Stay of operation of judgment - Grant of interim relief - Issuance of notice in Special Leave Petition - Service of process on respondents - Timelines for filing counter-affidavit and rejoinder - Listing for hearingIssuance of notice in Special Leave Petition - Notice in the special leave petitions was issued and made returnable within a stipulated period. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that notice issue in the special leave petitions and be returnable within eight weeks. For respondents who have already entered appearance, further individual notice was dispensed with and copies of the petitions were to be served on them. Other respondents were to be served in the usual course. These directions establish the procedural timetable for service and appearance in the special leave proceedings.Notice issued and made returnable within eight weeks; service directions given as stated.Timelines for filing counter-affidavit and rejoinder - Timelines for filing pleadings in response were fixed. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that a counter-affidavit be filed within six weeks and any rejoinder affidavit within four weeks thereafter. These directions regulate the sequence and timing of affidavit exchange between the parties to facilitate progress of the petition.Counter-affidavit to be filed within six weeks; rejoinder, if any, within four weeks thereafter.Stay of operation of judgment - Grant of interim relief - Interim stay was granted on the operation of the High Court judgment and order. - HELD THAT: - As an interim measure pending hearing of the special leave petitions, the Court stayed the operation of the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 30th September, 2016 in C.W.J.C. No.6675 of 2016 and other connected matters. This stay preserves the status quo while the matter is placed before the Court for further consideration.Operation of the High Court judgment of 30th September, 2016 in C.W.J.C. No.6675 of 2016 and connected matters stayed pending further orders.Listing for hearing - The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing after a specified interval. - HELD THAT: - The Court ordered that the matter be listed after ten weeks, thereby fixing the next stage in the adjudicatory timetable and allowing time for compliance with the directions on service and filing of affidavits.Matter to be listed after ten weeks.Final Conclusion: Notice issued in the special leave petitions with directions for service; timelines fixed for counter-affidavit and rejoinder; interim stay granted on the High Court's judgment of 30th September, 2016 in C.W.J.C. No.6675 of 2016 and connected matters; matter listed after ten weeks.

Issuance of notice returnable within a fixed period - Interim permission to use commercial property pending adjudication - Interim restraint on transfer or encumbrance of propertyIssuance of notice returnable within a fixed period - Notice to respondents to be issued and made returnable within six weeks; certain respondents accepted notice. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that notice be issued to the respondents and fixed the returnable date at six weeks. It recorded that counsel for respondent no.8 and for respondent no.4 accepted notice and directed that notice be issued to the remaining respondents. The Court also permitted service by Dasti in addition to ordinary modes of service.Notice issued returnable within six weeks; acceptance of notice by specified respondents recorded and Dasti service permitted.Interim permission to use commercial property pending adjudication - Interim restraint on transfer or encumbrance of property - Interim directions regarding the respondents' use of the sugar mills and prohibition on transfer or encumbrance pending further orders. - HELD THAT: - While the matter is pending before the Court, respondents were permitted to use the sugar mills purchased by them as functioning sugar mills and to make them operational if they had gone out of production. Simultaneously, the Court imposed an interim restraint preventing the respondents from transferring or otherwise encumbering the sugar mills without the prior permission of the Court. These measures are provisional and expressly limited to the pendency of further orders in the case.Respondents may operate the sugar mills but are restrained from transferring or encumbering them without the Court's permission until further orders.Final Conclusion: The Court issued notice returnable in six weeks (with certain respondents accepting notice and Dasti service permitted) and granted interim permission to operate the purchased sugar mills while restraining any transfer or encumbrance of those mills without the Court's permission pending further orders.

Settlement between parties - disposal of appeal by compromise - no adjudication on merits - question of law left openSettlement between parties - disposal of appeal by compromise - no adjudication on merits - Civil appeal disposed of consequent to settlement between the parties; no further relief granted by the Court. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court records that the parties have settled their disputes and, as a result, there is nothing further to be adjudicated in the appeal. The Court therefore disposed of the civil appeal on the basis of the settlement without entering upon or deciding the substantive controversies between the parties. As the settlement ousts further contest in the proceedings, the Court gave effect to the compromise and terminated the lis before it.Appeal disposed of on the parties' settlement; no adjudication on merits.Question of law left open - Question of law raised in the appeal was not decided by the Court and remains open. - HELD THAT: - Although the appeal has been disposed of by reason of the parties' settlement, the Court explicitly declined to decide the question of law that had been urged, leaving that legal issue undetermined. Consequently, no precedent or ratio on that question is laid down by this order.Question of law left open for future adjudication.Final Conclusion: The civil appeal is disposed of pursuant to a settlement between the parties; the substantive disputes were not adjudicated and the question of law raised is expressly left open.

Condonation of delay - Interim stay of High Court direction restraining coercive action - Issuance of notice returnable after three weeks - Dasti serviceCondonation of delay - Delay in filing the petition was condoned. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded its satisfaction to condone the delay and proceeded to hear the matter on merits by permitting the petition to be taken up. No separate reasoning is recorded beyond the order condoning the delay and listing the matter for further proceedings.Delay is condoned.Issuance of notice returnable after three weeks - Dasti service - Notice was ordered to be issued in the petition and returnable after three weeks, with permission for dasti service. - HELD THAT: - Having condoned the delay, the Court directed that notice be issued in the matter and fixed a returnable date three weeks hence. In addition to formal service, the Court expressly permitted dasti service to facilitate prompt communication of the proceedings to the respondents.Notice to be issued returnable after three weeks; dasti service is permitted.Interim stay of High Court direction restraining coercive action - An interim stay was granted against the High Court's direction that coercive action could be taken only after initiation of proceedings and after serving a seven days' notice. - HELD THAT: - The Court stayed, in the meantime, that part of the impugned High Court order which mandated that any coercive action against the petitioner shall only be effected after initiation of proceedings in accordance with law and after serving upon the petitioner a seven days' notice. The stay is interlocutory and operative pending further orders on the issued notice returnable as directed.Stay of the High Court's direction regarding mandatory seven days' notice and initiation of proceedings is granted until further orders.Final Conclusion: Delay in filing the petition was condoned; notice was ordered returnable after three weeks with permission for dasti service; and an interim stay was granted on the High Court's direction requiring initiation of proceedings and a seven days' notice before effecting any coercive action, operative until further orders.

Summary order. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary order. The special leave petition is dismissed as abated on account of the death of the petitioner.

Summary order. Matters listed for final disposal on 12.04.2016; parties to complete pleadings in the meantime; the interim order previously passed shall remain in force until the next date of hearing.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed; delay condoned; pending application, if any, disposed of.

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - omission in statutory exclusion and its legal effect - actus curiae neminem gravabit - reference to a larger bench for authoritative pronouncementSection 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - omission in statutory exclusion and its legal effect - Whether the legislative omission in Section 24(2) to exclude periods of court-ordered stay materially determines the applicability of the five-year bar in Section 24(2). - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the coordinate bench decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association which concluded that Section 24(2) makes the five-year period absolute because it does not expressly exclude periods of judicial stay. The present Bench observed that the omission relied upon by the coordinate bench (absence of an express exclusion) raises a significant question of law requiring reconsideration. Rather than accepting the earlier view as conclusive, the Bench held that the legal effect of such omission-whether it should be treated as a conscious legislative choice binding courts-warrants authoritative determination by a larger Bench. Consequently, the question is referred for that purpose. [Paras 3, 4]Referred the question whether the omission in Section 24(2) makes a substantive difference to the legal position to a larger Bench for authoritative consideration.Actus curiae neminem gravabit - exclusion of period of interim judicial orders from statutory time-limits - Whether the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit applies to exclude the period covered by an interim order for the purposes of Section 24(2). - HELD THAT: - The Bench accepted that the maxim that the act of the court should not prejudice parties is an established principle. It found that this principle could have direct bearing on whether periods during which acquisition proceedings were stayed by court orders should be excluded when applying Section 24(2). Given the legal importance and potential impact of applying that principle to the statutory five-year bar, the Bench held that the matter requires authoritative adjudication by a larger Bench rather than being finally resolved in the present proceedings. [Paras 4]Referred the question of applicability of actus curiae neminem gravabit to exclude periods of judicial stay from computation under Section 24(2) to a larger Bench.Final Conclusion: The two identified questions of law - the legal effect of the omission in Section 24(2) and the applicability of the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit to exclude periods of judicial stay - are referred to a larger Bench for authoritative determination; the Registry is directed to place the papers before the Chief Justice of India.

Summary order. List the matters before a bench of which one of the two judges (Hon'ble Uday Umesh Lalit, J.) is not a member.

Summary order. The special leave petition is dismissed and delay is condoned; pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

Summary order. Delay condoned. Special leave petitions dismissed for lack of merit; pending application disposed of. Petitioner granted liberty to approach the High Court for early adjudication and for seeking imposition of suitable conditions on respondents enlarged on bail.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed for lack of legal and valid grounds.

Summary order. Matter to be processed for listing before the Court: respondent No.1 has filed a counter affidavit; respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 7 have not filed counter affidavits within the stipulated period; service on respondent Nos.4 and 6 is complete but no one has appeared on their behalf.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed as having become infructuous because the suit has been dismissed; if the suit is restored the petitioner may pursue appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Right to be represented before the Redressal Committee through a lawyer - representation by counsel permitted for respondents - hearing before the Redressal Committee to be concluded in one day - non-precedential orderRight to be represented before the Redressal Committee through a lawyer - representation by counsel permitted for respondents - hearing before the Redressal Committee to be concluded in one day - Special leave petitions against the High Court order permitting representation before the Redressal Committee and limiting the hearing to one day - HELD THAT: - The Court declined to entertain the special leave petitions in view of the High Court's declaration of the law concerning an individual's right to be represented before the Redressal Committee by a lawyer, while simultaneously permitting the respondents to be represented by counsel and directing that the hearing before the Redressal Committee be concluded in one day. The Supreme Court found these aspects of the High Court's order sufficient to refuse interference in the peculiar facts of the case.Special leave petitions dismissed; order not to be treated as a precedent.Final Conclusion: The special leave petitions were dismissed and the Court recorded that the order cannot be treated as a precedent.

Acquittal rendering appellate proceedings infructuous - withdrawal of petition - dismissal as withdrawn - observations of lower court not surviving withdrawal - substitution of parties in pending petition - dismissal for non-prosecutionAcquittal rendering appellate proceedings infructuous - withdrawal of petition - Petition WP No.21620 of 2011 withdrawn by petitioner following trial court acquittal and corresponding SLP dismissed as infructuous. - HELD THAT: - Learned counsel for the petitioner confirmed that on 11th October, 2014 the trial court had acquitted the petitioner in the prosecution instituted by the respondents. In light of that acquittal and the absence of any allegation that the petitioner or its members were playing rummy (13 cards), the petitioner elected to withdraw the writ petition filed before the Madras High Court (WP No.21620 of 2011). The Court permitted withdrawal and consequently held the connected special leave petition to be dismissed as infructuous.Withdrawal permitted; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn and SLP dismissed as infructuous.Observations of lower court not surviving withdrawal - Observations made by the High Court or in the writ appeal do not survive the withdrawal of the petition. - HELD THAT: - Because the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the petitioner, any observations recorded by the High Court in the writ petition or in the writ appeal filed by the State were held to be non-operative and do not survive. The court therefore declined to give further effect to those observations.Observations of the High Court and in the writ appeal do not survive the withdrawal.Withdrawal of petition - dismissal as withdrawn - Multiple writ petitions and an SLP were permitted to be withdrawn and were dismissed as withdrawn on the petitioners' request. - HELD THAT: - Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1060/2013, 1073/2013, 402/2014, 200/2014 and SLP(C) No.15568/2015 sought and were granted permission to withdraw their petitions. The Court allowed the withdrawals and dismissed those petitions as withdrawn. Similar permission was granted in respect of W.P.(C) No.1061/2013 after allowing I.A. No.3 for substitution of the petitioner's name, and that petition was also dismissed as withdrawn.Permission to withdraw granted; the listed petitions and SLP dismissed as withdrawn; substitution allowed in W.P.(C) No.1061/2013.Substitution of parties in pending petition - I.A. No.3 in W.P.(C) No.1061/2013 allowing substitution of the petitioner's name was allowed. - HELD THAT: - The application for substituting the name of the petitioner from M/s. Darkhorse Farm & Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. to Vidura Games Private Limited in W.P.(C) No.1061/2013 was allowed by the Court. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition, which was granted and the petition dismissed as withdrawn.Substitution allowed; petition thereafter dismissed as withdrawn.Dismissal for non-prosecution - W.P.(C) No.859/2014 dismissed for non-prosecution. - HELD THAT: - No one appeared on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.859/2014, and the Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. Pending applications in all matters were disposed of.Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; pending applications disposed of.Final Conclusion: The Court permitted withdrawal of the specified writ petitions and SLP, dismissed them as withdrawn, allowed substitution in one petition, held that earlier High Court observations do not survive the withdrawal, dismissed one petition for non-prosecution, and disposed of pending applications; the SLP related to WP No.21620 of 2011 was dismissed as infructuous following the trial court acquittal.

Res integra - entertainability of petition where subject-matter was not considered below - scope of precedent and purposive limitation of subordinate judgment's observationsRes integra - entertainability of petition where subject-matter was not considered below - Whether the Court should entertain the present petitions in respect of online rummy where the High Court's impugned judgment did not consider the question of online rummy. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 22nd March, 2012 in W.A. No. 2287 of 2011 contains no discussion on online rummy and that respondents themselves had not taken a decision on whether online rummy is unlawful. Since the question of law relating to online rummy remains open and undetermined (res integra), the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to entertain the present petitions which would require adjudication on an issue not addressed below. The Court further clarified that any observations in the impugned judgment cannot be taken as resolving the legality of online rummy.Petitions disposed of as unnecessary to be entertained; impugned judgment does not decide online rummy and observations therein may not relate to online rummy.Final Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of on the ground that the question of law regarding online rummy was not considered in the impugned High Court judgment and remains res integra; the matter was not adjudicated on merits by this Court.

Special leave petition - Discharge application - Trial court's consideration on meritsSpecial leave petition - Dismissal of the special leave petitions filed by the petitioners. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court considered the special leave petitions and dismissed them. No reasons beyond the order of dismissal are recorded in the judgment text provided.Special leave petitions dismissed.Discharge application - Trial court's consideration on merits - Whether the petitioners should be permitted to seek discharge before the trial court and how such an application is to be treated. - HELD THAT: - Although the special leave petitions were dismissed, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to make an application for discharge. The trial court is directed to consider any such discharge application on its own merits, implying that the question of discharge has not been finally adjudicated by this Court and remains for fresh consideration by the trial court.Petitioners granted liberty to apply for discharge; trial court to decide the discharge application on its merits.Final Conclusion: The special leave petitions are dismissed; however, the petitioners are granted liberty to apply for discharge, and the trial court is to consider any such application on its own merits.