Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 141 – Vicarious Liability – Office Bearers of Society – Quashing – Appellant finance company advanced Rs. 4,50,00,000/- to M/s Ravindra Bharathi Educational Society in tranches during July 2018 – Promissory notes and MoU executed acknowledging liability at 30% per annum interest – Cheque No. 003109 dated 18.11.2019 for Rs. 5,12,61,500/- dishonoured with endorsement "Account Blocked" – Statutory demand notice served on 16.12.2019 remained uncomplied with – Complaint filed against Society and its office bearers under Sections 138 and 141 NI Act – High Court quashed proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Vice-President, Treasurer, Executive Member and Manager) holding averments to be omnibus – Held: Quashing not justified uniformly; position of each respondent must be individually examined with reference to factual material in the complaint [Paras 2–15, 33].

Section 141 NI Act – Vicarious Liability – Dual Requirement – Foundational Averments – Settled law requires that for invoking vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act, the complaint must specifically aver that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was both in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or society – Mere designation as office bearer or director is insufficient – Complaint must disclose how and in what manner the accused was responsible for the conduct of the business – Liability is person-specific and cannot be imposed merely by association – However, complaint need not mechanically reproduce exact phraseology of Section 141 if substance of allegations, read as a whole, discloses factual basis for liability – Hyper-technical approach to be avoided [Paras 27–32].

Section 141 NI Act – Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 – Signatories to Antecedent Financial Documents – Proceedings Restored – Respondent No. 1 (Vice-President) signed the MoU – Respondent No. 2 (Treasurer) signed the dishonoured cheque itself – Respondent No. 4 (Manager) participated in execution of promissory notes and allied payment documents – Such participation is not a matter of mere designation but constitutes prima facie material linking them to the underlying transaction – Held: Complaint discloses sufficient foundational facts to proceed against Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4; High Court erred in extending quashing relief to them without noticing this material distinction [Paras 34–36, 40, 42–43].

Section 141 NI Act – Respondent No. 3 (Executive Member) – No Specific Role – Quashing Upheld – No promissory note, cheque, MoU or allied financial document bore signature of or indicated participation of Respondent No. 3 – Complaint did not travel beyond a general assertion founded upon his official status – Held: In absence of any specific factual foundation connecting him with the transaction giving rise to the dishonoured cheque, there is no deemed liability; quashing of proceedings against Respondent No. 3 is upheld [Paras 37–39].

Quashing – Scope at Threshold Stage – Court does not adjudicate upon truthfulness of allegations or embark upon appreciation of evidence at the stage of quashing – Whether respondents were in fact in-charge of and responsible for affairs of the Society is a matter of evidence to be established at trial – Sufficiency of evidence is not the subject matter of inquiry at this stage; existence of foundational material alone is to be examined [Para 41].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Impugned order of Madras High Court set aside insofar as it relates to Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 – Complaint in S.T.C. No. 1980 of 2023 restored against Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 – Quashing of proceedings against Respondent No. 3 upheld – All contentions left open before the Trial Court [Paras 44–45].

Service Law - Promotion - Government of India Allocation of Business Rules 1961 - Rule 20 - Benchmark for Promotion - Appellant challenged promotion of juniors to post of Chief Medical Director in Higher Administrative Grade - Contended DoPT benchmark of Very Good should apply over Railway Board benchmark of Very Good Plus - Selection Committee applied VG+ benchmark based on Railway Board Circular dated 03.06.2002 - Held - Railways are specifically excluded from DoPT ambit under Allocation of Business Rules 1961 - Ministry of Railways has power to lay down conditions of service for its employees - DoPT circulars not binding unless specifically accepted - Selection Committee applied appropriate benchmark as per prevailing promotion policy of Railways - [Paras 7-8].

Service Law - Annual Confidential Reports - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Non-communication of ACR entries - Selection Committee considered ACRs for preceding five years where appellant was graded Very Good but required benchmark was Very Good Plus - Entries not communicated to appellant prior to assessment - Respondents contended communication required only for Average or Below Average entries based on 1998 policy - Held - Non-communication of any entry in ACR of a public servant has civil consequences and affects promotion chances - Principle in Dev Dutt vs Union of India and Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India clarifies existing legal position and applies to pending cases - Nomenclature of entry is irrelevant as its effect is determinative of whether it is adverse - Appellant was entitled to receive ACRs to seek redressal - [Paras 9-14].

Evidence Law - Adverse Inference - Service Records - Destruction of records during pendency of litigation - Appellant service records including ACRs weeded out by Railway Board in 2013 - Litigation was pending before Supreme Court since 2009 - Respondents admitted records should be retained till conclusion of judicial process but claimed inadvertent destruction - Appellant awarded 19.5 points without any enabling provision for fractional marks in promotion policy - Held - Cumulative assessment of non-communication of ACRs and destruction of records during pendency of appeal warrants drawing of adverse inference against respondents - Awarding fractional points held arbitrary as policy directed assignment of four points for Very Good performance - Appellant entitled to notional promotion and pensionary benefits - [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Civil appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court and Tribunal set aside – Appellant held entitled to notional promotion in HAG grade 22400-24500 and re-fixation of pensionary benefits – No arrears of salary granted for period prior to superannuation – Arrears of pension to be paid within two months.

Service Law – Railway Servants – Status as Central Government Employees – Weightage in Pay Fixation – Promissory Estoppel – Appellant, a former Junior Draftsman of Indian Railways with over ten years of regular pensionable service, was relieved to join the Kerala State Electricity Board as Sub-Engineer – Railways remitted pro-rata pension liability to the Board, and the Board's own Order No. B.O. 2119/96 and Long-Term Settlements of 2000 and 2007 expressly provided that former Central Government service followed by Board service would be counted for computing qualifying service for weightage – Board subsequently withdrew the benefit on the basis that Railway service is not Central Government service, as the CCS Rules do not apply to Railway servants – Single Judge allowed the writ petition; Division Bench of the High Court reversed – Held by Supreme Court: (i) A railway servant does not cease to be a member of the civil service of the Union merely because his conditions of service are governed by rules specific to the Railways; (ii) The Board, having accepted pro-rata pension contribution and acted upon its own orders and settlements for years, is estopped from unilaterally withdrawing the benefit of weightage – Impugned orders of the Division Bench set aside – Judgment of the Single Judge restored – Appellant entitled to all benefits within three months [Paras 6-50].

Constitutional Law – Article 309 – Railway Board – Delegation of Powers – Nature of Railway Service – The Railway Board was created under the Indian Railway Board Act, 1905, and reconstituted under the Railways Act, 1989, as a statutory body exercising governmental powers — All CCS Rules made under Article 309 expressly exclude railway servants not because they are outside Central Government service, but because a separate set of rules equally made under Article 309 governs them — The Railway Board functions as the Government of India itself for railway administration — Consequently, service under the Railway Board is service under the Central Government — Delegation of powers to the Railway Board does not make a railway servant an employee of the Railway Board distinct from the Central Government [Paras 22-42].

Article 311 – Civil Post under the Union – Railway Servants Protected – A railway servant holds a civil post on the civil side of administration under the Union — Protection under Article 311 has consistently been extended to permanent railway employees — Moti Ram Deka v. North East Frontier Railway (AIR 1964 SC 600) held that permanent railway servants are holders of civil posts under the Union and cannot be dismissed without compliance with Article 311(2) — Any action adversely impacting a railway servant is amenable to challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal under the AT Act, 1985, which applies to civil service of the Union and is not barred in respect of railway servants [Paras 31-37].

Promissory Estoppel – Withdrawal of Service Benefits – Doctrine Applied – Board had accepted pro-rata pension contribution remitted by the Railways and extended weightage benefits to the appellant in terms of its own orders and Long-Term Settlements — Subsequent withdrawal of benefit on a belated internal audit objection and a purported Chairman's order is arbitrary and illegal — The Board cannot be permitted to resile from solemn commitments made in Board Orders and statutory settlements — Recovery from a retired employee where the excess payment was not caused by any misrepresentation by the employee is impermissible [Paras 44-47].

Decision: Appeals allowed — Impugned orders of the Division Bench dated 19th August, 2019 allowing W.A. No. 1155 of 2017 and W.A. No. 1895 of 2017 set aside — Judgment and order of the Single Judge dated 21st March, 2017 restored — Appellant entitled to all benefits flowing from the Single Judge's judgment within three months of production of authenticated copy — No order as to costs [Paras 48-50].

Civil Law - Chronic Litigation - Abuse of Process - Miscellaneous application arising from Registrar order dated 16.10.2025 in a matter involving land compensation claims - Applicant claiming to be a Sanyasi sought further relief for land allegedly encroached by the State in 2002 - Litigation history revealed SLP(C) No. 9085 of 2016 was dismissed in 2021 noting that 0.202 hectares of land was already allotted to the applicant in 2005 - Applicant subsequently filed a recall application, a Writ Petition in the High Court of Allahabad, a Contempt Petition, and a Review Petition, all of which were dismissed or withdrawn - Undisputed facts established that against an original plot of 11000 sq. feet, the applicant received an allotted plot of 21000 sq. feet and monetary compensation totaling INR 7,58,575 - Applicant had already constructed an Ashram and Temple on the allotted land - Court found that the grievance was remedied long ago and the matter had attained finality - Held - The applicant is a chronic litigant whose actions constitute a sheer wastage of precious judicial time - Miscellaneous application dismissed - Direction issued that no future litigation regarding this subject matter shall be entertained by any Court - [Paras 1-10].

Civil Law - Costs - Judicial Restraint - Repeated Filing - Applicant's conduct found to be an abuse of the legal process deserving of heavy costs - Court observed that the applicant appeared in person and claimed to be a Sanyasi - Held - Keeping in view the applicant's status as a Sanyasi, the Court refrained from imposing financial costs while dismissing the application - [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application dismissed – No orders as to costs – Direction issued that no litigation in respect of the present subject matter shall be entertained by any Court in future.

Writ Law - Road Safety and Trauma Care - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to Life - Petitioners filed writ seeking Mandamus for robust emergency care mechanism - argued that lack of quick access to trauma care is a major fatality cause - emphasized that right to trauma care is integral to right to life - Union submitted that it acts as enabler through schemes like PM RAHAT and Good Samaritan Rules - implementation by States is fragmented - Court observed that sustained efforts by Union and States in unison are required to reduce preventable deaths - Held - Right to trauma care recognized as part of Article 21 - interim directions issued to States and UTs for technical integration of ambulance helplines into universal number 112 - implementation of medical rescue protocols - adoption of standardized EMT curriculum - [Paras 1-13].

Writ Law - Good Samaritans - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 134A - Protection from legal harassment - Petitioners highlighted bystander hesitation due to fear of police summons or legal proceedings - referred to previous judgment in Savelife Foundation v. Union of India regarding protection guidelines ratified through the 2019 Amendment - Held - All States and UTs directed to establish functional physical and digital Good Samaritan Grievance Redressal Systems with designated nodal authorities at State and District levels within three months - [Paras 5-12].

Writ Law - Emergency Medical Services - Central Motor Vehicles Rules - Rule 125H - Ambulance Standards and GPS Integration - Direction sought for compliance with National Ambulance Code and GPS tracking - Held - States directed to ensure full Automotive Industry Standard 125 (AIS-125) compliance for all ambulances - mandate Vehicle Location Tracking Device (VLTD) fitment - real-time integration with helpline 112 - conduct periodic structured audits regarding response times and quality of care - [Paras 2-12].

Writ Law - Cashless Treatment Scheme - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 134A - PM RAHAT Scheme - Petitioners prayed for cashless schemes for road crash victims - Union already framed uniform national scheme known as PM RAHAT - Held - All States and UTs directed to fully operationalize PM RAHAT scheme within eight weeks including hospital designation - on-boarding of State Health Agencies - deployment of district-police on electronic Detailed Accident Report (eDAR) - non-implementation to be treated as violation of the MV Act - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Interim directions issued – States and Union Territories directed to ensure time-bound compliance – Matter listed after four months for compliance reports.

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement from Service - All India Service Death-cum-Retirement Benefits Rules 1958 - Rule 16(2A) - Rejection of VRS request - Appellant an IPS officer belonging to 1997 Batch Maharashtra cadre applied for VRS under Rule 16(2A) - State Government recommended acceptance stating that three pending complaints were unlikely to result in major penalty - Central Government rejected notice on the ground that the officer was not clear from vigilance angle as disciplinary proceedings were pending or contemplated - CAT and High Court dismissed challenges holding Central Government as the final authority - Supreme Court found that on the date of rejection no chargesheet was served meaning proceedings were not pending - Court observed two complaints were either inconclusive or withdrawn while third was delayed - Held - Central Government is the ultimate authority for VRS acceptance but must exercise discretion with independent application of mind and engagement with State Government views - rejection order set aside due to non-application of mind and remanded for fresh decision considering subsequent developments and unexplained delays - [Paras 1-34].

Service Law - Scope of Acceptance - All India Service Death-cum-Retirement Benefits Rules 1958 - Rule 16(2A) - Authority of Central Government - The word acceptance in Rule 16(2A) cannot be construed as a ministerial act or automatic exercise - Central Government must apply its mind to all relevant materials to arrive at an informed decision - While not bound by State Government recommendations the Central Government must accord them weight as the State has direct supervisory knowledge - Held - The Central Government has the last word on career-terminating decisions but must balance discipline with fairness in action - [Paras 15-22].

Service Law - Pendency and Contemplation - All India Services Discipline and Appeal Rules 1969 - Rule 8 - Initiation of proceedings - Disciplinary proceeding is considered pending only upon the issuance of a formal chargesheet - Contemplation requires a deliberate intention to act on a complaint rather than mere existence of a complaint - Unexplained and abnormal delay in concluding proceedings causes prejudice and mental agony to the employee - Held - Method and manner of conducting proceedings with long unjustified delays is unacceptable and must be considered when evaluating VRS requests - [Paras 23-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 25.10.2019 set aside – Central Government directed to revisit the decision and examine the notice for voluntary retirement afresh within three months.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 302 - Sentence modification - Appellant convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by Trial Court - High Court confirmed conviction based on consistent testimony of eye witnesses PW-1 PW-2 and PW-5 corroborated by medical evidence and discovery of weapon - Supreme Court declined to disturb concurrent findings on conviction - Appellant had undergone actual imprisonment of 23 years 6 months and 3 days without remission - Incident occurred in 1998 when appellant was 21 years old - Court examined the power of constitutional courts to modify life sentences to fixed terms - Held - While conviction is maintained the sentence is modified to the period already undergone - Appellant directed to be set at liberty forthwith - [Paras 1-19].

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 53 and Section 45 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 433-A - Power of Constitutional Courts - Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the convict's life subject to the right to claim remission under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution or Section 432 CrPC - High Courts and the Supreme Court possess the power to impose a modified or fixed-term sentence as an alternative to the death penalty or life imprisonment - This power can be exercised even where capital punishment is not proposed - Any such fixed-term sentence must not be less than 14 years as per the mandate of Section 433-A CrPC - Such modification does not amount to enhancement of sentence and thus does not require notice under Section 401 CrPC - Held - Imposing a fixed sentence is permissible under the interpretation of the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan - [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 135 BP Act maintained – Sentence modified to the period already undergone (23 years 6 months and 3 days) – Appellant directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Trust Law – Registered Societies – Voting Rights in Shareholding – Majority Rule vs. Unanimity – Interlocutory Orders Set Aside – Three societies registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, each holding shares in Birla Corporation Limited, instituted suits seeking protection of their voting rights at the company's Annual General Meeting – The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, relying on Section 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and L. Janakirama Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer, held that trustees must act in consonance and that absence of joinder by even one trustee defeats the decision – The Division Bench also directed that the vote cast first by the plaintiff society, irrespective of whether cast by the Managing Committee or the Board of Trustees, shall be taken into consideration – Held: Impugned judgment set aside on all three issues; appeals allowed [Paras 2-4, 34-39].

Issue I – Trustee Decision-Making – Majority Sufficiency – Clause 24 of By-Laws – Section 48 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 – Clause 24 of the by-laws of all three societies expressly permits delegation of authority by a resolution evidenced in writing under the hands of the majority of trustees, and declares such delegation to be as valid and effectual as a resolution passed at a formal meeting – Section 48 of the Trusts Act itself contains an exception where the instrument of trust otherwise provides – Held: The Division Bench erred in applying Section 48 as an absolute rule requiring unanimous trustee action, thereby reading out the express exception in the statute and rendering Clause 24 of the by-laws otiose – A majority-backed written decision falling within the framework of Clause 24 is valid and cannot be defeated by non-joinder or dissent of any individual trustee [Paras 8-17].

Issue II – Internal Governance – Board of Trustees vs. Managing Committee – Source of Voting Authority – The Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the societies vest all movable and immovable properties in the trustees and expressly provide that the Managing Committee is entitled to exercise only such powers as are delegated by the trustees from time to time – The words "notwithstanding," "subject to," and "only" in the constitutive documents establish a two-tier structure wherein the Board of Trustees is the source body and the Managing Committee is a body of delegated administration – Shares held by the societies in BCL form part of their assets and properties, and authority to exercise voting rights attached to such shares must be traced to the trustees – Held: The Division Bench erred in treating the Board of Trustees and the Managing Committee as normatively interchangeable for the purpose of authorising the vote; the correct approach was first to identify the body in which authority inhered and thereafter to examine whether it stood delegated [Paras 18-24].

Issue III – Electronic Voting – Section 108 of Companies Act, 2013 – Rule 20 of Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014 – Chronology vs. Authority – The Division Bench directed that the vote cast first by the plaintiff society, irrespective of the source of authority, shall be taken into consideration – The statutory and procedural framework governing remote e-voting requires non-individual shareholders to submit Board Resolutions or authority letters for scrutiniser verification, establishing that authority is anterior to and foundational for the act of voting – Held: The statutory scheme protects the first valid vote of the member against duplication or subsequent alteration; it does not enact that whichever rival claimant acts first must prevail regardless of lawful authority – Priority in point of time cannot substitute for lawful authority; the impugned direction substituting chronology for authority is unsustainable in law [Paras 25-32].

Scope of Adjudication – No Pronouncement on Factual Disputes – The Court clarified that it has not adjudicated upon the factual or ultimate legal validity of any particular resolution, including the resolutions dated 04.03.2021, or of any subsequent authorisation, cessation, removal, nomination or appointment – All such questions, including maintainability of the suits, shall be decided by the competent forum on their own merits – Suits and interlocutory applications restored to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration by the Single Judge [Paras 6, 40-41].

Decision: Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1182 of 2023, 1183 of 2023 and 23145 of 2022 preferred by Hindustan Medical Institution, Eastern India Educational Institution and Belle Vue Clinic allowed in full – Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1185 of 2023, 1187 of 2023 and 22799 of 2022 preferred by Ms. Anamika Lodha allowed to the limited extent of the challenge to the "first vote prevails" direction – Common judgment and order dated 26.09.2022 of the Division Bench set aside – Orders dated 16.09.2022 of the Single Judge also set aside – No order as to costs.

Land Allotment – Irregular Allotment by CIDCO – Regularisation vs. Demolition – Public Interest – Doctrine of Proportionality – Developer allotted 30,582 sq. metres in Sector 30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai by CIDCO without competitive tender and at substantially below-market rate of Rs. 10,250/- per sq. metre against market value of Rs. 20,791/- per sq. metre causing estimated loss of Rs. 50 crores – High Court declared allotment illegal and directed restoration of plot to original condition – Developer had by then invested Rs. 450 crores, obtained Occupancy Certificate in 2008, and the complex had been in continuous commercial operation since 2009 generating livelihood for approximately 8,000 persons and annual tax revenue of Rs. 100 crores – Held: Demolition of a fully operational commercial complex after seventeen years of operation would be disproportionate and contrary to public interest – Financial prejudice to CIDCO is entirely remediable through a rigorous financial recovery mechanism – High Court's direction for restoration quashed and regularisation granted subject to payment of fair market value [Paras 22–28, 39].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Remedial Measure – Public Law – A court must weigh not only the wrong committed but also the reality as it stands at the time of adjudication – The doctrine of proportionality demands that the severity of a remedial measure must bear a rational and proportionate relationship to the nature and magnitude of the wrong sought to be remedied – A remedy causing public harm disproportionate to the public benefit it achieves is not one that law ought to countenance – Adjudication cannot occur in a vacuum divorced from subsequent reality – Demolition achieves none of the three objectives of compensating CIDCO, penalising the Developer, and protecting innocent third-party livelihoods, whereas regularisation conditioned on full market value payment achieves all three [Paras 23–27].

Regularisation – Quantum of Payment – Sankaran Committee vs. Banthia Committee Methodology – CIDCO Resolution dated 04.02.2026 adopted Sankaran Committee's methodology computing recoverable amount as interest on Rs. 50 crores differential loss quantified in 2005, arriving at Rs. 262.87 crores – Held: Sankaran Committee methodology is inappropriate as it freezes valuation at a point when land values were far lower and fails to account for dramatic appreciation over subsequent decade – Banthia Committee's approach, adopting the date of the High Court's judgment (November 2014) as the reference date for market valuation, is sound both in principle and in policy – Regularisation is not a continuation of the original transaction but a fresh grant of legal legitimacy for which the Developer must pay what the land was actually worth at the time of the court's judgment [Paras 31–36].

Computation of Regularisation Amount – Ready Reckoner Rate – Market Value – Subject plot measuring 30,582 sq. metres to be valued at ready reckoner rate of Rs. 54,400/- per sq. metre applicable to Sector 30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai as of 2014 – Market value computed at Rs. 1,66,36,60,800/- – Interest at 8% per annum from 01.12.2014 to 30.04.2026 amounting to Rs. 1,51,94,76,864/- – Total aggregate liability fixed at Rs. 3,18,31,37,664/- – Amount already paid by Developer at original allotment rate to be duly adjusted and deducted – Developer additionally liable to pay Rs. 1 crore in lieu of unfulfilled obligation to develop garden on Plot No. 40 [Paras 35–38].

Equality – Article 14 – Parity with Other Allottees – Developer sought parity with Multi Co-operative Housing Societies and individual allottees regularised under CIDCO policy dated 06.06.2005 – Held: Principle of equality does not require that unequals be treated as equals – Developer is a large commercial enterprise that developed a major commercial complex of 10,50,000 sq. feet and occupies an entirely different position from housing society allottees in terms of scale, commercial purpose, and financial capacity – Parity of treatment is warranted only among those similarly situated in all material respects [Para 30].

CIDCO Land Disposal – Regulation 4 – Mode of Allotment – Regulation 4 of the New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975 permits disposal of CIDCO plots not only by auction or tender but also by considering individual applications as CIDCO may from time to time determine – Where earlier tender attempts had failed, allotment on individual application was not per se illegal – Infirmity lay in the pricing mechanism and absence of transparent competitive process, not in the mode of allotment [Para 21].

Decision: Civil Appeals disposed of – High Court's direction for restoration of subject plot to original condition and delivery of vacant possession to CIDCO quashed and set aside – Allotment of subject plot to stand regularised subject to Developer paying aggregate sum of Rs. 3,18,31,37,664/- (after adjustment of amounts already paid) within four months from date of judgment – Developer to additionally pay Rs. 1 crore in lieu of unfulfilled garden development obligation – Dispute regarding Plot No. 39/16 (subject matter of W.P. No. 368 of 2015) to be decided by High Court on its own merits – No order as to costs [Paras 38–40].