Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Compensation for Deprivation of Property - Article 300A of the Constitution of India - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 10(3): The Supreme Court upheld the appellants' right to compensation for the land occupied by Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals under a lease from the State. The Court directed Apollo Hospitals to compensate the appellants for the entire extent of land based on current market value and awarded interest and utilization charges for the period of possession by the hospital. [Paras 1-25]

Land Acquisition and Compensation - Determination of Market Value - Valuation of Land - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Lease Agreement - Utilization Charges and Interest: The Court determined the market value of the land at Rs. 24,04,188 per cottah, payable by Apollo Hospitals to the appellants. Additionally, the Court awarded utilization charges and interest, considering the deprivation of property rights and the hospital's usage of the land since 1991. The total compensation was rounded off to Rs. 4,20,00,000. [Para 13-23]

Procedural Directions - Compliance with Court Orders - Registration and Conveyance of Land - Costs: The Court provided detailed directions for the payment of compensation, execution of conveyance deeds, and the role of the State in issuing necessary certificates for the demarcation of the land. The Court also directed the hospital to bear all incidental expenses related to the conveyance. [Para 24-25]

Decision- Disposed Off. The appeals were resolved with the Supreme Court directing Apollo Hospitals to compensate the appellants Rs. 4,20,00,000, including market value, utilization charges, interest, and litigation costs. Detailed procedural directions were provided to ensure compliance.

Service Law - Payment of Salary - Compulsory Waiting Period - Appeal against High Court order directing payment of salary for the period 24.02.1986 to 16.07.1991 to a teacher who could not join duty due to non-availability of a post at the initially assigned school. Supreme Court held that the teacher (first respondent) did not make adequate efforts to seek a new posting or join duty at an alternative location. The period in question was deemed a voluntary waiting period, not covered by the 'no work, yet pay' exception. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. [Paras 2-10]

No Work, No Pay Rule - Analysis - The court underscored that the 'no work, no pay' principle is the norm, with exceptions being rare and requiring clear justification. The employee must demonstrate earnest efforts to join duty and an inability to do so due to no fault of their own. [Para 2]

First Appointment vs. Transfer - The case was clarified as one of first appointment rather than a transfer. The teacher's failure to take proactive steps to address the issue of non-availability of the post at the assigned school negated the claim for salary during the period in question. [Paras 8-9]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - The court set aside the High Court's judgment, rejecting the claim for salary for the period 24.02.1986 to 16.07.1991, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the first respondent. [Para 10]

Criminal Procedure - Stay of Conviction - Application under Section 389(1) CrPC - Appeal against denial of stay of conviction by High Court - Appellant convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/144 read with Section 120B IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment - High Court refused to stay conviction, but granted bail - Supreme Court held that conviction can be stayed only in exceptional circumstances - No exceptional circumstance found in appellant's case - Appellant's employment loss not a sufficient ground - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Scope of Stay of Conviction - Analysis - Held - Conviction stay demands exceptional circumstances causing irreversible consequences or injustice - Employment loss alone insufficient - Integrity of judicial process paramount - Conviction stands until overturned on appeal. [Para 10-13]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court affirmed High Court’s order denying stay of conviction - Conviction and sentence remain intact - Observations in judgment limited to stay application, not affecting main appeal. [Para 14]

Criminal Law - Post Conviction Bail Procedure – Criminal Appeal against High Court's order granting bail – Non-compliance with Section 389 CrPC – Supreme Court emphasizes distinction between pre-conviction bail under Section 439 and post-conviction bail under Section 389 CrPC – Requires mandatory written objections from public prosecutor before granting bail for serious offences – High Court's order set aside due to procedural lapses – Directed fresh consideration following proper procedure. [Paras 1-18]

Bail - Suspension of Sentence - Service of Notice – Held – Service of appeal and bail application copies to public prosecutor does not fulfill the requirement under Section 389 CrPC – Public prosecutor must be given an opportunity to submit written objections – Purpose is to ensure transparency and proper judicial assessment of the convict’s bail application based on comprehensive information from the State. [Para 15]

Decision – High Court’s bail order set aside – Ordered fresh consideration of bail applications following the proper procedure under Section 389 CrPC – Respondents directed to surrender before trial court within three weeks. [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Law - Contempt of Court - Compliance with Bail Conditions - Sale of Assets for Bail – Interlocutory applications by Sahara entities seeking permission to sell assets to comply with bail conditions – Supreme Court allowed Sahara entities to sell three overseas hotel properties to meet bail requirements – Valuation reports by CBRE and JLL accepted, with condition that sale price should not be less than 95% of the estimated value – SEBI to receive entire sale consideration post-repayment of Bank of China loans – Conditional approval for leveraging assets to arrange a bank guarantee of Rs. 5,000 crores. [Paras 1-12]

Criminal Procedure - Parole Request - Medical and Negotiation Grounds – Request by Subrata Roy Sahara for temporary release on parole for medical reasons and to negotiate property sales directly – Supreme Court found no sufficient medical evidence or concrete negotiation proposals justifying parole – Application for parole dismissed. [Paras 13-14]

Clarification on Sale of Domestic Properties – Supreme Court clarified earlier order, stating domestic properties should be sold at no less than 95% of their estimated value, with prior Court approval required for offers below this threshold – Clarified to avoid undervaluation and ensure compliance with bail terms. [Paras 12-13]

Appointment of Amicus Curiae – Due to conflict of interest, Shri F.S. Nariman recused from the role of Amicus Curiae – Shri Shekhar Naphade appointed as Amicus Curiae with the same terms and conditions. [Para 14]

Decision- I.A. Nos. 8-9 of 2014 in Contempt Petitions (C) No. 412 and 413 of 2012 are dismissed.-I.A. Nos. 10-12 of 2014 in Contempt Petitions (C) No. 412 of 2012, 413 of 2012, and 260 of 2013 are allowed to the extent of permitting the sale, transfer, or encumbrance of three overseas hotel properties, with sale proceeds to be deposited with SEBI.-Clarification that sale of remainder domestic properties must not be less than 95% of the estimated value, with Court approval required for offers lower than this threshold.-Shri Shekhar Naphade appointed as Amicus Curiae in place of Shri F.S. Nariman.

Criminal Law - Habeas Corpus Petition - Illegal Detention Alleged -The petitioner, Saurabh Kumar, through his father, filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32, alleging illegal detention by the police. The petitioner was detained after being called to the police station regarding his passport application, subsequently locked up, and beaten. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner was in judicial custody under lawful orders from the Judicial Magistrate, dismissing the habeas corpus petition. [Paras 1-14]

Fundamental Rights - Articles 14, 21, and 22 - Detention and Due Process -Analyzed the circumstances of the petitioner’s arrest and detention, noting his family’s ongoing land disputes. The Court held that the petitioner’s detention was lawful and pursuant to proper judicial orders. The Court emphasized the petitioner's right to seek bail and criticized the mechanical remand process and police inaction regarding the absconding co-accused. [Paras 15-22]

Criminal Procedure - Bail Application and Judicial Review -The Court noted the petitioner’s failure to file a bail application and directed him to seek bail from the concerned Court. It urged prompt judicial action and sensitivity towards personal liberty issues, advising the Magistrate to expedite the trial process and ensure due process. [Paras 20-22]

Decision - Dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition -The writ petition was dismissed as the detention was found lawful. The Court suggested filing a bail application for relief. The Magistrate was advised to ensure due process and avoid mechanical remands. The State was reminded of its duty to ensure fair treatment and timely judicial proceedings. [Paras 13-15, 20-22]

Service Law - Promotion to Indian Administrative Service (IAS) - Consideration of Service Records - Validity of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs):Promotion of state civil service officers to the IAS under Regulation 5 of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 requires complete service records, including ACRs. The State Government's failure to forward relevant ACRs of the 1st Respondent on the pretext of invalidity due to late writing was deemed illegal. The Supreme Court held that the assessment of service records was improperly conducted, leading to the exclusion of the appellant and wrongful inclusion of the respondent. The directive to review and reconsider the names for promotion was issued. [Paras 18-32]

Promotion - Adverse Entries and Pending Disciplinary Proceedings:The existence of adverse entries in ACRs and pending disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) against the respondent were improperly handled. The State Government’s arbitrary action in withholding relevant ACRs and the hasty decision to drop charges against the respondent were criticized. The Supreme Court found that these actions affected the fairness of the selection process. [Paras 29-31]

Decision:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, reinstating the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision with modifications. The State Government was directed to reconsider the appellant's promotion to IAS, with a fresh selection or review committee if necessary. The process was to be completed within three months. [Paras 32-33]

Civil Service Law – Acceptance of Resignation – Requirement of Relieving from Duties – Appeal against High Court decision – The High Court held that the resignation of a temporary government servant does not become effective unless the employee is formally relieved of duties. Supreme Court overruled this decision, stating that acceptance of resignation by the competent authority itself severs the employment relationship unless a future date for relieving is specified. In the present case, where the respondent had absconded from duties for months, it was impractical to require a formal relieving process. – Appeal allowed. [Paras 8-13]

Effectiveness of Resignation – Analysis – Held – A resignation becomes effective upon acceptance by the competent authority. There is no requirement for formal relieving if the acceptance indicates immediate termination. The interpretation requiring formal relieving in all cases is impractical and against public interest. – The Supreme Court clarifies that the term 'relieve' should be understood in its ordinary sense and not necessitate an additional formal act if the resignation is accepted without deferral. [Para 10-12]

Decision – Quashing of High Court Judgment – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order reinstating the respondent. The appeal by the Union of India is allowed, thereby dismissing the respondent’s writ petition. [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Requirement of Prior Approval for Recording Information under TADA – Criminal Appeals against Convictions – TADA CaseHeld: The Supreme Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 20-A(1) of TADA, which mandate prior approval from the District Superintendent of Police before recording information about the commission of an offense under TADA, are mandatory. Any approval granted by an authority other than the designated one is invalid. In this case, approvals were granted by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, and the Additional Police Commissioner, Surat, instead of the District Superintendent of Police. Consequently, the prosecution under TADA was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 20-A(1). [Paras 16-27]

Compliance with Statutory Requirements – Exercise of Authority by Designated Officials – AnalysisHeld: The statutory requirement of obtaining approval from the designated authority (District Superintendent of Police) under Section 20-A(1) of TADA cannot be substituted by approvals from higher authorities such as the Additional Chief Secretary or the Additional Police Commissioner. The approval from the designated authority is essential to ensure the proper application of mind and adherence to the statutory scheme. Non-compliance with this provision renders the subsequent proceedings under TADA invalid. [Paras 17-22]

Effect on Convictions under IPC and Explosive Substances Act – Insufficient Evidence – Impact of Non-compliance with TADAHeld: While the prosecution under TADA was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 20-A(1), the Supreme Court also examined whether the convictions under IPC and the Explosive Substances Act could be sustained independently. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions under these statutes, leading to the acquittal of the appellants. [Paras 28-29]

Decision:Appeals Allowed: The appeals filed by the accused (Criminal Appeals No. 92, 110, 658-659 of 2009) were allowed, and the convictions were set aside. The appellants were ordered to be released from custody unless required in any other case.Appeals Dismissed: The appeals filed by the State of Gujarat for enhancement of sentences (Criminal Appeals No. 303-304, 305, 432-433 of 2009) were dismissed. [Para 29]