms. The court emphasized the importance of balancing environmental protection with economic and livelihood considerations [Paras 47-49].

Environmental Compliance – The EP Act does not prohibit ex post facto environmental clearances. Such clearances can be granted in strict compliance with relevant rules and regulations, ensuring that the projects meet environmental norms. Penalties may be imposed on the principle of 'polluter pays' for any environmental damage caused before obtaining clearance [Paras 48-49].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the National Green Tribunal, which had dismissed the appeal for closure of the Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility. The appeal was barred by delay and did not raise any substantial question of law [Para 50].