Municipal Law – Building Plan Sanction – Mixed-Use Regulations – Whether owner can be compelled to construct commercial ground floor in notified mixed-use streets – Held: No; mixed-use is only permissive, not mandatory – Authorities acted arbitrarily in denying sanction for purely residential construction – Deemed sanction upheld – Directions to approve fresh plans within four weeks – Costs of ₹10 lakhs imposed on SDMC for harassment [Paras 10–16, 19–20].

Building Plan Sanction – Mixed-Use Streets – MPD-2021 – Commercial Use Permissive, Not Mandatory - Mixed-use notification (15.09.2006) and Circular dated 27.05.2009 make it clear that commercial use on ground floor of mixed-use streets is optional – Owner may choose to develop property as (i) commercial, (ii) mixed-use, or (iii) purely residential – The circular expressly states that plans “can be sanctioned… as per the choice of the applicant” – High Court correctly held that owners cannot be forced to convert ground floor to commercial use [Paras 10–12].

Municipal Governance – Arbitrary Refusal of Sanction – Appellant’s Case Found Illogical and Contrary to Record - SDMC’s argument that respondents must compulsorily maintain a commercial ground floor is inconsistent with its own earlier case that the plans lacked stilt parking – No statutory instrument mandates compulsory commercial use – Court finds SDMC’s stand irrational, illogical, and contrary to MPD-2021 – Forcing citizens to set up shops when they desire only residential use held wholly unjustified [Paras 9, 13–14].

Dilapidated Structure – Fundamental Right to Rebuild – Municipality Cannot Prevent Reconstruction of Unsafe Home - Respondents’ 85-year-old residential house (constructed in 1940) was in a dangerously dilapidated condition – Court notes photographic evidence showing the premises at risk of collapse – Instead of ensuring safety, SDMC obstructed rebuilding for 15 years – Conduct held oppressive and amounting to harassment – Right to rebuild residential house recognised as a legitimate, vested entitlement [Paras 15–16].

Concurrent Findings – Tribunal, ADJ, and High Court All Upheld Deemed Sanction – Supreme Court Declines Interference - Three authorities concurrently held that respondents’ plans deserved sanction – Tribunal granted deemed sanction; ADJ affirmed; High Court affirmed and dismissed review – No perversity, no legal error, and no misinterpretation found – Interference under Article 136 unwarranted [Paras 5–9, 17].

Costs – Harassment by Public Authority – Exemplary Costs of ₹10 Lakhs Imposed on SDMC - Given prolonged litigation (15 years), arbitrary obstruction, and hardship caused to elderly residents, Court imposes ₹10,00,000 costs on SDMC to be paid to respondents on or before 17.12.2025 – Payment to be reported to Supreme Court [Para 20].

Directions – Fresh Plans – Mandatory Sanction Within Four Weeks - Respondents permitted to submit fresh building plans for residential construction – SDMC directed to grant sanction within four weeks from submission – Respondents may also rely on earlier plans approved by High Court [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court order affirmed – Respondents entitled to rebuild residential house – Fresh plans to be sanctioned within four weeks – Costs of ₹10,00,000 imposed on SDMC – Connected appeal also disposed [Paras 18–22].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Competency of Appeal – State of Chhattisgarh and de-facto complainant challenged acquittal of Amit Jogi in murder case originally investigated by State Police and later by CBI – High Court dismissed appeals as not maintainable based on three-Judge Bench decision in Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2010) 5 SCC 1 – Held: Where CBI conducts investigation under Section 378(2) CrPC, only Central Government is competent to file appeal – State’s appeal not maintainable – Ratio in Lalu Prasad Yadav upheld [Paras 18-24, 35].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 378 CrPC – Distinction Between Sub-sections (1) and (2) – Section 378(2) is an exception to 378(1) – Only Central Government can appeal in cases investigated by CBI or central agency under a Central Act – Words “save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)” in 378(1) clearly limit State’s power to appeal in such cases – State's appeal rightly dismissed by High Court [Paras 18-21].

Investigation – Mixed Investigation by State Police and CBI – FIR initially registered and investigated by State Police – CBI took over after dissatisfaction by de-facto complainant – Chargesheet by CBI – Argument that State could still appeal due to initial involvement rejected – Supreme Court leaves open possibility that in suitable future case, where CBI is involved at State’s behest, State’s right to appeal may be examined – But not decided in this case [Paras 22-25].

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Appeal – Application for Leave to Appeal by CBI – High Court rejected CBI’s leave application on ground of 1373 days’ delay – Supreme Court condoned delay in view of gravity of charges – Directed High Court to consider CBI’s leave application on merits – CBI’s bona fide explanation noted – Appeal by CBI allowed [Paras 26, 30-33].

Victim’s Right of Appeal – Applicability of Proviso to Section 372 CrPC – De-facto complainant filed appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Trial court’s acquittal judgment dated 31.05.2007 – Proviso came into force on 31.12.2009 – Held: Victim’s right to appeal applies prospectively to acquittals post 31.12.2009 – Appeal rightly dismissed by High Court [Paras 27-29].

Hearing of Acquitted Accused – Exceptional Circumstance – Though ordinarily not required, Supreme Court directed that respondent-accused (Amit Jogi) be heard before High Court in CBI’s leave application due to long delay and exceptional facts – State and de-facto complainant also to be impleaded as parties [Para 34].

Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2014 (State of Chhattisgarh) – Dismissed

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 7331/2011 & 1438/2012 (de-facto complainant Satish Jaggi) – Dismissed

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3037/2012 (CBI) – Allowed – Delay condoned – Matter remitted to High Court to decide on merits of CBI’s leave to appeal against acquittal [Paras 33, 35].

Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Compensation – Split Multiplier – Applicability – High Court reduced compensation by applying split multiplier on assumption of post-retirement income reduction – Held: There exists divergence among High Courts on applying split multiplier – Following Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier must depend solely on age of the deceased – Retirement or superannuation cannot be treated as an “exceptional circumstance” to justify a split multiplier – Split multiplier is foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act and should not be used by Tribunals or Courts [Paras 14–19].

Judicial Discipline – Divergence of Views – Intra-Court Conflicts – Supreme Court expressed concern over inconsistent approaches by coordinate benches within same High Courts, leading to uncertainty for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals – Directed that where conflicting views exist, the matter should be referred to a larger bench to maintain judicial propriety [Para 14].

Motor Accident Compensation – Income Assessment – Future Prospects – Income at the time of death to be taken as base for computation – Future prospects of 15% correctly applied for deceased aged 51 years – High Court failed to comply with directive in Pranay Sethi regarding 10% enhancement under conventional heads every three years – Corrected computation yielded total compensation of ₹47,76,794/- [Paras 19–20].

Directions – Prospective Application – Circulation to High Courts and Tribunals – The ruling on non-applicability of split multiplier to operate prospectively – Registrar (Judicial) directed to circulate copy to Registrars General of all High Courts and to Motor Accident Tribunals for uniform application [Para 22].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment dated 28.06.2024 and review orders dated 27.11.2024 set aside – Tribunal award dated 02.04.2014 restored with modification to ₹47,76,794/- compensation and interest @7.5% p.a. – Directions for remittance of compensation to appellants’ bank accounts before 30.11.2025 – Prospective effect clarified [Paras 20–23].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – High Court quashed proceedings arising from FIR No.35 of 2024, registered by appellant-wife against husband and in-laws alleging harassment and dowry demand – High Court held non-mention of two specific incidents (dated 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022) in earlier complaints before FIR suggests afterthought – Supreme Court held: approach of High Court amounted to conducting a ‘mini-trial’, which is impermissible at the stage of Section 482 CrPC – Prime facie case of cruelty and dowry demand made out – FIR not liable to be quashed [Paras 17, 18, 19, 22, 27]

Inherent Powers – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Supreme Court reiterated that power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases – At stage of quashing, Court must only assess if prima facie allegations constitute cognizable offence – Court cannot go into merits, credibility or genuineness of allegations – Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 by evaluating reliability of complainant’s allegations, thus conducting a ‘mini-trial’ [Paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]

Dowry Harassment – Delay in Lodging FIR – Delay of one year in filing FIR after initial complaints to Women’s Cell – Respondents argued inconsistencies and delay undermine prosecution case – Supreme Court held: prior complaints disclosed continuous harassment and dowry demands – Mere omission of specific dates in earlier complaints does not negate existence of offence – Delay reasonably explained – Quashing not justified [Paras 13, 14, 19, 27]

Witness Credibility – FIR vs Prior Complaint – High Court concluded FIR was afterthought due to absence of specific incidents in prior complaints – Supreme Court held: High Court erred in judging veracity and motivation of FIR at pre-trial stage – Such evaluation is for trial court – FIR contained detailed and specific allegations that disclose cognizable offences – Quashing unsustainable [Paras 18, 19, 27]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order dated 19.07.2024 quashing FIR No.35 of 2024 set aside – Criminal proceedings against respondents to continue – All defences of the parties left open for trial [Paras 28, 29]

Criminal Law – Investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC – Magistrate’s Power – Validity of referral for police investigation – JMFC referred private complaint alleging forgery of E-Stamp and Rent Agreement for police investigation – High Court quashed the referral on the ground of non-application of mind and irregular order – Held: JMFC’s referral was valid as prima facie material existed disclosing cognizable offences – The Magistrate had jurisdiction and exercised discretion judiciously – Use of the word “further” in JMFC’s order did not vitiate the referral – Irregularity, if any, was curable under Section 460 CrPC – Orders of the High Court quashing the investigation unsustainable [Paras 34–39, 43–47].

Forgery and Fraud – Use of fake E-Stamp Paper – Prima facie evidence of conspiracy and forgery – Rent Agreement produced before High Court in earlier civil proceedings found to be on a fake E-Stamp Paper whose serial number actually corresponded to an unrelated Sale Agreement – Held: Existence of prima facie material warranted police investigation – Suppression of material facts and misuse of forged documents before the High Court justified invocation of criminal process [Paras 35–38].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Power under Section 482 CrPC – Scope of interference – High Court erred in interfering at the nascent stage of investigation and substituting its view for that of the Magistrate – As held in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, criminal proceedings should not be stifled prematurely where prima facie allegations exist [Paras 20, 38–40].

Order under Section 156(3) CrPC – Application of Mind – Principles Reiterated – Reaffirmed that Magistrate may refer complaint to police for investigation before taking cognizance if allegations disclose cognizable offence (Madhao v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615; Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439) – The JMFC had complied with Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP, (2015) 6 SCC 287 requirements [Paras 37–39].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned orders of the High Court quashing the investigation set aside – Criminal proceedings restored – Investigation to proceed in accordance with law.

Vehicles – Inter-State permits – Overlap with notified intra-State routes – Chapter VI overrides Section 88 – Inter-State agreement not “law” – Private operators cannot be allowed on overlapping notified routes absent express statutory carve-out – High Court directions set aside – Writ petition dismissed – States directed to confer and consider modifications if MPSRTC winding-up is established [Paras 23, 41-45, 48-50].

Inter-State Agreement vs. Notified Routes – Nature of IS-RT Agreement – An inter-State reciprocal transport agreement under Section 88 is an agreement between States and not “law”; approved schemes and notified routes framed under Chapter VI prevail by virtue of Section 98 – Consequently, private operators cannot ply on any portion of a notified route, even if part of an inter-State route overlaps, unless the scheme permits it – Mysore SRTC (I) view not good law; Constitution Bench in Adarsh Travels followed [Paras 41-45].

Overlapping Routes – Absolute Prohibition – Consistent line of authority reiterated: if a scheme imposes total prohibition on private operators on a notified route, no permit can be granted or renewed for a route that traverses/overlaps—even for a short distance; intersection is distinct from overlap [Para 41].

Question of Law – Framed and Answered – Whether a private operator can be granted a permit under an IS-RT Agreement when a portion of the inter-State route is common to a notified intra-State route? – Answer: No, in view of Chapter VI’s overriding effect and binding precedents [Para 23; Paras 41-45].

Effect of MPSRTC Winding-up – Contractual Clause – IS-RT Agreement contemplated inclusion of Schedule B routes into Schedule A upon MPSRTC’s winding-up; however, absence of clinching proof of winding-up defeats private operators’ claims; relief is “well-nigh impossible” unless winding-up is clearly shown [Paras 43-44].

Court Directions – Gwalior Bench’s directions requiring MP to issue permanent permits and UP to countersign within set timelines set aside; connected orders also set aside; Writ Petition © No. 748 of 2024 dismissed [Paras 4-9, 50(i)-(iii)].

– Cooperative Federalism & Public Interest – Principal Secretaries (Transport) of MP and UP to meet within 3 months to explore working out the IS-RT Agreement, including (i) moving Schedule B routes to Schedule A upon proof of MPSRTC’s winding-up, (ii) considering partial exclusions/modification of approved schemes to avoid public inconvenience, and (iii) prompt permits/countersignature if consensus emerges [Paras 48-49, 50(iv)].

Decision: Appeals allowed; impugned High Court orders set aside; Writ Petition © No. 748 of 2024 dismissed; directions issued to MP and UP to confer as indicated; no order as to costs [Para 50].

Arbitration – Enforcement of Award – Execution - Objections under Section 47 CPC – Dismissal – Appellant MMTC Limited objected to execution of arbitral award favouring Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt. Ltd., alleging fraud and collusion by its own officials during fixation of coal prices – High Court dismissed objections under Section 47 and application for stay under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC – Held: Mere allegation of fraud on MMTC’s internal decision-making without showing fraud on the arbitral tribunal or the award itself does not render award inexecutable – Award had attained finality, and objections raised did not demonstrate nullity or jurisdictional infirmity as required under Section 47 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15, 25, 31, 94, 95, 100].

Execution Proceedings – Section 47 CPC – Scope – Narrow compass – Objection to enforcement can only lie on limited grounds such as jurisdictional infirmity or decree being a nullity – Held: Allegations of internal collusion and breach of fiduciary duty, even if true, do not constitute jurisdictional infirmity or render arbitral award a nullity – No fraud on tribunal alleged or proved – Electrosteel Steel Ltd. v. ISPAT Carrier Pvt. Ltd. followed [Paras 21, 23, 24, 25].

Contract – Long Term Coal Supply Agreement – Price fixation clause linked to SAIL/RINL pricing – 5th Delivery Period – Price fixed at US$ 300 PMT – MMTC later claimed fraud by its own officers for agreeing to that price – Held: There was consistent correspondence, board approvals, and prior performance under the LTA – No evidence that decisions were irrational or outside range of reasonableness – Price aligned with SAIL/RINL – Business Judgment Rule applied – Directors’ decisions within permissible commercial discretion [Paras 32, 39, 40, 94].

Company Law – Directors’ Duties – Breach of fiduciary duty – Allegations against MMTC officers for collusion – Held: For a finding of breach of fiduciary duty, conduct must fall outside the bounds of what a reasonably competent director would have done – No such evidence found – Retrospective scrutiny with benefit of hindsight is impermissible – Re Living Images Ltd., Sharp v. Blank, and Maple Leaf Foods v. Schneider Corp. followed [Paras 35, 38, 39, 95].

Criminal Law – FIR against MMTC officials and Anglo – Allegation of corruption and conspiracy – Held: Mere registration of FIR or pendency of criminal proceedings does not render an award inexecutable – Execution cannot be stayed on mere pendency of unproven criminal charges – No finding of fraud by any court or investigating agency till date – FIR is a one-sided version, not evidence of fraud vitiating the award [Paras 85, 90, 94(q)].

Res Judicata – Arbitration Award upheld by Supreme Court – Finality – Re-litigation through Section 47 objections barred – Attempt to revisit issues already adjudicated under Section 34 and 37 of Arbitration Act not permissible – Objections amount to abuse of process – Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi reiterated – Execution proceedings cannot become a retrial [Paras 31, 94, 97, 98].

Civil Procedure – Order XXI Rule 29 CPC – Stay of execution pending suit – Rejected – Held: Suit seeking to declare award void was itself rejected – Pending appeal against rejection of suit does not justify stay of execution – Objections must stand on independent merit – No exceptional circumstance shown to grant stay [Para 96].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Section 47 objections rightly rejected – Award held executable – No prima facie case of fraud or collusion made out – Appeal under Order XXI Rule 29 also untenable in absence of pending suit – Costs not awarded [Paras 95, 96, 100].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Limited Role – Parity – FIR for offences under BNS, POCSO Act, and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act – Allegation against appellant limited to driving the vehicle – Other co-accused granted bail – High Court rejected anticipatory bail – Held: Appellant had no overt act vis-à-vis victim – Anticipatory bail granted on grounds of parity and limited involvement – Bail to be granted on arrest subject to conditions

Bail – Interim Protection – Grant of Interim Protection by Supreme Court on 09.05.2025 – Appeal allowed – Final order confirms interim protection by directing release on bail in the event of arrest – Cash security of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties imposed – Conditions imposed for cooperation and non-interference with evidence

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 BNSS – Anticipatory Relief – Appellant entitled to invoke Section 482 of BNSS for protection in absence of direct allegations – Observed that presence at the scene or peripheral assistance not sufficient to deny anticipatory relief where others with greater involvement are already on bail

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order dated 23.04.2025 set aside – Anticipatory bail granted to appellant in the event of arrest – To be released on furnishing cash security of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties – Directed not to misuse liberty or influence witnesses.

Criminal Law – Advocate–Client Privilege – Summoning of Advocates – Suo Motu proceedings arising from summons issued to an Advocate under Section 179 BNSS, for appearing as counsel for the accused – Advocate was summoned to disclose facts and circumstances of the case – Held: Such summoning without clear invocation of exceptions under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 is illegal and violates the statutory privilege conferred on Advocates and clients – Investigating agencies cannot summon an Advocate appearing in a case solely to obtain case details – Violation of this privilege also impacts Articles 19(1)(g), 20(3), 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution – Summons set aside – Directions issued to safeguard professional privilege [Paras 2, 3, 4, 32, 44, 48, 49, 50, 52, 67, 68].

Advocate–Client Confidentiality – Scope of Section 132 of BSA – Section 132 confers privilege upon clients and imposes duty of non-disclosure on Advocates – Covers all professional communications made in the course of service – Exception exists only for communications in furtherance of an illegal purpose or when crime/fraud is observed during engagement – This privilege survives even after professional relationship ceases – Advocate may invoke the privilege even in the absence of client – Disclosure by Advocate in violation may amount to professional misconduct – The statutory privilege is rooted in fundamental constitutional protections including Article 20(3) – Held: Blanket summoning violates these safeguards [Paras 5, 6, 7, 10, 18, 21, 32, 33, 42, 44].

Criminal Procedure – BNSS Powers of Investigation – Section 179 of BNSS permits summoning witnesses – However, such powers are limited when exercised against Advocates – Held: No summons can be issued to an Advocate representing a party in a case unless the exception under Section 132 applies and is explicitly stated in the summons – Written approval of a superior officer (not below SP rank) is mandatory – Advocate/client can seek judicial review under Section 528 BNSS [Paras 3, 11, 45, 49, 50, 52, 67.1.2, 67.1.3].

Judicial Oversight – Framing of Guidelines – Bar urged for framing guidelines similar to Jacob Mathew and Vishaka cases – Court declined – Held: Unlike Vishaka, there is no legislative vacuum or systemic failure requiring guideline formation – Existing statutory framework under BNSS and BSA sufficient – Issuance of new procedure would conflict with express legislative scheme and potentially impair investigations – Judicial review under Section 528 BNSS is the proper remedy for abuse [Paras 24–31, 44, 45, 67].

Production of Documents and Digital Devices – Section 94 BNSS – Held: Professional privilege under Section 132 does not extend to physical documents or digital devices – However, if document/device is in Advocate’s possession, it can only be produced before Court and not directly to I.O. – Any discovery from digital devices must occur in Court with presence of client and Advocate, and may require assistance of digital expert – Confidentiality of data concerning other clients must be safeguarded [Paras 54–58, 67.3, 67.3.1–3.3].

In-House Counsel – Applicability of Section 132 – Held: In-house counsel, being full-time salaried employees, do not fall under the definition of “Advocate” under the Advocates Act – Hence, they are not entitled to the privilege under Section 132 of BSA – May claim protection under Section 134 for personal communications made to their own legal advisers, but not employer–employee legal advice exchanges [Paras 59–66, 67.4].

Role of Advocate – Importance of Confidentiality – Reiterated that Advocate is not merely an agent but a dignified officer of Court – Upholds justice and ensures fair representation – Breach of privilege undermines adversarial system – Even occasional misconduct by lawyers does not justify systemic breach of confidentiality protections which are foundational to rule of law [Paras 17–23, 40, 43].

Comparative Jurisprudence – Common Law Systems – Privilege widely recognised in UK, US, Canada – Communication protected irrespective of ongoing litigation – In Greenough, Upjohn, Akzo Nobel and other cases, privilege preserved to ensure justice – Indian legal framework mirrors such protections, particularly in adversarial systems [Paras 34–36, 65].

Final Directions – Issued under Article 142 to clarify legal position – Held:

• Summons to Advocate cannot be issued unless falling within exceptions of Section 132 BSA [Para 67.1.1]

• Must be approved in writing by superior officer not below SP rank [Para 67.1.2]

• Must state specific facts and basis for exception [Para 67.1.2]

• Advocate/client may seek judicial review under Section 528 BNSS [Para 67.1.3]

• Privilege applies to litigation, pre-litigation and non-litigious engagements [Para 67.1.4]

• Production of documents governed by Section 94 BNSS, not protected by Section 132 [Paras 67.2–67.2.3]

• Digital devices to be produced only in Court; discovery to follow safeguards [Paras 67.3.1–67.3.3]

• In-house counsel excluded from Section 132 privilege [Paras 67.4, 67.4.1]

Decision: Summons issued to Advocate found to be illegal – Same set aside – Suo motu writ petition and connected matters disposed of – Strong caution issued to investigating agencies against transgressing legal privilege of Advocate–Client communications [Paras 48, 49, 50, 52, 67, 68].