Civil Suit – Suo Motu Dismissal of Declaratory Relief – Improper Exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction – Appeal Allowed – The High Court, while hearing an appeal against denial of interim relief, dismissed plaintiffs’ substantive declaratory prayers based on unregistered agreements under Section 49 of the Registration Act – Held: The High Court could not have summarily disposed of substantive reliefs in the suit or transferred remaining reliefs to be agitated in a different suit – Legality, admissibility, and validity of documents must be determined during trial – The order was unsustainable in law and suit restored to original number [Paras 9–13].

Possession Protection – Injunction Against Dispossession – Relief Granted – Based on concession by respondent that dispossession would not be attempted without due process of law, the Supreme Court directed continuation of injunction restraining respondents from dispossessing appellants pending suit – Clarified that no view was expressed on merits [Paras 6, 13–14].

Decision – Suit Restored – Injunction Granted – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 14.08.2013, and restored Civil Suit (L) No. 2217 of 2012 to its original number before the Bombay City Civil Court – Directed that respondents be restrained from dispossessing appellants during pendency of the suit – No opinion expressed on merits of the matter [Paras 13–14].
 

Civil law – Mark Unregistered Agreement of Sale – Admissibility under Section 49 of the Registration Act – Appeal Allowed – The appellant sought to mark a document dated 01.01.2000 in a suit for specific performance – Trial Court and High Court rejected the plea on the ground that the document was unstamped and unregistered – Held: The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act permits admission of such document as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance – Reliance placed on S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram – The Court clarified the appellant is permitted to introduce the document, subject to objections on relevancy and validity to be decided by the Trial Court [Paras 9–12].

Land Acquisition Compensation – Differential Award Between Adjacent Villages – Parity Upheld - High Court awarded higher compensation for Fazalwas over Kukrola despite both villages having similar locational and developmental advantages – Held: The Supreme Court ruled that such differentiation lacked evidentiary support and violated principles of equity and fairness – Compensation for Kukrola inner-belt lands enhanced to bring parity with Fazalwas [Paras 10-20, 56-57].

Belting Method – Validity in Land Valuation – Method Justified - Division of acquired land into inner (within 5 acres of NH-8) and outer belts accepted by the Court – Based on proximity to infrastructure like NH-8 and KMP Expressway – Held: Belting method was correctly adopted considering locational variances and site-specific potential [Paras 21-24].

Comparable Sales – Sale Exemplars – Selection Criteria Affirmed - Sale deed Ex. P-3 showing rate of ₹1.03 crore per acre chosen as the most reliable exemplar for inner belt – Ex. P-1 relied upon for outer belt valuation – Post-notification and low-value small-plot transactions discarded – Held: Comparable sales method remains valid if temporal proximity, transaction size, and land similarity are established [Paras 25-31, 51-52].

Escalation and Development Cut – 10% Escalation and 30% Deduction Upheld for Outer Belt - The Court upheld the Reference Court’s escalation rate of 10% per annum and 30% development cut for outer belt lands – Held: Escalation reasonable given two-year gap from sale exemplar, and deduction appropriate due to undeveloped nature of large tracts [Paras 37-41].

Development Cut – Inner Belt – No Deduction Applied - Court declined HSIIDC’s request to apply a development cut on inner belt lands abutting NH-8 – Held: These lands were already development-ready due to locational advantages and infrastructure presence – No further deduction warranted [Paras 54].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Kukrola Inner Belt Compensation Enhanced - Appeals by Kukrola landowners partly allowed by raising inner belt compensation to ₹1.21 crores/acre in parity with Fazalwas – All other appeals including by HSIIDC and Fazalwas landowners dismissed [Paras 56-58].

Criminal Law – PC Act – Appeal Against Conviction - Disproportionate Assets – Abetment by Spouse – Divergent Views – Acquittal by One Judge, Conviction Upheld by Another – Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that mere possession of properties by the wife of a public servant, without direct evidence of knowledge or conspiracy, was insufficient for conviction under Section 109 IPC – Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, dissenting, found active participation and intentional aid established, warranting conviction – Matter referred to Hon'ble Chief Justice for final decision [Paras 1, 27, 36–41].

Burden of Proof – Presumption under Section 13(1)(e) PC Act – Clarified – The burden initially lies on the prosecution to establish possession of disproportionate assets, after which the onus shifts to the accused – Both courts below found that the accused failed to credibly account for the assets, with vague and uncorroborated explanations regarding agricultural income and gifts [Paras 12–16, 35].

Role of Non-Public Servants – Applicability of Abetment under PC Act – Upheld – The judgment reaffirmed that non-public servants can be prosecuted under Section 109 IPC read with PC Act for aiding illicit accumulation of assets by public officials – Reference made to P. Nallammal v. State (1999), where such prosecution was explicitly permitted [Paras 22, 24, 29–30].

Evaluation of Evidence – Standard of Proof for Abetment – Differentiated – Justice Amanullah held that proximity to the public servant alone does not suffice to establish abetment unless active participation or mens rea is proved – Emphasised the presumption of innocence and constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21 – Mere suspicion cannot substitute evidence [Paras 36–39].

Fresh Hearing of Appeal – Validity of Re-Listing – Upheld – Challenge to High Court’s administrative order for fresh hearing after alleged missing judgment of 2013 was rejected – Court held there was no record of the judgment, and the re-listing was justified – No fault found with Chief Justice’s administrative action [Paras 10, 40].

Attachment of Properties – Partial Modification – Affirmed – Attachment order against properties standing in name of accused confirmed, with recalculation reducing recoverable amount from Rs. 35.25 lakhs to Rs. 33.25 lakhs – Despite acquittal of Accused No.2 in one opinion, attachment not disturbed as it was based on unexplained assets [Paras 7, 11, 40].

Decision – Appeals Disposed – Conviction of P. Nallammal under challenge – Split verdict resulted in referral to the Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Appeals related to attachment and administrative listing were dismissed unanimously [Paras 1–3].
 

Vehicle Confiscation – Innocent Owner – Auction Quashed – Compensation Granted – A car belonging to the appellant was confiscated and auctioned due to seizure of a single bottle of liquor found in the possession of a third party – Appellant was not named in the FIR nor connected to the liquor – Held: Respondent-State violated court’s order of status quo and failed to observe principles of natural justice – Supreme Court directed payment of ₹6,40,000 (insured value) to appellant as compensation for wrongful auction [Paras 4–18].

Contempt – Disobedience of Status Quo Order – State Action Criticized – Despite status quo order by High Court, State auctioned the vehicle without giving notice or allowing statutory remedies – High Court recorded contempt but imposed only a nominal cost – Supreme Court found such conduct unjust, especially given loss of appellant’s vehicle and resulting enrichment of State through auction proceeds [Paras 15–17].

Equitable Relief – Small Quantity of Contraband – Disproportionate Confiscation – Appellant’s vehicle was confiscated for 750 ml of liquor recovered from another person – Court held that in such cases, confiscation should not be automatic, especially when no criminal charge was laid against the vehicle owner – Ordered monetary compensation rather than restoration of vehicle [Paras 16–18].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation Ordered – While acknowledging pending constitutional challenge to the Act, Court confined relief to facts of this case – Directed State to pay ₹6,40,000 to appellant within six weeks – Appeal disposed accordingly [Paras 18–19].

Motor Accident Claim – Functional Disability – Assessment Increased – Amputation of Right Leg – Compensation Enhanced - Appellant, a fruit seller, suffered right leg amputation following a vehicular accident – While the disability certificate assessed 50% physical disability, the Supreme Court, applying Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, held that the functional disability impacting the appellant’s income-generating ability should be fixed at 60% – Rejected claim of 100% disability based solely on change in vocation [Paras 2–5].

Loss of Future Income – Vocational Impact – Multiplier and Prospects Applied – Appellant’s income from fruit business, supported by Income Tax Return, was Rs.1,56,996 annually – Future prospects at 40% and a multiplier of 18 applied to calculate loss of earning capacity at Rs. 23,73,780 – Income loss during recovery also preserved at Rs. 19,624 [Paras 3, 6].

Medical and Incidental Expenses – Pain and Suffering Enhanced – Court enhanced pain and suffering compensation to Rs. 2,00,000 and fixed conveyance expenses at Rs. 50,000 for medical transfers – Special diet and attendant charges awarded at Rs. 90,000 for 6 months (Rs. 15,000/month) – Medical bills of Rs. 5,00,949 upheld [Para 6].

Decision – Compensation Enhanced – Total Award Revised to ₹32.34 Lakhs - Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and revised the total compensation to Rs. 32,34,353 – Ordered payment within two months from the date of judgment with interest as directed by the Tribunal, after adjusting amounts already paid [Paras 6–9].
 

Limitation under IBC – Strict Timeframe under Section 61(2) – Appeal Time-Barred – The Respondent No.1 filed an appeal along with a delay condonation application after 45 days from the NCLT’s approval of a resolution plan – NCLAT condoned the delay, holding that the limitation period expired on a Sunday and computing the 15-day condonable period thereafter – Held: The limitation began on the date of NCLT’s pronouncement i.e., 07.04.2022, and since 07.05.2022 (30th day) was a working Saturday for the registry, the additional 15 days expired on 22.05.2022 – Respondent No.1’s filing on 24.05.2022 exceeded the statutory maximum of 45 days and was thus barred by limitation [Paras 4.1, 9-10.4].

Condonation of Delay – No Power to Extend Beyond 15 Days – Section 61(2) IBC – Jurisdictional Bar – NCLAT lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutorily prescribed 45 days – Held: The 15-day extension is the outer limit and cannot be exceeded on equitable or discretionary grounds – NCLAT’s order was ultra vires and set aside accordingly [Paras 11-11.2].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Delay Beyond Statutory Limit Fatal – Supreme Court held that even a single day's delay beyond the combined 45-day period under Section 61(2) IBC is fatal and not condonable – NCLAT’s order condoning the delay was set aside and the appeal allowed, with no order as to costs [Paras 12-14].
 

Arbitration – Interim Injunction Against Encashment of Bank Guarantee – Section 9 of Arbitration Act – Interim Order Upheld - Appellants challenged High Court’s interim direction restraining invocation of bank guarantee, passed in a writ under Article 227 against refusal of ex parte relief by Commercial Court – Supreme Court declined to interfere, noting that no prejudice is caused due to extension of the bank guarantee and pending final hearing of Section 9 petition – Order treated as interim measure preserving parties’ positions [Paras 12–15].

Bank Guarantees – Limited Judicial Interference – Fraud or Irretrievable Harm Required - Court reaffirmed settled law that invocation of unconditional bank guarantees can be restrained only on proof of egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice – However, held that prima facie case of “special equities” as found by the High Court justified maintaining status quo until full hearing before Commercial Court [Paras 11–13].

Arbitration Law – Appeal Under Section 37 – Interim Order Under Order XXXIX Rule 3 – Legal Issue Left Open - Supreme Court noted legal question of whether refusal of ex parte relief in Section 9 petition is appealable under Section 37(1)(b) was raised but not decided – Held: Since Section 9 petition was at advanced stage, legal issues were kept open without expressing opinion on maintainability of Article 227 writ in such context [Paras 7, 14].

Procedural Fairness – Arbitration Proceedings Underway – No Prejudice to Appellants - Respondents had already extended bank guarantee to protect appellants’ interest; Arbitral Tribunal constituted and Section 9 petition nearing conclusion – Supreme Court directed early disposal within eight weeks and continued interim protection until then [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Appeal Disposed Without Interference – Directions for Expedited Hearing - Appeal disposed with liberty to appellants to contest Section 9 petition on merits before Commercial Court – Interim protection continued during pendency – Legal questions left undecided [Paras 14–16].
 

Motor Accident Compensation – Functional Disability – Amputation and Deformity – Compensation Enhanced - The appellant, a watchman by profession, suffered a below-knee amputation and deformity in the right hand due to a vehicular accident – Tribunal assessed 55% disability; High Court affirmed – Supreme Court held that 80% functional disability was justified in view of evidence from the examining doctor and impossibility of using a prosthetic limb – Appellant’s residual mobility on crutches acknowledged, but his ability to return to prior employment was effectively lost [Paras 2–6].

Loss of Future Income – Revised Calculation – Future Prospects Considered - Monthly income of Rs. 9,918 was accepted and increased by 40% for future prospects – Applying a multiplier of 16 and 80% disability, the Court awarded Rs. 21,11,262.72 as loss of future income – Held: Income enhancement under Pranay Sethi principles valid, but only for prospective earnings; separate lump sum for actual income loss due to hospitalisation also granted [Paras 4–6].

Pain and Suffering – Attendant and Diet Charges – Compensation Increased - Pain and suffering compensation increased to Rs. 1,00,000 – Attendant charges and special diet during six-month recovery period fixed at Rs. 15,000/month, totaling Rs. 90,000 – Medical expenses of Rs. 5,17,850 accepted in full – Additional Rs. 60,000 awarded for loss of actual income during recovery [Para 6].

Apportionment of Liability – 20:80 Between Bike and Bus Insurers – Upheld - Based on contributory negligence findings by Tribunal, liability for compensation apportioned between bike and bus insurers at 20:80 ratio – Award to be paid within two months with 9% interest p.a., after adjusting prior payments [Para 7].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation Enhanced to ₹28.79 Lakhs - Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 28,79,112.72 with apportionment between insurers and timeline for disbursement fixed – Supreme Court emphasized the need for just compensation tailored to permanent disability and loss of livelihood [Paras 6–8].