Criminal Procedure – Recalling Judgment – Section 362 CrPC – High Court lacks jurisdiction to recall its own order after it is passed – Only correction of clerical or arithmetical errors allowed under Section 362 – High Court's suo moto recall of the order quashing the FIR was without jurisdiction – Original order quashing FIR restored [Paras 2-5].

Jurisdiction – Suo Moto Recall – Court's power limited to corrections – Recall of detailed reasoned order not permissible under Section 362 – High Court's recall order set aside [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order dated 28.04.2021 recalling its earlier order quashing the FIR is set aside – Original order dated 20.04.2021 quashing the FIR is restored – No costs ordered [Para 5].

Transfer of Property – Sale Deed – Joint Possession – Appellant claimed that the sale deeds executed by his brother Sudarshan Kumar under a power of attorney were void as no consideration was paid – Supreme Court holds that the sale of immovable property without consideration is void under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act – Sale deeds to Sudarshan Kumar’s wife and minor sons held void – Appellant entitled to joint possession of suit properties [Paras 12-18].

Evidence – Payment of Consideration – No evidence was adduced by Sudarshan Kumar regarding the payment of consideration by his wife and minor sons – High Court’s finding that amounts were not out of reach is without basis – Validity of sale deeds questioned due to lack of consideration and earning capacity of purchasers [Paras 14-16].

Legal Effect – Void Transactions – Transactions without consideration do not confer any right, title, or interest – Sale deeds executed under power of attorney without payment of price held as sham transactions – No necessity to specifically claim a declaration as regards void documents in the plaint [Para 16].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – District Court’s decree restored – Appellant entitled to joint possession of the suit properties with respondents – No order as to costs [Paras 18-19].

Penal Code – Private Defence – Sections 96 to 102 – A plea of private defence need not be set up in a particular manner and can be applied to others if the evidence shows a preponderance of probabilities – The concept of acting in excess must be assessed based on the continuous apprehension of danger – Use of weapons significant in context – Courts must be cautious and apply the principle of sifting the chaff from the grain when evidence is inseparable and impacts credibility [Paras 46-47, 48-49].

Penal Code – Common Object – Section 149 – Mere presence in an assembly does not constitute an offense unless it becomes unlawful with a common object – Prosecution must prove the assembly had a common unlawful object and the offense was committed in prosecution of that object – Courts should be cautious due to the deeming fiction under Section 149 IPC requiring higher onus on prosecution [Paras 50-51].

Evidence – Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus – The principle of rejecting entire testimony due to falsehood does not strictly apply – Courts should sift credible evidence unless discrepancies are inseparable and material – Discrepancies impacting witness credibility can lead to rejecting their testimony [Paras 48-49].

Evidence – Motive – While motive may lose significance with adequate eyewitness evidence, it is crucial when the plea of private defence is raised – Avoidance of unimpeachable evidence regarding motive can seriously impact the prosecution's case [Paras 51-52].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Case remanded for fresh consideration on possession and maintainability – Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt – Plea of private defence accepted as possible and plausible – Appeals by de facto complainant dismissed – No costs ordered [Paras 60-61].

Arbitration – Modification of Award – Appellant contested the modification of the original award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The Supreme Court held that the original award did not contain any arithmetical or clerical errors and was made considering the claims as presented – Modification beyond scope of Section 33 – Both City Civil Court and High Court erred in upholding the modified award – Appeal allowed, original award restored [Paras 1-13].

Jurisdiction – Scope of Section 33 – The arbitrator’s power to modify an award is limited to correcting arithmetical or clerical errors – Any substantial change in the award exceeds the ambit of Section 33 – The modified award introducing new claim values is unsustainable [Paras 8-12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Original award dated 04.12.2010 reinstated – Modified award dated 14.01.2011 quashed – No order as to costs [Para 13].

Promotion – Relaxation in Qualifying Service – High Court directed the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service for promotion, permissible under Rule 4 of the 2006 Rules – Supreme Court held that relaxation under Rule 4 is discretionary, not a right – The term "MAY" in Rule 4 indicates the authority's discretion – High Court erred in issuing writ of mandamus to compel the grant of relaxation – Eligibility lists prepared in accordance with Rule 5(iii) and Rule 8(iii) of the Rules, 1990 were correct – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-8].

Discretionary Power – Mandamus – The court emphasized that relaxation in qualifying service cannot be claimed as a right – Authorities' discretion cannot be overridden by mandamus unless there is a failure to exercise discretion lawfully – High Court's command to grant relaxation was inappropriate [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court set aside – Eligibility lists excluding respondents were valid – Writ petition by original writ petitioners dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 8].

Land Ceiling – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is a self-contained code providing for appeal and revision before designated authorities – Civil courts lack jurisdiction to try suits related to land under ceiling proceedings – Orders by competent authorities under ULC Act are final and cannot be declared illegal or non est by civil courts – High Court erred in affirming the lower courts’ judgments granting relief to the respondent [Paras 1-15].

Possession and Utilization – ULC Act Compliance – Competent authority's orders declaring surplus land became final – Possession taken by conducting panchnama, respondent signatory as a witness – Land utilized for public purpose, construction of houses for slum dwellers – Civil court's decree declaring possession not taken is erroneous [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of the lower courts and High Court set aside – Suit filed by respondent dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 17].

Succession – Interpretation of Will – The First Appellate Court found that the will's recitals clearly conveyed full ownership to the testator's wife, which the High Court erroneously reversed by incorrectly applying Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have interfered as the First Appellate Court's findings were not perverse and were final on matters of fact and law [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Interference – High Court's Role – The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC by reevaluating factual findings without identifying any substantial question of law – The First Appellate Court’s judgment was based on a correct interpretation of the will, granting full ownership, which the High Court wrongly assessed under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and decree set aside – The suit filed by the appellant along with Smt. Shevantabai decreed as prayed for as per the First Appellate Court's judgment dated 22.01.1992 – No order as to costs [Para 13].

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Respondent no. 2, Nishant Solanki, claimed juvenility at the time of the incident dated 05.05.2020 – High School marksheet indicated his date of birth as 25.09.2004 – Sections 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, mandates presumption of juvenility unless reasonable grounds for doubt exist – Application for medical test dismissed, with reliance placed on documentary evidence [Paras 1-11].

Procedure and Evidence – Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 – Outlines the procedure for age determination: (i) School/matriculation certificate, (ii) Birth certificate from municipal authority or panchayat, (iii) Ossification test or other medical age determination tests – The age recorded by the JJ Board deemed to be true for the purposes of the Act [Paras 22-24, 47-48].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Orders of the High Court, District Court, and JJ Board affirmed – Respondent no. 2 declared a juvenile at the time of the incident based on valid documentary evidence – No merit in the appeal [Paras 49-50].

Public Interest Litigation – Res Judicata – Summary dismissal of earlier petition under Article 32 does not bar the present writ petition – Court must be cautious in applying res judicata in matters of grave public interest – High Court's error in allowing the writ petition without substantive adjudication on merits [Paras 1-13, 26-35].

Disinvestment – Strategic Public Sector Undertakings – Petitioners argued that disinvestment of HZL without amending the Nationalisation Act, 1976, violated legal provisions and public interest – Court held disinvestment decision made in accordance with legal procedures and government policy – No express or implied bar in Nationalisation Act against such disinvestment – Union Government’s decision to disinvest residual shareholding in HZL upheld [Paras 1-15, 36-48].

CBI Enquiry – Closure of Preliminary Enquiry – Petitioners challenged the closure of CBI's preliminary enquiry into disinvestment process – Court found CBI followed due procedure as per CBI Crime Manual – Closure of preliminary enquiry upheld [Paras 49-53].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Court upheld the Union Government's decision to disinvest its residual shareholding of 29.54% in HZL – CBI’s closure of preliminary enquiry into disinvestment process affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 54].