Criminal Law – Seizure of Property – The vessel M.T. Enrica Lexie was detained following the shooting incident where two Indian fishermen were killed. The Kerala High Court's Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order allowing the vessel to sail. The Supreme Court held that the vessel was not the object of the crime nor linked with the commission of any offence under investigation, thus overturning the Division Bench's decision​​.

International Law – Jurisdiction – The Republic of Italy argued that the incident occurred outside Indian territorial waters and thus fell outside Indian jurisdiction. The Supreme Court did not dwell on this contention, focusing instead on the procedural aspects related to the vessel's detention and the marines' involvement​​.

Assurance of Presence – The Republic of Italy provided an assurance that the marines would be made available to any court or lawful authority as required, subject to their right to challenge such summons in India. This assurance was deemed sufficient to protect the interests of the Kerala government and ensure the continuation of the investigation and potential prosecution​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – The vessel M.T. Enrica Lexie permitted to sail subject to certain undertakings and bonds. The Republic of Italy's assurance regarding the presence of the marines was accepted, ensuring the interests of the Indian investigation and judicial process were safeguarded​​.

Electricity Law – Tariff Revision – The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission revised tariffs and discontinued an incentive scheme, effective from December 1, 2004. The Commission held that the scheme was temporary and its withdrawal did not violate the principle of promissory estoppel. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed this view, finding no unequivocal representation that the scheme would continue till March 31, 2007​​.

Promissory Estoppel – Applicability – The Supreme Court concurred with the Commission and the Tribunal that the principle of promissory estoppel was not applicable as there was no clear promise of continuation of the incentive scheme. The Commission had given adequate public notice about the scheme's limited validity, and no material change in position by the appellants to their detriment was demonstrated​​.

Limitation Period – Commencement – The Court clarified that the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, commences from the date of communication of the decision, not from its pronouncement. The communication referred to is as per Rule 98 of the Electricity Rules, not merely the pronouncement under Rule 94​​.

Merger Doctrine – Review Orders – It was held that an order dismissing a review petition does not merge with the original decree or order being reviewed. The appeal must challenge the original decree, not the order dismissing the review, unless the review order modifies or reverses the original order​​.

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No substantial question of law was found. The findings of fact by the Commission and Tribunal were upheld. Costs of Rs. 20,000 were awarded to the respondent, to be deposited in the SCBA Lawyers' Welfare Fund within six weeks​​.

Criminal Law – Armed Forces – Prosecution Sanction – The appeals concern whether prior sanction from the Central Government is necessary before prosecuting Army personnel for actions performed under the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990. The Supreme Court ruled that such a sanction is mandatory, and the lack of it renders the prosecution invalid. The term "institution" of prosecution refers to the point of taking cognizance, not merely filing a chargesheet【23†source】.

Scope of Official Duty – The Court examined whether the alleged fake encounter was performed in discharge of official duties. It held that protection under Section 7 applies if the act is reasonably connected with official duties, even if it involves excesses. The assessment of whether the act was performed in discharge of official duty should be considered during trial, not merely at the chargesheet stage【23†source】.

Cognizance and Legal Proceedings – The Court clarified that "institution" of legal proceedings against Army personnel requires prior sanction and pertains to the court taking cognizance of the charges, not the mere presentation of a chargesheet. This interpretation aligns with the objective of protecting military personnel from vexatious prosecutions for actions performed in the line of duty【23†source】.

Decision: Appeals allowed – The Court held that the prosecution of Army personnel without prior sanction from the Central Government under Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990, is invalid. The CJM and the High Court's orders were set aside, and the chargesheets were returned to the CBI with liberty to obtain the necessary sanction and proceed afresh if so advised【23†source】.

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Appellant challenged the trial court's decision to proceed against him under the Explosive Substances Act without initial sanction from the competent authority – High Court upheld trial court’s order allowing prosecution’s application under Section 311 CrPC to proceed with fresh sanction – Supreme Court directed the trial to proceed, emphasizing the serious nature of the offences and the need for a proper trial [Paras 1-15].

Procedural Law – Section 311 CrPC – Discussion on recalling or re-summoning witnesses to correct prosecutorial oversights – Court observed that procedural errors can be rectified if they do not result in prejudice to the accused – Emphasized that criminal justice should not be compromised due to prosecutorial inefficiencies [Paras 11-13].

Explosive Substances Act – Requirement of Sanction – Detailed discussion on Section 7 of the Act, which mandates sanction from the competent authority for prosecution – Court held that subsequent proper sanction allows the trial to proceed despite initial procedural lapses [Paras 3-10].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and charges upheld – Court directed trial court to frame additional charges and proceed with the trial, ensuring that the legal process is followed and justice is served [Para 14-15].

Property Law – Adverse Possession – Courts held that a watchman, caretaker, or servant employed to look after property cannot acquire an interest in the property regardless of long possession – Such individuals must hand over possession upon demand – Courts should not protect possession of these individuals unless they have a valid rent, lease, or license agreement [Paras 6, 19-20, 42].

Administration of Justice – Clean Hands Doctrine – Emphasized the duty of courts to prevent benefits derived from abusing the legal process – Courts must discourage fraudulent litigants and ensure justice by upholding truth and integrity in pleadings and documents – Relief should be granted cautiously, considering the litigant's conduct and veracity of claims [Paras 24-27, 38-41].

Civil Procedure – Framing of Issues – Highlighted the importance of critically examining pleadings before framing issues to narrow down controversies and focus on core matters – Proper framing aids in effective examination of witnesses and arguments, ultimately aiding in the administration of justice [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Judgments of the trial court restored, and appellant ordered to vacate the premises within two months – Imposed nominal costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant, considering financial constraints [Para 43-44].

Election Law – Corrupt Practices – The appellant challenged the election of the respondent on the ground of corrupt practices involving the publication of false statements – High Court dismissed the election petition for lack of a complete cause of action, citing non-compliance with the requirement to file an affidavit in Form 25 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the necessity of strict adherence to procedural requirements for election petitions [Paras 4-26].

Affidavit Requirements – Verification – The Court highlighted that an election petition alleging corrupt practices must be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the allegations as per the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act – A single affidavit satisfying both the requirements under Order VI Rule 15(4) CPC and Form 25 is not sufficient – The failure to provide proper verification renders the petition incomplete and subject to dismissal [Paras 24-26].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court confirmed the High Court’s dismissal of the election petition for non-compliance with the affidavit verification requirements – Petition was held incomplete due to the lack of proper verification and supporting affidavit in the prescribed form [Para 27-28].

Corporate Criminal Liability – Vicarious Liability – The Supreme Court held that for maintaining prosecution under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arraigning the company as an accused is imperative. The court clarified that the liability of individuals (directors and officers) under the said section is vicarious and arises only when the company, being the principal offender, is prosecuted. The decision overruled the contrary views expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of M.P. and Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd. [Paras 1-44].

Legal Fiction – Statutory Interpretation – Emphasized that legal fiction created by statutory provisions must be given full effect and interpreted in the context of the legislative intent. The court highlighted that the term "as well as" in Section 141 indicates that the company must be prosecuted along with the individuals responsible for the conduct of its business [Paras 27-32].

Case Law Overruled – Overruled the judgments in Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of M.P. and Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd. to the extent they held that prosecution against individuals under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can proceed without the company being impleaded as an accused [Paras 37-43].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The prosecution against the individuals without the company being arrayed as an accused was held not maintainable. The court directed that the prosecution must include the company as an accused for proceedings against the directors or officers to be valid [Para 44].

Benami Transactions – Fiduciary Capacity – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the transaction in which the property was purchased in the appellant’s name but for which the consideration was paid by the respondents, was not a benami transaction under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The court held that the appellant stood in a fiduciary capacity vis-à-vis the respondents. Therefore, the transaction was saved by Section 4(3)(b) of the Act, which excludes transactions where the property is held by a person standing in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of another [Paras 11-25].

Ownership and Contribution – The court found no error in the High Court’s finding that the sale consideration for the property was contributed by both the plaintiffs and the defendant. The High Court’s appraisal of evidence, including the contributions made by the father and the respondents, was upheld [Paras 1-7].

Estoppel – The appellant was estopped from contending that the transaction was benami because he had claimed in his defense that he had provided the entire sale consideration himself, which was found to be untrue. This principle supported the High Court’s rejection of the appellant’s plea under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 [Para 8].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision that the suit property was jointly owned by the respondents and the appellant, and that the transaction was not barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 [Para 27].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Assessment – The Supreme Court held that when assessing compensation for acquired land, the highest bona fide sale exemplar must be considered, not the average of multiple exemplars. The Court ruled that the Reference Court and the High Court erred by averaging the prices of three sale exemplars instead of relying on the highest exemplar [Paras 8-15].

Interest on Solatium and Additional Market Value – The Court reiterated that interest on the compensation awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act must include both the market value and the statutory solatium. This principle was affirmed by the Constitution Bench decisions in Sunder v. Union of India and Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 145,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits, including interest on solatium and additional market value. The appeal was allowed to this extent, providing the appellants with higher compensation than previously awarded [Para 19].