Constitutional Law – Validity of Statute – Petition filed under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 12, stating that it does not infringe upon Articles 14, 21, and 22(4) of the Constitution [Paras 1-47].

Right to Speedy Trial – Section 12 provides that trials under the Act shall have precedence over other cases and shall be concluded in preference to such other trials – Petitioner's contention that it violates the right to a speedy trial and fair trial under Article 21 was rejected – Court emphasized that Section 12 aims at ensuring speedy trial under the Act and does not delay other trials unduly [Paras 6-36].

Liberty and Preventive Detention – Petitioner's argument that the provision results in illegal detention was rejected – The Act provides for trial and not preventive detention – Adequate safeguards for bail are in place [Paras 37-41].

Equal Protection and Classification – Differentiation between accused under this Act and those under other laws was held reasonable – Court found that the classification is rational and does not violate Article 14 [Paras 43-46].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 upheld as constitutionally valid [Para 47].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Cleaner injured in road accident – Tribunal awarded compensation under Motor Vehicles Act – High Court restricted compensation to Workmen's Compensation Act – Supreme Court held compensation under Motor Vehicles Act not limited to Workmen's Compensation Act if policy covers higher liability [Paras 1-27].

Insurance Policy – Liability and Premium – Liability of insurer under Motor Vehicles Act not confined to Workmen's Compensation Act – Higher liability depends on premium paid and policy terms – Insurer to indemnify as per policy [Paras 15-20].

Procedure – Owner's Non-appearance – Insurance companies should ensure owner's appearance before tribunal – Insurer's burden to provide evidence when owner is absent – Tribunal should avoid subsequent proceedings [Paras 22-25].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Insurer directed to pay full compensation as determined by Tribunal – Clarification of insurer's liability to pay balance amount beyond Rs. 32,091/- with interest [Paras 26-27].

Income Tax – Incentive Bonus – Development Officers of LIC – Incentive bonus received by Development Officers prior to April 1, 1989 – Whether forming part of salary and subject to income tax – Assistant Income Tax Officer rejected claim for deduction of 40% incentive bonus – Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld decision – Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of Assessee – High Court ruled in favor of Revenue – Supreme Court held that incentive bonus constitutes salary and no deduction beyond standard deduction under Section 16 is permissible [Paras 1-9].

Income Tax Act – Sections 10(14) and 17 – Interpretation – Section 10(14) excludes certain allowances from salary – Section 17 includes incentive bonus in salary – Expenditure incurred for generating business not deductible from salary – Income Tax Act as a self-contained code – Taxability to be determined as per definitions in Act – High Court of Gujarat's contrary view inapplicable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3-8].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Incentive bonus received by Development Officers prior to April 1, 1989, to be treated as salary – No additional deductions permitted beyond those in Section 16 – Expenses incurred in generating business not deductible – No costs [Para 9].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Determination – Reference court awarded compensation at Rs. 5 per sq. foot based on sale instances – High Court set aside reference court’s award, reinstating Special Land Acquisition Officer’s award of Rs. 50,000 per hectare – Supreme Court held reference court correctly assessed market value considering land’s potentiality for industrial use – High Court erred in disregarding sale instances – Compensation award by reference court restored [Paras 1-27].

Land Acquisition – Potentiality – Industrial Development – Acquired land’s potential for industrial development crucial in determining market value – Reference court’s reliance on sale instances of nearby plots justified – High Court’s contrary view unsupported by evidence and legal principles [Paras 9-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Reference court’s award restored – Respondent to pay compensation to appellants within six weeks – No order as to costs [Paras 24-26].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Reduction by High Court – Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,062,000 with 6% interest for death of Dr. Grace Jain in motor accident – High Court reduced compensation to Rs. 800,000 – Supreme Court held reduction unjustified – Tribunal correctly assessed monthly income at Rs. 12,000 considering deceased's employment as Lecturer and private practice – Compensation restored to Rs. 1,062,000 with 6% interest [Paras 1-18].

Motor Vehicles Act – Multiplier and Future Prospects – Application – Tribunal applied multiplier of 11 – Future prospects not adequately considered – Principles from Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another applied – Future prospects at 30% should be considered for stable employment [Paras 15-16].

Insurance Company’s Limited Defense – Appeal Rights – Insurance company's challenge to quantum of compensation beyond statutory defenses under Section 149(2) without permission under Section 170(b) – Reduction of compensation by High Court erroneous [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Tribunal’s award of Rs. 1,062,000 with 6% interest restored – Order for deposit of awarded amount upheld – No costs [Paras 17-18].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Reduction by High Court – Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,351,726 with 6% interest for injuries sustained by Rekha Jain in a motor accident – High Court reduced compensation to Rs. 1,400,000 – Supreme Court held reduction unjustified – Tribunal correctly assessed medical expenses and other pecuniary damages – Compensation restored and enhanced under various heads [Paras 1-48].

Motor Vehicles Act – Multiplier and Future Prospects – Application – Tribunal applied multiplier and awarded compensation considering future prospects – High Court’s reduction arbitrary – Principles from Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another applied – Functional disability assessed at 100% for loss of acting career [Paras 39-42].

Insurance Company’s Limited Defense – Appeal Rights – Insurance company's challenge to quantum of compensation beyond statutory defenses under Section 149(2) without permission under Section 170(b) – Reduction of compensation by High Court erroneous [Paras 30-31].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Tribunal’s award of Rs. 2,351,726 with 6% interest restored and enhanced to Rs. 7,966,000 with 6% interest – Order for deposit of awarded amount upheld – No costs [Paras 46-48].

Jurisdiction – Special Court Act – Appeals arose from orders of the Special Court dealing with disputes from a financial scandal – Supreme Court examined whether the Special Court properly assumed jurisdiction under Sections 9 and 9A of the Act – Held, the Special Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving notified persons and their transactions during the specified period [Paras 3-4, 30-31].

Procedural Requirements – Evidence – Special Court relied on the Janakiraman Committee Report and unproved correspondence – Supreme Court criticized reliance on unverified documents and underscored the need for evidence in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act – Reports from non-statutory bodies like the Janakiraman Committee are not admissible as evidence per se [Paras 49-53].

Suppression of Facts – Plaintiff's Conduct – National Housing Bank accused of suppressing material facts – Supreme Court found that the Bank approached the court with unclean hands, failing to disclose the full nature of the transactions and involvement of high-level officials – Such suppression warrants dismissal of the suit [Paras 62-68].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Decree of the Special Court set aside – Suit dismissed on grounds of suppression of material facts and lack of evidence – Supreme Court emphasized resolving disputes between public sector entities through governmental mechanisms rather than prolonged litigation [Paras 71-75].

Departmental Inquiry – Requirement – Appellant challenged the necessity of a full-fledged departmental inquiry when a minor penalty is imposed despite initiating major penalty proceedings – Supreme Court held that the Haryana State Electricity Board Regulations allow the authority to impose a minor penalty without a full inquiry if the authority decides no major penalty is warranted after considering the delinquent's reply – Lower courts erred in requiring a full inquiry [Paras 1-13].Penalty Imposition – Minor vs. Major Penalty – Regulation 7(8) allows the competent authority to switch to minor penalties from major penalty proceedings based on the delinquent’s response – Supreme Court upheld the Board’s decision to impose minor penalty of barring one increment without cumulative effect without a full departmental inquiry [Paras 11-12].Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the District Judge and High Court set aside – Supreme Court clarified that minor penalties do not necessitate a full departmental inquiry if procedures outlined in the regulations are followed – Directed consideration of respondent’s due promotion if minor penalty does not bar it [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Respondents convicted under Sections 294 and 307 IPC for shooting and injuring the complainants – Trial court sentenced each respondent to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine – High Court reduced sentence to the period already undergone – Supreme Court held High Court’s reduction without sufficient reasoning inappropriate – Sentence already undergone not commensurate with established guilt [Paras 1-18].

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – High Court reduced sentences citing non-fatal injuries on non-vital parts – Supreme Court clarified Section 307 IPC does not necessitate injury to vital parts – Intent and knowledge sufficient, and causing hurt with a firearm qualifies under Section 307 IPC irrespective of the injury location [Paras 15-16].

Judicial Approach – Adequate Sentencing – Supreme Court stressed importance of sentences reflecting the crime's severity and societal impact – Inadequate sentences undermine legal deterrence and social justice – Emphasized need for rigorous judicial application in sentencing to maintain public trust and order [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order reducing sentences set aside – Trial court’s judgment and sentences restored – Adequate punishment reaffirmed for crimes involving serious injury and use of firearms [Para 18].