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.

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].

Service Law – Termination – Challenge to High Court order upholding reinstatement – Termination order was a speaking order with reasons clearly stated – High Court erred in concluding the termination was without reasons – No legal or factual similarity between the cases of Ram Gopal and Shyam Behari Lal to warrant parity – Ram Gopal had not been in service since 1978, unlike Shyam Behari Lal who had served for 17 years – Respondent's writ petition was filed with an inordinate delay of 12 years without valid justification – Appeals allowed, High Court's orders set aside, and writ petition dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Equity – In Personam vs. In Rem – High Court's retention order for Shyam Behari Lal was not a judgment in rem – Equitable considerations in Shyam Behari Lal’s case not applicable to Ram Gopal – Fence-sitting and prolonged delay in filing writ petition cannot justify reinstatement – Legal principle of equity acts in personam, not in rem [Paras 13, 16-19].

Laches and Delay – Respondent's writ petition filed after 12 years – Courts reluctant to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favor of those who sleep over their rights – Delay defeats equity – Legal tenets restated that unexplained delays and laches are valid grounds to deny relief [Paras 14-17].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Interim order in contempt proceedings also quashed [Para 20].

Mining Law – Transportation of Iron Ore – Appeal against High Court's order permitting JSPL to transport iron ore purchased from SMPL – Supreme Court's interim directions prohibited mining operations, not transportation of already mined, purchased, processed, and royalty-paid ore – High Court correctly allowed transportation – Appellants' objections concerning environmental clearance and application of MMDRA misplaced – Appeal dismissed subject to conditions [Paras 1-20].

Environmental Clearance – Mining Operations vs. Transportation – Clarification that "mining operations" as per Section 3(d) of MMDRA includes only extraction processes, not transportation – Interim directions by Supreme Court on mining operations do not bar transportation of legally procured minerals – High Court's reliance on Bihar Mines Ltd. case upheld [Paras 10-13, 18].

Intervening Applications – Financial Interests – Banks' intervention supporting JSPL's plea due to financial exposure – Allowed subject to compliance with directions to deposit proceeds in a Trust & Retention Account under SBI's supervision [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – JSPL allowed to transport iron ore post compliance by SMPL with Supreme Court's directions – All interim applications disposed of accordingly [Para 20].

Rent & Eviction – Re-induction of Tenant – Statement by counsel in court – Landlord bound by counsel's statement regarding re-induction of tenant – High Court's decision to uphold counsel's statement in review petition justified – Counsel's statement binds landlord, cannot resile from it – Order for re-induction of tenant in reconstructed premises upheld with modifications [Paras 1-20].

Counsel Authority – Professional Responsibility – Lawyer's authority as agent of client – Counsel's statement within the scope of engagement binds client unless explicitly instructed otherwise – Reliance on Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society vs. Balwan Singh & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 373 for scope of lawyer's authority [Paras 5, 11].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court's order modified – Landlord directed to provide specified portion of premises to tenant and pay compensation – Implementation supervised by court-appointed receiver [Para 19].

Motor Vehicles Act – Cross-objection – Appeal against High Court's rejection of cross-objection in motor vehicle compensation case – Conjoint reading of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Rule 249 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, and Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC allows any party aggrieved by any part of the award to prefer an appeal – Respondents may file cross-objections even if they have not appealed – High Court erred in declining to consider the cross-objection on merits – Appeal allowed, matter remitted to High Court for decision on cross-objection [Paras 1-28].

Civil Procedure – Order XLI Rule 22 – Cross-objection maintainability – Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of Order XLI CPC specifies that cross-objection must be heard even if the original appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default – High Court required to decide cross-objection on merits despite dismissal of original appeal by Insurance Company – Appeal allowed, High Court's order set aside [Paras 27-28].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and order set aside – Matter remitted back to High Court for deciding the cross-objection on merits – No order as to costs [Para 28].

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

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.