Facts:

The plaintiffs contended that defendants 1 to 3 executed agreements for the sale of land, while defendants asserted that the agreements were collateral security for a loan. The dispute also involved subsequent supplementary agreements and possession of the land.

Issues:

The nature of the transaction, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform their part of the contract, the application of the doctrine of lis pendens, and the appropriate relief to be granted.

Held:

Nature of Transaction: The court found that the agreements evidenced a sale transaction rather than serving as security for a loan. The execution of supplementary agreements after notice reinforced the intention of the parties towards the sale transaction.

Readiness and Willingness of Plaintiffs: The plaintiffs demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, making payments against the sale consideration. The court rejected the defendants' denial and emphasized that the plaintiffs' conduct was not inequitable.

Doctrine of Lis Pendens: The court applied the doctrine of lis pendens, stating that subsequent sale transactions were subject to the rights determined in the pending suit. However, the court disapproved the characterization of the sale deeds as illegal.

Relief Granted: The court partly allowed the appeal and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 to the respondent No. 2 in lieu of specific performance. Various factors, including the long possession of subsequent purchasers and the enhanced valuation of the land, influenced this decision.

Limitation: The court addressed the limitation issue, affirming that the plaintiffs filed the suit within the prescribed three-year period, and no delay operated against them.

Observations on the Nature of Transaction: The court criticized the lower courts for casting doubts on the nature of the transaction based on irrelevant considerations. The supplementary agreement after notice was emphasized as reaffirming the intention of a sale transaction.

FACTS:

The case involves the acquisition of 131 kms of land, including 6 kms owned by the appellants, for the construction of a Special Railway Project-Western Dedicated Freight Corridor. The appellants raised objections under Section 20D(2) of the Railways Act, asserting that no order was passed on their objections. They sought the quashing of the Notification issued under Section 20A and the declaration issued under Section 20E.

ISSUES:

Non-compliance with Section 20D(2) – Effect on the acquisition.

Validity of the objections raised by the appellants.

Competent Authority's duty to pass a reasoned order.

Communication of the order to the appellants.

Contradictory stand by the respondents on the nature of the order.

Timing of the order under Section 20D(2) in relation to personal hearing.

Strict construction of expropriatory legislation.

Balancing appellants' rights and the larger public purpose.

Compensation assessment for the acquired land.

HELD:

In the absence of an order under Section 20D, no further steps in the acquisition could be taken. Section 20D provides a substantive right for landowners to object before being divested of their land. The right to file objections under Section 20D is akin to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court emphasized the need for a reasoned order after considering objections.

The limited right to file objections and have a personal hearing under Section 20D must not be reduced to an empty formality. The Competent Authority is duty-bound to pass a reasoned order reflecting application of mind.

A valid order must be reasoned and communicated to the parties. Internal file notings or reports submitted to the Central Government do not constitute a valid order. No order rejecting objections was passed after the personal hearing, and the Competent Authority did not communicate file notings to the appellants.

Contradictory stands by respondents on the nature of the order. The order under Section 20D(2) cannot precede the personal hearing. Strict construction of expropriatory legislation is necessary, and deviations invalidate subsequent acquisition steps.

The Competent Authority, being quasi-judicial, must act in conformity with mandatory statutory provisions. In the absence of an order under Section 20D(2), subsequent acquisition steps are invalidated.

Despite finding a breach, the Court decided not to set aside the entire acquisition. The relief is molded by compensating the appellants for the 6 km stretch based on the current market value, as per Section 20G of the Act.

The remaining 125 km stretch stands acquired, with pre-construction activity completed. To balance rights and public purpose, compensation for the appellants is directed based on the current market value.

Despite the breach, the Court refrains from setting aside the acquisition for the remaining 125 km stretch, as landowners are satisfied with the compensation awarded.

REFERRED CASES:

Decided on : 13-08-2019

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 5A and 17 - Acquisition Proceedings - Invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act, is found to be illegal - A situation where because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the land owners, developments have taken in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created - A more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the land owners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners against the eligibility and to the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively. (See : Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21)

Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 20A, 20G and 20G(2) - Acquisition proceedings - Compensation - Absence of an order passed on the objections under Section 20D - Challenge before this Court has been made by the Appellants with respect to a stretch of land admeasuring approximately 6 kms, out of the total stretch of 131 kms - Remaining stretch of land comprising of 125 kms has been acquired, and stands vested in the Government - Respondents have stated on Affidavit that preconstruction activity and earth work has been completed on most parts of the stretch. Furthermore, most of the bridges are either in progress, or have already been completed - No mala fides have been alleged by the Appellants against the Respondents in the acquisition proceedings - Larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the Notification under Section 20A is quashed - Public purpose of the acquisition is the construction and operation of a Special Railway Project viz. the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Surat, Gujarat.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. C.G. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. G.C. Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Cases Referred

A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : AIR 1970 SC 150]

Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395

CCE vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 597

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chennai, (2005) 7 SCC 627

Indore Vikas Pradhikaranv. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 705

J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul, (2011) 10 SCC 714

Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596

Laxminarayan R. Bhattad vs. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 5 SCC 413]

Laxmi Devi vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 10 SCC 241

Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496

Khub Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074

Kunwar Pal Singh vs. State of U.P., (2007) 5 SCC 85.

Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1217]

Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426

Om Prakash vs. State of U.P., (1998) 6 SCC 1

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792

Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322

Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (2015) 7 SCC 21

Sethi Auto Service Station vs. DDA, (2009) 1 SCC 180

Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 705

State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471

State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358

Union of India vs. Krishan Lal Arneja, (2004) 8 SCC 453

Union of India v. Shivraj, (2014) 6 SCC 564

Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 4 SCC 210

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between the Director of Horticulture, Odisha (appellant) and Pravat Kumar Dash and others (respondents).

Candidates were selected for training for the post of Gardener, and the training process lacked transparency.

The Tribunal directed the State to consider the applicants for appointment against existing vacant Gardener positions, a decision upheld by the High Court.

Six persons' services were terminated, but the termination was later set aside in 2001.

Issues:

Validity of the training process for the post of Gardener.

Applicability of Orissa Civil Services Rules and Article 311 to the appointment.

Legality of the direction to the State for the appointment of candidates who completed training.

Held:

The selection of candidates for training lacked transparency, and there was no commitment to appoint candidates post-training.Completing training did not automatically confer the right to employment; appointments must be through fair competition.The direction to appoint candidates based on training alone was unjustified.( Para 17)

The order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, directing the State to appoint the applicants as Gardeners, exceeded its jurisdiction.The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the High Court and Tribunal were set aside.The OAs filed by the respondents were dismissed.( Para 19)

Facts:

Long-standing rivalry between the wife of the appellant (accused no.3) and the victim-deceased.

Alleged altercation between appellant (accused no.1), his wife (accused no.3), and the victim.

Appellant and associates attacked the victim, resulting in his death.

Trial Court convicted appellant and accused no.2, acquitted accused no.3.

High Court maintained conviction of the appellant but acquitted accused no.2.

Issues:

Doubts regarding the place and manner of occurrence.

Unclear identification of the aggressor and how the altercation started.

Lack of clarity on the presence of the deceased at the appellant's doorstep and the presence of bloodstains.

Credibility of the defense version claiming the deceased assaulted the appellant's wife.

Held:

The prosecution failed to remove doubts about the place and manner of occurrence, the identity of the aggressor, and the start of the altercation.( Para 14)

Even after disbelieving the prosecution's case, the court examines whether the appellant is entitled to acquittal based on the right of private defense.( Para 15)

The likelihood that the incident occurred at the appellant's doorstep is considered, given the hostile terms between the parties and a previous argument.( Para 17)

The court accepts the alternative case that the incident took place without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel.( Para 18)

The appellant is convicted under Part-I of Section 304 IPC, extending the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.( Para 20)

Facts:

Three separate suits were filed against the defendants, including the State of Andhra Pradesh. The first two suits pertained to land in Survey No.9 of 2013 of Khairatabad Village, while the third suit concerned land in Survey Nos.49 and 50 in Rasoolpura Village. The State contended that all three suits should be dismissed as the land in question fell within Survey No.43 of Village Bholakpur, designated as a Government Shikkam Talab.

Issues:

Whether the findings in the first and second suits, which were dismissed, should be treated as a decree and operate as res judicata in the appeal against the decree in the third suit.

Held:

The findings recorded by the High Court were patently erroneous. The decree in the third suit was a dismissal of the suit, entirely in favor of the State, and not immediately executable.

The decrees in the first and second suits had not attained finality, as they were still under appeal before the First Appellate Court.

Section 11 and Explanation I of the Code were held to be applicable in subsequent proceedings, but the findings in the first and second suits would not operate as res judicata due to their subject to challenge in ongoing appeals.

The High Court failed to distinguish between the decree and a finding on an issue. The right of the defendants-State to dispute findings on Issue No.1 was upheld, even without filing cross-objections, as the decrees had not attained finality.

The term "decree" was discussed in terms of Section 2(2) of the Code, emphasizing its formal expression of an adjudication conclusively determining the rights of the parties.

Decision: The order of the High Court was set aside, affirming that the findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the first and second suits did not operate as res judicata. The defendants-State retained the right to dispute these findings in the ongoing appeals.

Facts:

Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Lecturer of Home Economics on an ad-hoc basis with a condition in the appointment letter allowing termination for unsatisfactory performance.

The termination was based on the finding that the services of respondent No. 1 during the academic years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were unsatisfactory.

An appeal was filed before the College Tribunal, and subsequently, an appeal was made to the High Court, challenging the termination.

Issues:

Whether the termination of services of respondent No. 1 on an ad-hoc basis was valid based on unsatisfactory performance.

Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the termination order.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the termination of services of respondent No. 1 was valid as it was on an ad-hoc basis and was not punitive. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside. The key points include:

The appointment of respondent No. 1 was on an ad-hoc basis, and the termination was within the rights of the Management Committee based on unsatisfactory work.

The termination was not punitive and did not carry any stigma.

The Division Bench of the High Court went beyond the controversy involved in the writ petition, and its decision was found to be unsustainable in law.

The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

M/S Shahi and Associates (Appellant) entered into an agreement on 08.07.1993 with the Superintendent Engineer, Drainage Division, District Gonda, U.P., for civil construction projects.

Disputes arose regarding the rate of payment for additional work under the agreement, leading to arbitration proceedings initiated by the appellant on 11.09.1999.

The sole Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 17,86,339/- to the appellant with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the award to the date of actual payment.

Respondents challenged the award, and the District Judge upheld the sum awarded but reduced the interest rate to 6% p.a. based on para 7-A of Section 24 of the U.P. Amendment Act.

Issues:

Whether para 7-A of Section 24 of the U.P. Amendment Act, applicable to the repealed Arbitration Act, 1940, can be invoked in arbitration proceedings commenced under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Held:

The Act of 1996 came into force on 22.08.1996, repealing the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Para 7-A of Section 24 of the U.P. Amendment Act, an amendment to the repealed Arbitration Act, has no application to proceedings commenced after the enforcement of the Act of 1996. Section 31(7)(b) of the Act of 1996 mandates 18% p.a. interest on the awarded sum in the absence of specific directions by the Arbitrator.

Decision:The appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the District Judge in reducing the interest rate.The interest awarded by the Arbitrator at 18% p.a. in accordance with Section 31(7)(b) of the Act of 1996 is restored.

FACTS:

Lands acquired in 1985, award declared in 1988, and compensation enhanced to Rs. 30/- per square yard by Reference Court.

High Court in 1996 reduced compensation to Rs. 22-20 per square yard.

Petitioners seek parity with Kasna landowners who received Rs. 65/- per square yard in 2016.

Delay of 21 years in filing special leave petitions.

ISSUES:

Condonation of the substantial delay in filing special leave petitions.

Petitioners' entitlement to enhanced compensation and parity.

HELD:

The Court notes the absence of a sufficient cause for the substantial delay of 21 years and an additional delay in refiling the petitions.

Emphasizes the lack of explanation for the delay, stating no grievance was made for about 21 years after the High Court's judgment.

Invokes principles of acquiescence and laches, highlighting the non-existence of a right not exercised for a long time.

Rejects reliance on previous decisions cited by petitioners, emphasizing the unique circumstances and adverse impact on the acquiring body if directed to pay enhanced compensation after a long delay.

Dismisses applications for condonation of delay and consequently dismisses special leave petitions on the ground of limitation.

REFERRED CASES:

Dhiraj Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127

K. Subbarayudu vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in (2017) 12 SCC 840

Market Committee, Hodal vs. Krishan Murari reported in (1996) 1 SCC 311

Facts:

The dispute involves Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL), Canara Bank, and its subsidiary CANFINA. The disagreement arises from a transaction where CANFINA subscribed to bonds floated by MTNL, subsequently transferring them to Canara Bank. MTNL canceled the bond allotment, alleging incomplete payment by CANFINA.

Issues:

Existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

Joinder of CANFINA as a party in arbitral proceedings.

Application of the Group of Companies Doctrine.

Held:

Existence of a Valid Arbitration Agreement: The court establishes that a valid arbitration agreement is crucial for the arbitration process, and it can take various forms. Section 7(4)(b) allows deriving an arbitration agreement from different means of communication, including electronic means. The court emphasizes interpreting arbitration agreements based on the parties' intentions rather than technicalities.

Agreement Evidenced by Documents: The agreement between MTNL and Canara Bank to arbitrate disputes is evidenced by documents exchanged and court proceedings. Once a party consents to arbitration, they are estopped from later denying the existence of a written agreement.

Application of Section 7(4)(c): Section 7(4)(c) is cited, stating that an arbitration agreement can be in the form of exchanged statements of claims and defense. The court highlights that documents filed before the arbitrator can constitute evidence of an arbitration agreement if not denied by the other party.

Tri-Partite Agreement: The court concludes that the agreement is essentially a tri-partite agreement between MTNL, Canara Bank, and CANFINA. The dispute's nature requires the involvement of all three parties for effective resolution.

Joinder of CANFINA: The "Group of Companies" doctrine is invoked to join CANFINA in the arbitration proceedings. The court deems CANFINA a necessary and proper party due to the tri-partite nature of the transaction.

Application of Group of Companies Doctrine: The court applies the "Group of Companies" doctrine, considering the tight group structure, organizational links, and financial support among the companies. The doctrine is deemed applicable to enable the arbitral tribunal to decide disputes involving all three parties in one proceeding.

Remittal to Arbitral Tribunal: The court partly allows the appeals and remits the matter to the Sole Arbitrator to continue with the arbitral proceedings, including all three parties.