List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and PK Mishra   in the matter of Union of India v. M/S Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. Etc.Etc. held that the penalty for mis declared goods can be imposed by the Railways post-delivery of consignments/goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989 (Act). 

What was the Background of Union of India v. M/S Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. Etc.Etc. (2025) Case? 

Initial Dispute: 

• The Union of India (Railway authorities) raised demand notices against multiple respondents on various dates:  
  • 13th October 2011 
  • 7th April 2012 
  • 29th October 2011 
  • 7th April 2012 
• The demands were raised alleging mis-declaration of goods for consignments sent through Indian Railways. 
• The respondents paid the demanded amounts under protest. 

Railway Claims Tribunal: 

• After paying the demands, respondents filed separate claim petitions under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 
• Claims were filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA Nos. 229/12, 184/12, 228/12, and 185/2012. 
• Respondents sought refund of amounts paid, arguing that demand notices issued after delivery of goods were illegal under Sections 73 and 74 of the Railways Act, 1989. 
• The Tribunal allowed the claim petitions vide common order dated 19th January 2016. 
• Tribunal directed refund of amounts with 6% per annum interest:  
  • C.M. Traders: Rs. 4,47,965/- 
  • Vinayak Logistics: Rs. 4,97,342/- 
  • Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd.: Rs. 3,07,902/- and Rs. 15,12,959/- 
• Tribunal relied on Gauhati High Court judgment in Union of India v. Megha Technical & Engineers Pvt. Limited (2013).  

Gauhati High Court: 

• Railway authorities appealed to Gauhati High Court against the Tribunal's order. 
• Appeals were filed as MFA Nos. 80 of 2016, 57 of 2016, 29 of 2017, and 28 of 2017. 
• Railway authorities argued that Tribunal failed to consider that consignments were booked declaring one category, but loaded items were different. 
• The High Court dismissed the appeals vide judgment dated 20th December 2021. 
• The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's order. 

Supreme Court: 

• Railway authorities filed Special Leave Petitions (SLP(C) Nos. 11566-11569/2022) before Supreme Court 
• Leave was granted and SLPs converted to Civil Appeals Nos. 7376-7379 of 2025.

What were the Court’s Observations?

Railway Authorities' Case: 

• Courts below erroneously treated the dispute as overloading of wagon (governed by Section 73) instead of mis-declaration case. 
• Actual cases involving consignments were found to be different from the declared category, attracting penalties under Section 66 of the Act.  
• The High Court's reliance on Jagjit Cotton Textile case was erroneous as it dealt with overloading and right to lien. 
• Section 83 permits detainment of goods after delivery. 

Respondents' Case: 

• Since demand notices were raised after delivery of goods, Section 66 was not applicable. 
• Courts below are rightly held in favor of respondents. 

Supreme Court's Analysis: 

• Demand notices were for mis-declaration, not overloading of wagon. 
• Section 66 applies to the present case, not Section 73. 
• Demand notices were found to be genuine in nature. 
• The High Court's interpretation of the Jagjit Cotton Textile case was erroneous. 
• The observation in Jagjit Cotton Textile about collecting penal charges before delivery was merely a suggestion under Section 54(1), not applicable to Section 66. 

Final Decision: 

• Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court's order dated 20th December 2021 
• Civil appeals were allowed in favor of Railway authorities. 
• Pending applications are disposed of.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Referred to? 

Railways Act, 1989: 

• The Railways Act, 1989 is a legislation enacted by the Indian Parliament to govern all facets of rail transport in the country.  
• It came into effect in 1989, superseding the earlier Railways Act of 1890.  
• The Act comprehensively outlines legal provisions related to railway zones, construction and maintenance of railway infrastructure, as well as services concerning passengers and railway employees. 

Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989: 

Section 66 - Power to Require Statement Relating to Description of Goods 

Sub-section (1): 

• The owner or person having charge of goods brought for railway carriage must provide a written statement. 
• Consignees or endorse must also provide statements when requested by authorized railway servants. 
• Statement must contain description of goods to enable determination of carriage rate. 

Sub-section (2): 

• If the owner/person refuses to give a statement or open package when required. 
• Railway administration can refuse to accept goods for carriage. 
• Alternative: charge highest rate for any class of goods. 

Sub-section (3): 

• If consignee/endorsee refuses to give statement or open package. 
• Railway administration can charge highest rate for any class of goods for the carriage. 

Sub-section (4): 

• If statement is materially false regarding description of goods. 
• Railway administration may charge rates not exceeding double the highest rate for any class of goods. 
• Rate to be specified by Central Government. 

Sub-section (5): 

• If a difference arises regarding description of goods. 
• Railway servants may detain and examine the goods. 

Sub-section (6): 

• When goods detained for examination and found different from stated description. 
• Cost of detention and examination borne by owner/person/consignee/endorsee. 
• Railway administration is not liable for any loss, damage, or deterioration during detention/examination. 

Key Elements of this Section: 

• Section 66 does not specify the stage (before or after delivery) when charges can be made. 
• Legislative intent permits levy of charge under Section 66 at either stage. 
• No restriction to impose penalty only before delivery of goods. 
• Section 66 is distinct from Section 73 (overloading) and Section 78 (re-measurement before delivery). 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/S Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. held that if the original sale agreement was not registered, it cannot confer valid title solely because a subsequent transaction based on that unregistered deed was later registered. 

What was the Background of Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/S Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2025) Case? 

Original Land Ownership and Initial Transactions: 

• Original Owners: 11 individuals including Mohd. Ruknuddin Ahmed owned 526.07 acres in Survey No.83, Village Raidurg (Panmaktha), Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh. 
• General Power of Attorney: On 07th July 1974, owners executed a registered GPA in favor of Sri Venkateswara Enterprises partnership firm. 
• Subject Property: 53 acres out of the total 525.31 acres was the disputed land in this case. 

Statutory Proceedings Under Land Reform Acts: 

• Land Reforms Act Application: When the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 came into force on 01St January 1975, owners filed 11 declarations. 
• State Possession: About 99.07 acres was found surplus in the hands of 4 declarants and possession was taken by the State on 11th April 1975. 
• Land Ceiling Act Declarations: Owners through their GPA filed declarations under Section 6(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 
• Final Statements: Issued on 16th September 1980 and 30th January 1980 declaring surplus area for each declarant. 
• Government Notification: GOMS No.5013 dated 19th December1980 vesting the surplus land in State. 
• HUDA Allotment: State allotted 470.33 acres to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority under Section 23. 

Sale Agreement and Subsequent Litigation: 

• Sale Agreement: On 19th March 1982, GPA holder executed an agreement of sale with M/s Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd for land extent (dispute over whether 125.35 acres or 99.17 acres). 
• Consideration: Rs. 50,000/- paid by cheque as part of payment, balance to be paid within six months of obtaining permission under the Land Ceiling Act. 
• Registration Act Violation: Agreement was not registered despite being compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. 
• Section 23 Time Limit: Agreement should have been presented for registration within four months from execution date (19th March 1982) as per Section 23 of Registration Act.  
• Section 49 Consequences: Unregistered agreement could not affect immovable property as per Section 49 of the Registration Act. 
• Specific Performance Suit: Bhavana Society filed O.S.No.248 of 1991 for specific performance. 
• Suit Dismissal: Suit dismissed for default on 06th April 2001; restoration application also dismissed on 23rd February 2004. 
• Agreement Validation: Sale agreement was validated by Assistant Registrar, Ranga Reddy District on 11th September 2006. 
• Fraudulent Validation: District Registrar, Karimnagar held the validation to be fraudulent by order dated 12th August 2015. 

High Court: 

• Writ Petition Filed: W.P No.30855 of 2016 filed by writ petitioners (respondents herein) seeking restraint against TSIICL from entering 53 acres land. 
• Single Judge Decision: Dismissed writ petition finding no valid title with petitioners and fraudulent validation of sale agreement. 
• Division Bench Appeal: Division Bench allowed appeal, distinguished 53 acres from total 525.31 acres, relying on interim orders in earlier writ petitions. 
• Interim Orders Relied Upon:  
  • W.P. No.29547 of 2011 - restraining Lok Ayukta from proceeding further. 
  • W.P. No.4466 of 2012 - stay of demolition of structures raised by writ petitioners. 

Supreme Court: 

• Appeals Filed: Legal heirs of original owners (appellants) filed appeals against Division Bench judgment. 
• Supreme Court Hearing: Heard by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran. 
• Final Decision: Supreme Court restored Single Judge's decision, dismissed Division Bench judgment.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On Title and Possession: 

• No Valid Title Established: Writ petitioners failed to establish valid title to the disputed 53 acres. 
• Suspect Title: Court found title to be prima facie suspect, disentitling writ petitioners from claiming rightful possession. 
• Possession Not Proved: Neither actual nor physical possession was proved by writ petitioners. 
• Interim Orders Insufficient: Mere reliance on interim orders in earlier writ petitions cannot establish actual physical possession. 

On Sale Agreement and Registration Act Violations: 

• Compulsory Registration Ignored: 1982 sale agreement should have been compulsorily registered under Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 as it purported to create title/interest in immovable property. 
• Section 49 Application: Court noted that unregistered agreement cannot affect immovable property as per Section 49 of Registration Act. 
• Time Limitation Breach: Agreement executed on 19th March 1982 but never presented for registration within four months as required by Section 23 of the Registration Act. 
• Invalid Validation: 2006 validation could not cure fundamental defect of non-registration after expiry of all statutory time limits. 
• Registration Act Purpose: Court emphasized that Registration Act was enacted to provide orderliness, discipline, public notice and protection from fraud in property transactions. 

On State's Rights and Statutory Vesting: 

• Statutory Vesting Valid: 99.07 acres were validly vested in the State under Land Reforms Act. 
• State's Eminent Domain: State has absolute right over lands and power of eminent domain. 
• APIIC Allotment Final: 424.13 acres allotment to APIIC (now TSIICL) has attained finality. 
• Section 9-A Invocation: State can invoke Section 9-A of the Land Reforms Act for reopening cases. 

On Conduct of Parties: 

• Guile and Fraud: Court noted that guile employed in making conflicting claims before authorities. 
• Multiple Transactions: Successive transactions were designed to defeat statutory vesting. 
• CBI Investigation: Sale deeds led to CBI investigation where they were found fraudulent. 
• Criminal Proceedings: Proceedings initiated under criminal law against writ petitioners and their directors.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Referred to? 

• The Registration Act, 1908: 

Relevant Sections of the Registration Act Referred to in the Case: