Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Article 300A - Interpretation and Applicability - The right to property under Article 300A is characterized as a constitutional right and also as a human right. Compliance with a fair procedure of law is a prerequisite before depriving any person of immovable property. Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which does not provide for necessary procedures before acquisition, cannot be considered a valid provision for the compulsory acquisition of property. [Paras 24-28]

Municipal Law - Power of Acquisition - Sections 352, 363, 535, 536, and 537 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 - Section 352 only authorizes the Municipal Commissioner to identify land for public purposes like parks, streets, etc., but does not confer the power of compulsory acquisition. The actual power of acquisition vests with the State under Section 537, which requires an application by the Municipal Commissioner to the State Government. The argument that Section 352 allows for acquisition was rejected. [Paras 16-23]

Procedural Fairness in Compulsory Acquisition - Seven Sub-Rights - The Court identified seven integral sub-rights under Article 300A that form the constitutional right to property: notice, hearing, reasoned decision, acquisition for public purpose, restitution or fair compensation, efficient and expeditious process, and conclusion. Non-compliance with any of these sub-rights renders the acquisition process unconstitutional. [Paras 27-30]

Judicial Review - Abuse of Statutory Powers - The KMC's actions were found to be in blatant violation of statutory provisions, including failure to follow due process under the Act, which led to the wrongful acquisition attempt. The High Court's decision to quash the acquisition was affirmed. [Paras 32-34]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Costs Imposed - The appeal by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000 to be paid to the respondent within sixty days. The High Court's judgment was upheld in its entirety, emphasizing that KMC's actions were illegal and without proper authority of law. [Paras 34-36]

Constitutional Law - Civil Law – Review Petition under Article 31A – Land Reserved for Common Purposes – Vesting of Management and Control – Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Challenge to the judgment allowing the Civil Appeal of the State of Haryana and setting aside the Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana – Petitioner contends the judgment contravenes the Constitution Bench judgments in Bhagat Ram, Ranjit Singh, and Ajit Singh – Reassessment of the applicability of Article 31A and the second proviso concerning acquisition by the State for common purposes – Review allowed due to oversight of the binding nature of the Constitution Bench judgment in Bhagat Ram, lack of consideration of consistent High Court rulings, and the doctrine of stare decisis [Paras 1-69].

Scope of Review Jurisdiction – Supreme Court reiterated the limited scope of review jurisdiction – Review permissible only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason – Review not equivalent to the original hearing and not maintainable for repetition of old arguments or minor mistakes – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of addressing errors undermining the soundness of the original judgment – Identified material errors in the judgment under review due to non-consideration of binding precedents and failure to engage with key arguments presented by the Full Bench of the High Court [Paras 12-14].

Constitution Bench Judgments – Supreme Court reviewed the Constitution Bench judgments in Bhagat Ram, Ranjit Singh, and Ajit Singh – Reaffirmed that the management and control of lands reserved for common purposes do not vest in the Panchayat until possession changes under Section 24 of the Consolidation Act – Highlighted the need for compliance with procedural steps before vesting – Identified oversight in the judgment under review for failing to consider the binding precedent in Bhagat Ram [Paras 22-58].

High Court Judgments and Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Full Bench of the High Court in Jai Singh II and other High Court judgments consistently held that unutilized land (Bachat land) remains vested with the proprietors – Supreme Court identified errors in the judgment under review for not engaging with this consistent legal position and the principle of stare decisis – Highlighted the necessity of stability in the law and the impact of longstanding judgments on parties’ rights [Paras 59-67].

Decision – Review Petition allowed – Held – The judgment and order dated 7th April 2022 are recalled – Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 is restored to the file – Appeal to be heard peremptorily on 7th August 2024 [Para 69].

Arbitration and Conciliation - Termination of Arbitral Proceedings - Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitral Tribunal's Order Terminating Proceedings - Appeal Against High Court’s Decision Setting Aside Termination - Held: The power under Section 32(2)(c) can be exercised only if the continuation of the proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible - The tribunal must record its satisfaction that proceedings have become unnecessary or impossible based on material on record - Failure of the claimant to request the tribunal to fix a date for hearing, per se, is no ground to conclude that proceedings have become unnecessary - Abandonment of the claim must be established either expressly or by convincing circumstances leading to an inevitable inference of abandonment - In the absence of such circumstances, the tribunal’s decision to terminate proceedings was unjustified - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 21, 22]

Arbitration - Duties of Arbitral Tribunal - Tribunal’s Duty to Fix Meetings and Hearings - Even if the parties do not request, it is the duty of the tribunal to fix a meeting for hearing - Tribunal must adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it - If the parties remain absent without reasonable cause, the tribunal can take recourse to relevant provisions such as Section 25. [Para 21(b)]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs - Parties to take necessary steps to appoint a substituted arbitrator following the withdrawal of the sole arbitrator from the proceedings. [Para 22]

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability Against Privatized Entity – Appeals filed challenging the High Court of Bombay's decision to dismiss writ petitions against Air India Limited (AIL) due to its privatization – Supreme Court examined whether AIL, post-privatization, remains amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – Concluded that writ jurisdiction does not subsist against a privatized entity not performing public duties, upholding the High Court's decision to deny relief and direct appellants to seek other remedies [Paras 1-6, 22-39].

Subsequent Events – Impact on Litigation – Equity Considerations – Appellants contended that rights crystallized at the institution of proceedings should not be defeated by subsequent privatization – Supreme Court reaffirmed that subsequent events rendering an entity private and non-public duty performing nullify its amenability to writ jurisdiction – Equity considerations and delay in disposal do not justify maintaining writ petitions against a privatized entity [Paras 7-13, 40-45].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Held – Appeals dismissed, affirming High Court's decision that writ petitions against privatized Air India Limited are not maintainable – Appellants directed to pursue alternative legal remedies – Delay in adjudication and privatisation's impact upheld as grounds for non-maintainability under Article 226 [Paras 41-46].

Civil Law – Dissolution of Partnership Firm – Appeal against High Court’s judgment which set aside the trial court’s decision dissolving a partnership firm and directing the rendition of accounts – Supreme Court upheld the dissolution of the firm and confirmed that the suit was not barred by limitation despite no plea of limitation being raised initially – It was established that the firm dissolved automatically upon the death of one partner in 1984, making the suit filed in 1996 barred by limitation – Decision based on the principle that courts must dismiss suits barred by limitation regardless of whether the defense was raised [Paras 1-24].

Limitation Act – Application of Section 3 – The Court reiterated that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, courts are obligated to dismiss suits instituted after the prescribed period of limitation even if limitation is not pleaded as a defense – Affirmed that the dissolution of the firm in 1984 triggered the start of the limitation period for filing the suit for rendition of accounts, thus barring the suit filed in 1996 [Paras 15-20].

Decision – Allowance of Appeal – Held – The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Division Bench allowing the appeal and setting aside the single judge's decision is reversed, reaffirming the firm’s dissolution in 1984 and barring the suit as time-barred – Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 21-24, 35-36].

Partnership Law - Dissolution of Firm - Limitation - Applicability of Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Automatic dissolution on the death of a partner - Held: Partnership firm constituted by partners including a deceased partner automatically dissolved upon his death in 1984 - Suit for dissolution filed in 1996 held to be time-barred - Duty of court to dismiss a suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit rejected as barred by limitation. [Paras 15-20]

Limitation - Duty of Court - Mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Court bound to dismiss a suit filed after the limitation period, even if limitation not raised as a defense - Held: Lower courts erred in allowing suits without considering limitation - Appeal allowed, suit dismissed. [Paras 16-17, 20-22]

Dissolution of Partnership - Continuation of Business - Impact on Limitation - Continuation of business activities post-death of a partner does not negate automatic dissolution under Section 42(c) - Business activities carried out post-dissolution deemed to be in individual capacity - Suit filed beyond limitation period held time-barred. [Paras 18-19]

Decision - Appeals Allowed - Original suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts dismissed as barred by limitation - Concurrent findings by lower courts reversed. [Paras 21-22, 33-36]

Municipal Corporation – Regularization of Employees – Appeals against High Court’s decision granting regularization of service from the date of merger – Issue of whether employees of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat, merged with Solapur Municipal Corporation, should be treated as regular employees from the date of merger or from the date of their formal regularization by the Corporation – High Court ruled in favor of employees, treating their service as regular from the merger date based on sanctioned posts and statutory provisions – Supreme Court found new documents, not considered by the High Court, questioning the regularity of appointments – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration with direction to permit additional documentary evidence – Appeals allowed, High Court’s judgment set aside, writ petitions restored for reconsideration. [Paras 1-14]

Employment Status – Statutory Interpretation – Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Section 493(5)(c) – Whether employees of merged Gram Panchayats automatically become regular employees of the Corporation – High Court relied on sanctioned posts and statutory provisions deeming prior service as regular – Supreme Court highlighted the need for verification of new documents indicating possible irregularities in initial appointments – Matter requires detailed examination of facts by High Court. [Para 5-10]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Matters remanded to High Court for fresh consideration – Directions issued for permitting additional evidence – High Court requested to prioritize and expedite disposal of the case. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Law – Conviction for Gang Rape – Appeals against High Court's decision to convert acquittal into conviction for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC – Trial Court initially acquitted the accused for lack of corroborating evidence, citing potential consensual sexual intercourse – High Court, on appeal, set aside acquittal, ordered retrial, and subsequently convicted the accused – Prosecution and defense adopted previous evidence post-remand – High Court's finding based on prosecutrix's consistent testimony and lack of consent – Absence of corroborative injuries on prosecutrix not grounds for inferring consent [Paras 1-12].

Criminal Law – Sentencing Leniency – High Court imposed sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment, less than the statutory minimum ten years, citing adequate and special reasons – Incident dated 1989, multiple acquittals and retrials, and considerable passage of time (28 years) considered – High Court's discretion under the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC (pre-2013 amendment) exercised, considering accused’s age and family responsibilities [Paras 13-14].

Judgment and Order – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal against leniency – Sentence enhancement unjustified after 35 years – Vijay Kumar ordered to serve remaining sentence – Other respondents likely completed sentences – Vijay Kumar granted one month to surrender [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Section 494 IPC and Section 34 IPC – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court of Kerala’s decision rejecting quashing of proceedings against accused for bigamy upheld by Supreme Court – Challenge in Supreme Court against High Court’s decision maintaining trial court’s decision to frame charges for bigamy against accused – Accused alleged to have common intention in committing bigamy with knowledge of prior marriage – Court examined evidence and found lack of substantial evidence to support charges under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC for accused other than the spouse in second marriage – Orders against appellants quashed and set aside [Paras 1-24].

Ingredients of Offence – Essential ingredients of offence under Section 494 IPC require proof that accused spouse contracted second marriage while first marriage subsisted and both marriages were valid – Non-spouse accused charged under Section 34 IPC with common intention to commit bigamy must have acted with knowledge of the subsisting first marriage – Insufficient evidence to establish knowledge and common intention against non-spouse accused – Charges and proceedings against non-spouse appellants deemed unwarranted [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Appeals allowed, quashing High Court’s order and all proceedings against non-spouse appellants – Evidence insufficient to support charges under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC against non-spouse accused – Trial against spouse in second marriage to continue – Orders framing charges against non-spouse appellants and rejecting their revision petitions quashed – No order as to costs [Paras 22-24].