Land Acquisition – Publication Requirements – Notification under Section 4(1) not published in the locality as mandated – Supreme Court held that such publication is mandatory to enable affected parties to file objections under Section 5A – Non-publication vitiates the acquisition process [Paras 12-15].

Right to File Objections – Failure to Publish Notification – Appellant deprived of the opportunity to file objections under Section 5A due to non-publication in the locality – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of this procedural safeguard for landowners and occupiers [Paras 13-15].

Industrial Unit – Existing Industry – Appellant's land had a running industrial unit at the time of notification – Court found no justification for acquiring a functioning industry for industrialization – Exclusion of similar lands from acquisition supported the appellant’s case [Paras 16-17].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Timeliness – Supreme Court held that the writ petition filed within five weeks of the award was within reasonable time – High Court's reliance on precedents involving significant delays was misplaced [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Acquisition proceedings quashed concerning the appellant’s land – No costs awarded [Para 18].

Industrial Disputes – Relief for Illegal Termination – Workman terminated without notice or compensation – Labour Court directed reinstatement with 30% back wages – High Court substituted reinstatement with compensation due to delay in raising dispute – Supreme Court found reinstatement inappropriate due to six-year delay in dispute – Compensation ordered instead of reinstatement [Paras 1-22].

Judicial Discretion – Moulding Relief – Delay in raising industrial disputes significant – Labour Court must consider delay irrespective of objections from employer – High Court erred in reinstating workman despite delay – Proper compensation awarded [Paras 20-22].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed – Reinstatement substituted with compensation of Rs. 100,000 to be paid within six weeks – Failure to pay within stipulated time will attract interest at 9% per annum [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law – Issuance of Warrants – Appellant's challenge to non-bailable warrants issued under Section 319 CrPC – Trial Court issued non-bailable warrants based on evidence implicating the appellant in serious offences – High Court confirmed the Trial Court’s decision – Supreme Court modified the order to issue summons instead, emphasizing the importance of securing attendance through less severe measures first [Paras 1-18].

Personal Liberty – Judicial Discretion – Emphasized that non-bailable warrants interfere with personal liberty and should be issued sparingly – Courts must balance individual liberty with societal interest – Non-bailable warrants should be a last resort when summons or bailable warrants are unlikely to suffice [Paras 13-15].

Decision:

Appeal disposed of – Orders of Trial Court and High Court modified – Summons to be issued against the appellant instead of non-bailable warrants [Paras 17-18].

Excise Duty – Classification of Goods – Product 'Moisturex' classified as medicament under Heading 30.03 – Contains pharmaceutical constituents with therapeutic properties – Intended for treatment of dry skin conditions, not just for skin care – Tribunal’s classification upheld [Paras 1-21].

Medicaments vs. Cosmetics – Medicaments contain therapeutic or prophylactic ingredients – Not solely determined by prescription requirement – 'Moisturex' used for curing skin ailments like fissure feet, dry scaly skin, ichthyosis – Sold over-the-counter does not negate its medicament classification [Paras 12-19].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Tribunal's decision classifying 'Moisturex' as medicament under Heading 30.03 upheld – No costs [Para 21].

Pension – Withholding during Pendency of Proceedings – Appellant State withheld part of pension and gratuity during the pendency of criminal and departmental proceedings – Respondent challenged this action – High Court held that there is no power under the Bihar Pension Rules to withhold pension/gratuity during the pendency of proceedings – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision [Paras 1-16].

Right to Pension – Property Right – Pension recognized as a right to property – Cannot be deprived without due process of law – Article 300A of the Constitution of India prohibits deprivation of property without authority of law – Administrative instructions cannot substitute statutory provisions [Paras 7-15].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – High Court's order affirmed – Costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the Appellant for each appeal [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Transfer of Case – Appellant sought transfer of case alleging bias and unfair trial – Arguments by prosecution concluded, defense arguments near completion – Special Judge directed submission of written arguments and set judgment date – Supreme Court provided further time for arguments and upheld the High Court’s dismissal of the transfer petition [Paras 2-14].

Judicial Bias – Allegation of bias due to familial connections of the Presiding Judge with a political rival – Supreme Court found no merit in allegations raised at the final stage of trial – Emphasized independence and fairness in judicial proceedings [Paras 9-12].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Additional time granted for concluding arguments – Special Judge directed to pronounce decision uninfluenced by external observations [Paras 14-15].

Jurisdiction – Small Causes Court – Suit by licensor against gratuitous licensee for recovery of possession – Division Bench of Bombay High Court held such suits are not tenable before the Presidency Small Causes Court – Full Bench overruled this decision, stating the term "licensee" in Section 41(1) of the PSCC Act includes gratuitous licensees – Supreme Court affirmed Full Bench's decision [Paras 1-53].

Licensor-Licensee Relationship – The expression "licensee" in Section 41(1) of the PSCC Act is not limited to those defined under Section 5(4A) of the Rent Act, which excludes gratuitous licensees – Intent of legislature to avoid multiplicity of litigation and bring all suits under one umbrella – Interpretation consistent with legislative history and purpose [Paras 33-52].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – Full Bench decision upheld – Small Causes Court has jurisdiction over suits by licensors against gratuitous licensees [Para 53].

Environmental Law – Public Hearing Requirement – SHEP received environmental clearance in 1985, before the enactment of the EIA Notification, 1994 – Supreme Court held that public hearing was not required as the project was an ongoing one nearing completion – Public hearing considered unnecessary at advanced construction stage [Paras 8-18].

Relocation of Religious Structures – Dhari Devi Temple relocation challenged on grounds of violating Article 25 – Court found no infringement of religious rights as the temple structure remains attached to its sacred rock – Expert committee reports endorsed relocation plan to protect the temple from submergence [Paras 27-34].

Dam Safety and Environmental Concerns – Emphasized the need for compliance with environmental management plans and safety regulations – Referred to expert committee recommendations on muck management and catchment area treatment [Paras 35-37].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – High Court’s direction for public hearing set aside – Expert committee recommendations on Dhari Devi Temple relocation and environmental safeguards upheld [Para 33].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – High Court reduced the sentence of respondents from two years to three months due to the protracted nature of proceedings – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of proportional sentencing – Held that the reduction was unjustified and restored the trial court's sentence [Paras 1-20].

Proportionality in Sentencing – Courts must balance the gravity of the crime with the punishment – Lenient sentencing for serious offences undermines public confidence in the justice system – Deterrence and societal impact must be considered [Paras 8-16].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Trial court's original sentence restored – Respondents directed to surrender within four weeks, or be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence [Para 20].