Facts:

Two suits were filed, Civil Suit No. 43 of 2009 and Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009, relating to the same property.

The suits were consolidated for joint trial by order dated 08.12.2007.

Evidence in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009 had commenced before consolidation, with the Appellant examined as PW-1.

The Respondents sought to recall PW-1 for further examination after the consolidation of suits.

An application was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151, invoking the inherent powers of the court.

Issues:

Whether a witness can be recalled under Order 18 Rule 17 for further elaboration after evidence has been closed.

The scope and limitations of the power under Rule 17 and the inherent powers of the court.

Held:

The court held that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 is limited to clarifying doubts or positions and cannot be used to fill omissions or lacunae in the evidence. The inherent powers of the court under Section 151 are available to reopen evidence for further examination or cross-examination, even after the closure of evidence. The impugned orders to recall the witness for further elaboration were impermissible. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suits expeditiously.

Referred Cases:

Bagai Construction Through its Proprietor Lalit Bagai Vs. Gupta Building Material Store, (2013) 14 SCC 1

K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275

Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar Dead Through LRs. Vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410

Facts:

The case involves allegations against a broker, Kishore R. Ajmera, and sub-brokers in three categories of charges, including the creation of artificial volumes in illiquid scrips, synchronized trades in a large number of illiquid scrips, and circular trading of scrips on behalf of one client.

Issues:

Clarity in the power of imposing penalties for manipulative or fraudulent practices under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, and related regulations.

Lack of direct evidence showing the involvement of the broker and sub-broker in the alleged fraudulent practices.

Held:

The court acknowledges the unclear and confusing provisions in both the Act and the Regulations concerning the power to impose penalties. Advocates emphasize the need for comprehensive legislation to bring clarity to norms governing the securities/capital market (Para 20).

The court discusses the fundamental principle of law regarding proof of allegations and the importance of direct evidence. It notes the absence of direct evidence in this case but highlights the judicial duty to infer reasonable conclusions from surrounding facts and circumstances (Para 22).

In the absence of direct evidence, the court notes the significance of voluminous trading in illiquid scrips and the alert issued by the Stock Exchange regarding exercising care in high-volume trading in such scrips (Para 23).

Referring to a specific case (SEBI Vs. Kishore R. Ajmera), the court states that the primary facts alleged do not establish negligence or lack of due care, making the respondent-broker liable under the Conduct Regulations, 1992 (Para 24).

In the second and third categories, the court considers factors such as the huge volume of trading in illiquid scrips and the proximity of time between buy and sell orders. It concludes that there is evidence of transgressions beyond the permissible dividing line between negligence and deliberate intention (Para 25).

The court emphasizes that the conclusion should be based on various circumstances, including the volume of trade, persistence in trading, particulars of buy and sell orders, and the proximity of time between transactions. It distinguishes between negligence and deliberate intention based on the extent of persistence in trading (Para 26).

Considering the imposition of penalties in different cases and the stage at which monetary penalties were imposed, the court upholds SEBI's penalties in the second and third categories (Para 30).

The court sets aside the tribunal's orders and restores the penalties imposed by SEBI on the brokers (Para 31).

Facts:

The appellants, small-scale shopkeepers near the Shirdi shrine, faced ouster from their shops. A suit filed in 1979 securing their right of rehabilitation was initially decreed but deemed inexecutable due to intervening developments.

Issues:

The case involves a conflict between private interest (appellants' businesses) and public interest as mandated by relevant Town Planning and Municipal Laws.

Held:

Both appellants and respondents share blame for leaving the compromise decree unexecuted. No determination of the appellants' right, title, and interest in the land exists. Despite continuous possession since 1970, the appellants must be rehabilitated or compensated due to the contemplated measures for overall development.( Para 54)

The emerging situation pits private interest against public interest. The public trust doctrine, emphasizing collective welfare, requires precedence. Public interest, particularly in health, law and order, peace, security, and a clean environment, deserves priority.( Para 55, 56)

Uprooting the appellants would cause overall dislocation, even if they have buildings assessed to municipal tax elsewhere. Despite conducting business for over 45 years, their eviction is unavoidable for paramount public interest.( Para 61)

The State and its functionaries are directed to identify a suitable site for the appellants' rehabilitation. If an alternative site is not feasible, a lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs for bigger shops/stalls and Rs. 15 lakhs for smaller ones is granted.( Para 62)

If identifying an alternative plot fails, the appellants are entitled to adequate monetary compensation.( Para 63)

The compensation, if needed, will be Rs. 20 lakhs for bigger shops/stalls and Rs. 15 lakhs for smaller ones. The State Government and Shri Sai Baba Sansthan, Shirdi, must deposit the amount in equal shares in the Bombay High Court within six weeks.( Para 64)

The appeals are dismissed, ( Para 65)

Referred Cases:

Arun Lal Vs. Union of India, (2010) 14SCC 384

Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University, (2001) 6SCC 534

K. Krishna Reddy Vs. Special Deputy Collector, (1988) 4 SCC 163

K.T. Plantation Private Limited Vs. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1

M/s. Laxmi & Co. Vs. Dr. Anant R. Deshpande, (1973) 1SCC 37

Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545

Tukaram Kana Joshi Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, (2013) 1 SCC 353

Facts:

Respondent No. 1 sought to contest the election but had his nomination rejected due to his name not being on the electoral roll.

The High Court set aside the rejection and directed a fresh election.

Appellant challenged the decision, arguing that the High Court should not have intervened in the ongoing election process.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the election process.

Whether an alternative statutory remedy was available to the respondent.

Held:

The Court stated that the High Court should not have interfered with the election process, especially when an alternative statutory remedy was available to the respondent (Para 14).

Emphasizing settled legal principles, the Court highlighted that courts should avoid interfering with the election process once initiated to prevent unnecessary delays or cancellations (Para 15).

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and directed the publication of the election result. Respondent No. 1 was given the option to approach the Central Government for dispute resolution (Para 16).

Referred Cases:

N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist., AIR 1952 SC 64

Nanhoo Mal Vs. Hira Mal, (1976) 3 SCC 211

Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami Moingiri Maharaj Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509

Facts:

Around 46.93 acres of land in Village Fatehpur acquired by the Respondent-State of Haryana for residential and commercial development in Panchkula, Sector-21.

Previous cases set a precedent for land values at Rs. 250/- per square yard in neighboring villages based on acquisition proceedings in 1981 and 1987.

The Appellants' properties in Devi Nagar are 375 yards away from the national highway, connected by a narrow Nahan Kothi Road.

Initial claim by the Appellants was Rs. 125/- per square yard.

Issues:

Discrepancy in land values for properties in adjoining villages compared to the Appellants' properties due to proximity to the national highway.

Held:

The court acknowledges the argument for uniformity in land values but deems it unjust to award Rs. 250/- per square yard to the Appellants given the differences in proximity to the national highway.

Considering the factual and legal positions, the court awards just and fair compensation to the Appellants at Rs. 200/- per square yard.

The court emphasizes that the duty of the court is to award just and fair compensation based on the true market value and relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner.

The appeals are disposed off.

Referred Cases:

Bhag Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1985) 3 SCC 737

Bhimasha Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2008) 10 SCC 797

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Kanhaiya Lal, (2000) 7 SCC 756

Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274

Sanjay Batham Vs. Munna Lal Parihar, (2011) 10 SCC 665

Facts:

In land acquisition proceedings related to Award No. 79 of 1982-1983, the court had previously fixed the land value at Rs. 76,550/- per Bigha in a judgment dated 03.08.2004. Statutory benefits were denied for a period during which there was a stay operating in the proceedings initiated by the appellants.

Issues:

Whether the appellants could be denied statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for a period of stay initiated by them.

Held:

The court rejected the argument that the appellants could be denied statutory benefits due to the period of stay initiated by them. It emphasized that such considerations are not relevant for the grant of statutory benefits under Section 28 of the Act. Section 28, which deals with the payment of interest on excess compensation, was interpreted to not exclude any period, and the liability to pay interest starts from the date of dispossession.

The appeals are allowed.

Referred Cases:

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bali Ram Sharma, (2004) 6 SCC 533

Facts:

The land owned by the appellant and family members was acquired through notifications in 1972 and 1973. Legal challenges ensued, resulting in a judgment in 2001 exempting 10.76 acres from acquisition.

Issues:

The appellants sought the release of land under the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975. The Trust rejected the claim, citing previous allotments and a compromise exempting 10.76 acres.

Held:

The court clarified that the term 'local displaced person' under the Rules is specific to the acquisition concerned.

No evidence supported the Trust's claim of a compromise limiting future claims.

Dismissing the argument of a belated claim, the court noted the dispossession in 2008 and the claim made in 2010.

The court limited the current claim to 250 sq. yards each, considering the appellant's earlier claim, stating it served the interest of justice.

Facts:

Appellant, Nandram, initially employed in Aurangabad, was transferred to various locations, finally ending up in Pondicherry.

Company decided to close Pondicherry unit, leading to the termination of appellant's employment.

Company's registered office is in Aurangabad, and the decision to close the Pondicherry unit was taken there.

Issues:

Territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court to hear the appellant's complaint.

Jurisdiction of Labour Court in Aurangabad and Pondicherry.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that both Labour Courts have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. While the Labour Court in Pondicherry has jurisdiction since the termination occurred there, the Labour Court in Aurangabad also has jurisdiction as the decision to terminate the appellant was taken in Aurangabad. The Court set aside previous orders and restored the order passed by the Labour Court in Aurangabad.

FACTS:

Consolidation proceedings in Village Karala, Delhi, started in 1975 and concluded in 1976.

After 23 years, respondents filed an application seeking land allotment based on their father's possession during the consolidation proceedings.

Final order by Consolidation Officer on 24.12.2004 allegedly passed without proper notice or opportunity to the appellant.

ISSUES:

Lack of opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

Nature of possession claimed under "Scheme Kabiz" not adequately examined.

Claim under Section 43A made after a delay of 23 years.

HELD:

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, remitting the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh hearing. The final order on 24.12.2004 was deemed to be without proper notice or opportunity. Certain clarifications were provided for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to examine the recording of "Scheme Kabiz," investigate the nature of possession claimed, and limit the jurisdiction under Section 43A to clerical or arithmetical errors. The matter should be re-determined within six months.

Referred Cases:

Amar Singh, Jagram Dead Vs. Chandgi Dead, (1989) 1 SCC 308

Mange Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner, (2003) 2 SCC 1