Land Acquisition – Compensation Determination – Appellant Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) sought review of the Supreme Court's judgment affirming the High Court's enhanced compensation for land acquired for Industrial Model Township in Manesar – HSIDC challenged the reliance on certain sale deeds for determining compensation [Paras 2-9].

Review Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court reiterated the limited grounds for review under Article 137 of the Constitution and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – Review jurisdiction does not allow re-argument of the appeal or correction of erroneous decisions unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter not within the knowledge of the applicant at the time of the decision [Paras 10-18].

Evaluation of Evidence – The court examined the new evidence presented by HSIDC regarding the genuineness of sale deed Exhibit P1 and found it insufficient to establish an error in the original judgment – Held that no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated – The argument that sale deeds reflected inflated prices was rejected [Paras 6-8, 19-20].

Judicial Precedents – Cited various precedents including Parsion Devi, Haridas Das, S. Nagaraj, Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde, Smt. Meera Bhanja, and Lily Thomas to emphasize the scope and limits of the review jurisdiction [Paras 10-17].

Decision: Review petitions dismissed – No grounds for review established – High Court's judgment and compensation rates upheld [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Right to Cross-Examination – Appellant, a Sub Divisional Officer in BSNL, facing trial for demanding and receiving a bribe, sought recall of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination after their examination-in-chief – Trial Court and High Court denied the recall, citing lack of initial request to defer cross-examination – Supreme Court held that denial of cross-examination would result in serious miscarriage of justice, emphasizing the importance of cross-examination in testing the credibility of witnesses [Paras 1-7, 9-10, 12-16].

Mistake by Counsel – Supreme Court accepted the explanation that the appellant's counsel mistakenly believed cross-examination could be conducted after the Trap Laying Officer's testimony – Court emphasized the need to avoid penalizing the appellant for counsel's mistake, ensuring a fair trial by allowing recall of witnesses for cross-examination [Paras 7, 10-11].

Section 311 CrPC – Supreme Court reiterated that Section 311 confers wide discretionary power on courts to summon and examine witnesses at any stage if essential for a just decision – Emphasized judicious exercise of this power to prevent failure of justice [Paras 12-15].

Judicial Precedents – Court referred to precedents emphasizing the duty of courts to discover the truth and ensure fair trials, reinforcing the principle that cross-examination is crucial for assessing witness credibility [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Orders of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Trial Court directed to recall prosecution witnesses No. 1 and 2 for cross-examination by the appellant – Proceedings to be expedited with specific hearing dates assigned for each witness [Paras 17].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Appellants convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC for assaulting and causing the death of the deceased – High Court upheld conviction and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000 each – Supreme Court considered the circumstances and reduced the sentences of both appellants [Paras 2-4].

Incident and Background – The deceased, an Income Tax Inspector, objected to a nuisance being committed near his house by Sudhir, leading to a verbal altercation – The next day, the appellants, related to Sudhir, assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death – Appellant Bishnu Sarkar exhorted the assault while Madhab Sarkar inflicted the fatal injuries [Paras 3-4].

Age and Health Considerations – Appellant Bishnu Sarkar, over 65 years old, had already served 1.5 years in jail and was suffering from age-related ailments – Court took a lenient view in his case due to his age and health condition [Paras 5-6].

No Premeditation or Intent to Kill – Court noted the lack of evidence for premeditation or intent to kill – Incident arose from a sudden quarrel with no previous enmity, mitigating factors leading to reduced sentences [Paras 8].

Reduction of Sentences – Appellant Bishnu Sarkar's sentence reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment – Appellant Madhab Sarkar's sentence reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment – Sentence of fine and default imprisonment remained unaltered [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Sentences modified as indicated – Three years rigorous imprisonment for Bishnu Sarkar and seven years for Madhab Sarkar – Fine and default imprisonment unaltered [Paras 8-9].

Local Self-Government – Locus Standi – The appellant, Village Panchayat Calangute, challenged the orders of the Bombay High Court's Goa Bench, which dismissed their writ petitions questioning the actions of the Additional Director of Panchayat – The Supreme Court addressed whether a Village Panchayat established under Section 3 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, has the locus to file writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution [Paras 1-2].

Powers and Functions of Panchayats – Detailed analysis of the constitutional provisions and the Goa Panchayat Raj Act – Emphasized that Panchayats are institutions of self-governance endowed with powers and authority for economic development and social justice – Reviewed the statutory framework, including the duties of Sarpanch and powers related to regulation of building constructions and water supply management [Paras 10-19].

Judicial Review and Public Interest – Supreme Court held that the Panchayat, representing the interests of village residents, has the right to challenge orders that affect public welfare, such as unauthorized constructions blocking access to essential resources – Highlighted the role of Panchayats in enforcing legal compliance and safeguarding public interest [Paras 20-22].

Case Analysis – Reviewed precedents where local bodies and Panchayats were recognized to have the locus standi to file writ petitions – Cited relevant cases to support the Panchayat's standing, reinforcing the principle that local self-government bodies can seek judicial intervention to uphold public rights [Paras 23-26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Writ petitions filed by the appellant restored to their original numbers for adjudication on merits – High Court directed to issue notice to respondents and decide writ petitions on merits – Appellant permitted to apply for interim relief, to be decided by the High Court [Paras 27-28].

Adherence to Schedule – Admission and Affiliation – Petitioners challenged the denial of affiliation for not meeting the cut-off date – Supreme Court emphasized strict adherence to the schedule for admission and affiliation set by previous judgments – No exceptions to the prescribed schedule permitted – Authorities directed to process applications within the stipulated timeframe [Paras 1-19].

Statutory Obligations – Recognition and Affiliation – Court highlighted the statutory obligation of universities and state authorities to comply with the timeframes for recognition and affiliation as per NCTE Regulations and previous court judgments – Any deviation or delay amounts to contempt of court [Paras 20-26].

Doctrine of Repugnancy – Conflict Between State and Central Laws – Discussed the principle of repugnancy where state laws conflict with central laws, particularly in the context of educational regulations – Central law prevails in case of direct conflict [Paras 27-33].

Decision – Writ Petitions and Appeals Disposed of – Held – Petitioners directed to comply with the stipulated schedules – Authorities to consider applications for affiliation within three months – No relief granted to institutions failing to meet cut-off dates – Directions issued for strict adherence to schedules in future [Paras 34-36].

Arbitration – Survivability of Arbitration Agreement – Arbitration clause naming two arbitrators who passed away – Whether the arbitration agreement survives the death of the named arbitrators – Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause does not automatically terminate upon the death of named arbitrators – Parties can appoint substitute arbitrators unless expressly prohibited [Paras 1-24].

Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – The appointment of substitute arbitrators must follow the same procedure as the initial appointment – Court emphasizes a liberal interpretation to support the efficacy of arbitration [Paras 14-17].

Arbitration Clause Interpretation – Words "at any time" in the arbitration clause – Court interpreted it contextually and reasonably to mean the agreement remains active as long as disputes exist, not limited to the lifetime of the named arbitrators [Paras 18-22].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court justified in appointing a substitute arbitrator – Arbitration clause survives the death of the named arbitrators [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law – Summoning Order – Validity – Review petition challenging the summoning order issued by the Magistrate – Summons issued to Nupur Talwar and her husband for the murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj – Allegations of improper evaluation of evidence by the Magistrate [Paras 1-24].

Review Petition – Grounds – Petitioner argued that the Magistrate failed to consider alternative inferences and overlooked material facts – Supreme Court evaluated whether the Magistrate's order was based on sufficient grounds for proceeding [Paras 15-17].

Procedure – Recording Reasons – Supreme Court upheld the necessity for the Magistrate to record reasons for issuing summons – Magistrate's detailed reasoning, though lengthy, justified in the context of rejecting the CBI's closure report and summoning the complainant as an accused [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – Summoning order upheld – Supreme Court found no error in the Magistrate’s reasoning and detailed order – The matter to proceed to trial based on the material collected during investigation [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder and Attempted Rape – Appellant Jugendra Singh convicted for attempting to rape and subsequently murdering a nine-year-old girl – Trial court acquitted the appellant due to perceived inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative medical evidence – High Court reversed acquittal, emphasizing the strength of prosecution evidence and logical inferences – Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision, confirming the conviction [Paras 1-40].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Inconsistencies – Trial court noted discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence, leading to acquittal – High Court and Supreme Court found the trial court's focus on minor inconsistencies misplaced – Emphasized the overall credibility of witnesses and the logical coherence of their accounts [Paras 11-33].

Medical Evidence – Consistency with Prosecution Case – Medical report confirmed cause of death as asphyxia due to throttling, supporting witness testimonies – Supreme Court criticized trial court for misinterpreting medical evidence and ignoring logical conclusions drawn by the High Court [Paras 28-31].

Appellate Review – Reversing Acquittal – Supreme Court discussed principles for reversing acquittals, emphasizing appellate court's power to re-evaluate evidence and correct perverse findings – Highlighted need for comprehensive analysis and logical conclusions in cases of serious crimes [Paras 17-26].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Supreme Court recognized the societal impact of the crime and supported the High Court’s decision to impose a stringent sentence, underscoring the need to address heinous crimes against children decisively [Paras 38-40].

Constitutional Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Competence of Authority – Charge memo issued to respondent by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority – Tribunal and High Court quashed the charge memo on the ground of incompetence – Supreme Court upheld quashing due to lack of proper delegation and passage of time, leaving the legal question open [Paras 1-18].

Article 311 – Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings – Supreme Court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, provided proper authorization exists – Emphasized that dismissal or removal must be by the appointing authority or an authority not below it [Paras 4-8].

Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings – Supreme Court noted significant delay in the case, with over two decades passing since the alleged misconduct – Recognized practical difficulties in proceeding with the inquiry after such a long period, including potential unavailability of evidence [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – Supreme Court declined to proceed on merits due to the lapse of time and absence of necessary authorization for the charge memo – No costs awarded [Para 18].