Criminal Law – Conviction for Corruption – Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Held that the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000 by the appellant, a public servant, from the complainant for allotting transport loads – The recovery of the amount was established, and the explanation offered by the appellant was not credible [Paras 7-10, 38-42].

Judicial Conduct – Hearing in Absence of Counsel – The Court addressed the issue of whether the High Court could decide a criminal appeal in the absence of the appellant's counsel – Held that it is permissible to decide the appeal on merits after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court, even if the counsel does not appear deliberately or shows negligence – The previous judgment in Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam was held per incuriam as it conflicted with the larger bench decision in Bani Singh v. State of U.P. [Paras 10-36].

Sentence Reduction – The Supreme Court reduced the sentence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) from four years to one year in light of the appellant's age and ailments – The sentence under Section 7 of the Act remained undisturbed – Emphasized that the statutory minimum sentence should not be reduced based on mitigating factors as it would supplant the legislative mandate [Paras 43-44].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – Conviction affirmed, sentence under Section 13(1)(d) reduced to one year, sentence under Section 7 and fines maintained – The appeal was disposed of with the modification in the sentence [Para 45].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Notification – Supreme Court held that the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, issued on 01.05.1980, had lapsed since the declaration under Section 6 was made after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981 – The mandatory time limit for issuing a declaration under Section 6 in respect of a notice issued under Section 4(5) before the commencement of the 1981 Amendment Act was two years, which was not met in this case [Paras 1-12, 29-32].

Urgency Powers – Invocation of Section 17 – The Court found that the State Government had invoked the urgency powers under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, and dispensed with the inquiry under Section 5-A after a lapse of seven years from the issuance of the preliminary notification – Held that such invocation of urgency powers was legally unsustainable as the urgency must be of such nature that it cannot brook the delay of even a few weeks or months – Emphasized that the right to file objections under Section 5-A is a substantial right and cannot be taken away without real urgency [Paras 16-28].

Judicial Review – The Court reiterated that while the satisfaction of the Government regarding urgency is subjective, it must be based on material considerations and is subject to judicial review – The absence of any material justifying the urgency in this case rendered the exercise of urgency powers invalid [Paras 16-28].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Preliminary notification dated 01.05.1980 had lapsed, and the declaration under Section 6 made on 19.03.1987 was legally unsustainable – If possession of the subject land had been taken from the appellants, it must be restored to them without any delay – No orders as to costs [Paras 32-33].

Civil Procedure – Settlement and Compromise – The Supreme Court dealt with the appeals concerning the settlement and compromise recorded in civil suits – Held that the trial court rightly allowed the pursis (statements on record) indicating settlement and compromise between the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – The objections by certain plaintiffs and defendants were addressed and found insufficient to invalidate the settlements [Paras 16-42].

Abatement and Legal Representation – The Court discussed the issue of abatement due to non-representation of deceased plaintiffs – Held that the heirs of the deceased plaintiff did not take timely steps to get themselves impleaded in the suits, leading to abatement – The acknowledgments and confirmations executed by the plaintiffs were found binding on their heirs [Paras 35-42].

Legal Principles – Compromise under CPC – Emphasized the distinction between withdrawal of suits under Order XXIII Rule 1 and compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 – Stressed that the satisfaction of the court regarding a lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties is essential for passing a decree – The trial court's decision to record the compromise and dispose of the suits was upheld [Paras 36-42].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – The High Court’s judgment setting aside the orders of the trial court was overturned – The orders dated 14.08.2008 and 08.09.2009 by the trial court accepting the settlement and compromise were reinstated – No order as to costs [Paras 43-45].

Inter-State Water Disputes – Interpretation of Agreement and Award – Dispute between Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra regarding the construction of Babhali barrage – Andhra Pradesh claimed violation of agreements endorsed by Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal – Supreme Court interpreted the agreements and award, highlighting that Maharashtra’s utilization of 60 TMC of water for new projects was not restricted to flowing waters but included stored waters, provided it did not exceed the allocated limit and did not interfere with natural flow into Pochampad reservoir – No substantial injury of serious magnitude to Andhra Pradesh established – Suit by Andhra Pradesh dismissed [Paras 1-88]​​.

Supervisory Committee – Constitution of a three-member supervisory committee to oversee operation of Babhali barrage – Committee to include representatives from Central Water Commission and the states of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra – Committee to ensure compliance with Maharashtra’s commitments regarding Babhali barrage’s operation and water release [Paras 83-86]​​.

Decision – Original suit by Andhra Pradesh dismissed – Supervisory committee constituted – Directions provided to ensure compliance with water sharing agreement – No costs imposed [Paras 82-87]​​.

Ex-Cadre vs. Cadre Posts – Dispute over whether the Respondent's post was ex-cadre – Respondent appointed as Ore Dressing Engineer, claimed it should be included in the cadre – State treated it as ex-cadre – Supreme Court examined historical context and rules, found post was created as ex-cadre for a specific scheme and continued as such – Tribunal and High Court orders directing cadre integration set aside [Paras 1-26]​​.

Promotion Prospects – Examination of Respondent's promotional avenues – Tribunal suggested considering Respondent for career advancement vis-à-vis comparable Class-I Engineers – Supreme Court found no jurisdiction to issue such direction – Promotion determined by existing cadre rules, which did not support Respondent's claim [Paras 20-26]​​.

Decision – Civil Appeals allowed – Orders by Tribunal and High Court set aside – Respondent’s post affirmed as ex-cadre, not eligible for cadre integration – Promotion to be governed by prevailing rules without judicial interference [Paras 25-28]​​.

Development Control Regulations – Unauthorized construction – Petitioners sought regularization of buildings constructed in violation of sanctioned plans – Municipal Corporation issued notices for demolition – Trial Court and High Court upheld action of Corporation – Supreme Court dismissed appeals, refused regularization – Held: Municipal laws must be implemented strictly to prevent unauthorized constructions [Paras 16-47].

Municipal Corporation – Action against illegal constructions – Role of Corporation – High Court directed appearance of Commissioner for failing to stop illegal constructions – Commissioner assured necessary steps – Notices for demolition issued – Petitions for injunction against demolition dismissed – Appeals to Supreme Court also dismissed – No regularization of constructions [Paras 21-30].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Exercise of powers – Court declined to regularize unauthorized construction – Emphasized need for adherence to planning laws – Directed Corporation to implement demolition notices without hindrance – Protection of rights of innocent buyers through appropriate remedies [Paras 31-48].

Procedural Law – Retrospective Operation – Applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act 2007, which shifted trial jurisdiction for certain offences from Judicial Magistrate First Class to the Court of Sessions. Supreme Court affirmed that procedural laws operate retrospectively unless stated otherwise. The amendment was held to apply to all cases instituted after its enactment, even if the offences were committed earlier, thus upholding the commitment of the appellant’s case to the Sessions Court [Paras 1-26]​​.

Change of Forum – No Vested Right – Litigants do not have a vested right to a particular forum. Changes in procedural law, including forum shifts, are generally retrospective. Supreme Court noted that the appellant's case, instituted post-amendment, was correctly committed to the Sessions Court, rejecting claims of a vested right to trial by a Magistrate [Paras 8-19]​​.

Prospective Overruling – Principle applied to limit hardship. Supreme Court’s overruling of Full Bench decision on forum change’s applicability to pending cases does not affect concluded or advanced-stage cases tried by Magistrates under the old law [Paras 19-26]​​.

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed the order of committal by the Magistrate to the Sessions Court, holding it legally valid. The trial of the appellant to proceed in the Court of Sessions [Paras 25-26]​​.

Additional Evidence and Recall of Witness – Plaintiff's applications under Order 18 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC – Trial court dismissed applications to file additional documents and recall a witness – High Court allowed the applications, finding it necessary for just decision – Supreme Court held that such applications to fill lacunae should not be permitted after conclusion of evidence and arguments unless a clear cause is shown – High Court’s order set aside, trial court's decision restored [Paras 1-14]​​.

Inherent Powers of Court – Exercise of powers under Section 151 CPC to allow new evidence and recall witness – Court emphasized that inherent powers are to be used sparingly and not to overcome deficiencies in pleadings or evidence that could have been presented earlier – Ensures no misuse to delay proceedings [Paras 12-13]​​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order allowing applications under Order 18 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 14 set aside – Trial court's decision dismissing applications restored [Paras 13-14]​​.

Mental Cruelty – Grounds for Divorce – Appellant-husband sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of mental cruelty – Respondent-wife filed multiple complaints including false allegations of dowry harassment – Supreme Court held that filing of false complaints and defamatory statements caused mental cruelty – High Court’s order setting aside decree of divorce was erroneous – Divorce granted [Paras 10-14]​​.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long separation and continuous litigation – Marriage beyond repair due to prolonged estrangement and bitterness – Supreme Court considered irretrievable breakdown as a factor – Marriage dissolved to relieve parties from further agony [Paras 25-28]​​.

Mediation in Matrimonial Disputes – Emphasized importance of mediation in resolving matrimonial disputes – Directed family courts and criminal courts to refer cases to mediation centers wherever feasible – Encouraged pre-litigation mediation to avoid escalation of disputes [Paras 32-36]​​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce – Appellant-husband to pay Rs. 15,00,000 as permanent alimony to respondent-wife in three instalments [Paras 30-37]​​.