Criminal Law – Quashing Sanction for Investigation – Requirement under Section 17A PC Act – Applicability to Court Orders – Judicial Dilemma Deferred - The petition involved challenge to FIRs and proceedings initiated without prior sanction under Section 17A, post-amendment of the PC Act in 2018 – Held: Whether a Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) CrPC attracts the bar of Section 17A is a complex issue already referred to a larger bench in Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora – Pending authoritative ruling, the Court declined to proceed substantively and tagged the matter accordingly [Paras 1, 12, 14, 20-21].

Second Complaint – Maintainability – Technical Dismissal of First Complaint – Allowed - The Court acknowledged the position that a second complaint is maintainable if the first was dismissed on technical grounds without adjudicating the merits – The High Court order restoring the second complaint stood pending broader determination on legal principles involved [Paras 8-10, 18].

Cognizance – Meaning and Timing – Section 156(3) CrPC vs. Section 19 PC Act – Deferred Decision - Whether a Magistrate takes cognizance when issuing direction under Section 156(3) CrPC remains unresolved due to conflicting views – The decision in Legal Remembrancer v. Abani Kumar Banerji reiterated, highlighting that mere application of mind does not amount to taking cognizance – Final determination awaits larger bench decision [Paras 1, 5, 15, 17].

Retrospective Application – Section 17A and Amended Section 19 PC Act – Substantive vs. Procedural Law – Contested - The applicability of amended provisions of the PC Act to acts committed before their enactment was contested, with reference to substantive procedural distinction – Held: The matter involves complex constitutional questions and hence, not decided in current proceedings [Paras 7, 13-14].

Final Decision – Matter Tagged with Reference – Judicial Discipline Observed - In light of an earlier order in Shamin Khan v. Debashish Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court refrained from adjudicating core legal questions and directed tagging with the pending larger bench matter Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora for authoritative pronouncement [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Law - Sentencing – Excessive Incarceration – Original Sentence Restored – Appeal Allowed - The appellant, originally sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment by the Special Court, had his sentence enhanced to life imprisonment by the High Court – Having already served eleven years and eight months in custody, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's and Special Court’s enhanced orders – Held: Original seven-year sentence restored under Article 142 in the interest of complete justice.

Article 142 – Power to Do Complete Justice – Release Ordered – Infructuous Appeal - Recognising that the appellant had served significantly more time than his original sentence warranted, the Court exercised its plenary power under Article 142 to order immediate release – Held: Further proceedings in pending criminal appeal before High Court rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly.

Final Relief – Appeal Allowed – Directions to Jail Authorities - The impugned judgments dated 26.02.2016, 02.03.2016, and 08.03.2016 enhancing sentence to life imprisonment were quashed – State and Jail authorities directed to release appellant forthwith.

Arbitration Law - IBC vs Arbitration – Jurisdiction of MSME Council Post-Resolution Plan – Award Held Non-Executable – Appeal Allowed - MSME Facilitation Council passed an arbitral award in favour of the respondent after approval of a resolution plan under IBC that extinguished operational creditor claims – Held: Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 IBC, all pre-existing claims not part of the plan stand extinguished – Facilitation Council lacked jurisdiction – Award is nullity and non-executable [Paras 50-52].

Section 47 CPC – Plea of Nullity in Execution Proceedings – Maintainable Even Without Section 34 Challenge – Allowed - Appellant’s objection under Section 47 CPC to execution of arbitral award as a nullity was wrongly rejected by High Court – Held: Award passed without jurisdiction may be challenged in execution proceedings even if not set aside under Section 34 of Arbitration Act – High Court erred in narrowing the scope of Section 47 [Paras 47-49].

Resolution Plan – Binding Nature – Operational Creditor Claims at Nil – Respondent Bound - The respondent’s claim, though pending arbitral adjudication, was settled at nil value in the resolution plan – Non-inclusion in top 30 operational creditors does not confer higher rights – Award rendered in respect of extinguished claim is invalid [Paras 40-41, 50.1].

Moratorium – Lifting Does Not Revive Extinguished Claims – Facilitation Council Lost Jurisdiction - High Court’s view that arbitral proceedings revived post-moratorium is erroneous – Held: Revival cannot override extinguishment of claim under approved resolution plan – Object of IBC is to ensure clean slate to resolution applicant [Paras 50.1, 51].

Final Decision – High Court and Executing Court Orders Set Aside – Execution Proceedings Quashed - The arbitral award dated 06.07.2018 is non-est in law – Orders of Executing Court dated 03.03.2023 and High Court dated 17.07.2023 set aside – Execution case quashed – Appeal allowed [Paras 52-53].

Civil Law - Deemed Conveyance – Jurisdiction of Competent Authority under MOFA – Scope Limited – Upheld - Competent Authority under Section 11(3) of MOFA granted deemed conveyance over entire plot including area allotted to appellant – Held: Authority can issue certificate of deemed conveyance but cannot conclusively adjudicate title – Parties may seek civil remedy for title disputes [Paras 20-22, 37(ii)].

Leasehold Rights – Protection under Deemed Conveyance – Condition Imposed - Although deemed conveyance granted in favour of co-operative society, the certificate mandated execution of perpetual lease in favour of appellant in respect of distinct sub-plot – Held: Such condition valid and binding in light of deed of dissolution and lease agreement – Appellant's rights as perpetual lessee upheld [Paras 34-36].

Competent Authority – Summary Nature of Proceedings – No Cross-examination Permitted – Limited Adjudicatory Role - Proceedings under MOFA are quasi-judicial but summary in nature – Authority is not to conclusively decide complex title disputes – Writ interference discouraged unless order is manifestly illegal [Paras 19-21, 37(i)-(iii)].

Registering Officer – No Power to Revisit Certificate – Limited Role - Registrar under Section 11(5) of MOFA cannot review merits of deemed conveyance certificate – May refuse registration only if procedural or statutory preconditions unmet (e.g., consent, stamp duty, injunction) – Role confined to registration compliance [Paras 22-23, 37(iv)].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant’s Rights Preserved - Supreme Court upheld High Court and Competent Authority’s orders – Appellant’s leasehold rights in “Arun plot” protected and remain unaffected – Civil suit remedy preserved for title adjudication [Paras 36, 38].

Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence – Section 389 CrPC – Scope and Judicial Discipline – High Court Order Set Aside - The High Court suspended the sentence of the convict under POCSO on the ground of doubtful age of victim without conclusively reversing the trial court's finding – Held: Suspension of sentence under Section 389 requires judicial restraint and cannot pre-empt trial court findings unless clearly unsustainable – High Court acted beyond its remit [Paras 6–9].

Victim’s Age – Trial Court Finding Final Till Overturned – Suspension Unjustified - Trial Court had convicted the accused based on established minor status of victim – Held: Until overturned in appeal, the trial court’s finding must be respected – Grant of suspension based on speculative doubt over age cannot be sustained [Para 9].

Societal Interests and Sentence – Balancing Test – Supreme Court Caution - The Court reaffirmed the balance between rights of the convict and societal interests, especially in serious offences against children – Held: Suspension of a 20-year sentence in such a case does not serve public interest or the cause of justice [Paras 9–10].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Suspension Revoked – Surrender Ordered - Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order of sentence suspension – Directed the convict to surrender forthwith – Liberty granted to approach High Court for bail if appeal not heard within 18 months [Paras 10–11].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Determination Date – Section 26(1) Proviso RFCTLARR Act – Appeal Allowed - The High Court fixed market value as on 01.01.2014, the date of RFCTLARR Act’s commencement – Held: This is contrary to Section 26(1) proviso which mandates that compensation must be determined with reference to the date of Notification under Section 11 – Such notification not yet issued; hence fixing an earlier date is unlawful and prejudicial [Paras 2, 5, 9–14].

Utilization Without Acquisition – State’s Admission – Acquisition Pending - State admitted unauthorized use of 0-11-41 ha land without initiating acquisition or paying compensation – Held: Compensation must be based on lawful process commencing with a valid Section 11 Notification – Appellant entitled to compensation as per rates on the notification date when issued [Paras 4–6, 11].

Statutory Interpretation – Use of “Shall” in Section 26 – Legislative Mandate Binding - The Court reiterated that use of the word “shall” in the proviso reflects the mandatory nature of the requirement – Judicial discretion cannot override explicit statutory provision – No deviation permissible unless statute so allows [Para 9].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Direction to Follow Section 11 Notification Date - Supreme Court set aside the High Court order dated 21.08.2024 and directed that compensation be calculated as per the date of the future Notification under Section 11 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving – Conviction under Section 304A IPC – Sentence Modified – The appellant was convicted for causing death by rash and negligent driving – Trial Court sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment – Conviction affirmed by the First Appellate Court and High Court – Supreme Court upheld conviction but modified sentence by applying the Probation of Offenders Act – In lieu of imprisonment, the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the legal heirs of the deceased [Paras 2-6, 11].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability to Accidental Offences – Custodial Sentence Replaced with Compensation – The Court found that custodial punishment in a case of unintentional vehicular accident served no constructive purpose – Directed release of the appellant under the Probation of Offenders Act – Ordered equitable compensation as a better alternative to imprisonment [Paras 8, 11].

Compensation to Deceased's Family – Rs. 10 Lakh Directed – Welfare-Oriented Remedy – Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1 lakh each to the ten legal heirs of the deceased who were economically dependent – Directed the District Legal Services Authority, Ramanagara to ensure opening of bank accounts and oversee disbursement – Status report of compliance to be filed within three months [Paras 10-14].

PIL - Organ Transplant Laws – Uniform Adoption Across States – Supreme Court directed Union of India to collect information from States regarding adoption of the Transplantation Act, Amendment Act, and Rules, and reasons for non-adoption where applicable – Emphasized necessity of uniform legal framework [Para 1(i)-(ii)].

Cadaveric vs. Live Donations – Data Sought – Court directed States to furnish data on proportion of cadaver transplants compared to live donor transplants – Also required steps taken to enhance cadaveric donations [Para 1(iv)].

Gender Disparity – Specific Directions Issued – Court called for data on gender-based disparity in organ donation and recipient statistics – States directed to report steps taken to reduce gender bias in access to organ transplantation [Para 1(v)].

Policy Compliance and Organ Allocation – Adherence to NOTTO Guidelines – States directed to report whether organ allocation policies follow the points system framed by the National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization (NOTTO) – Deviations to be explained [Paras 1(vii)-(viii)].

Healthcare Infrastructure – Facilities and Awareness – Detailed information sought regarding availability of transplant-equipped hospitals, multi-organ transplant capabilities, and awareness programs – Financial assistance policies for donors and recipients to be disclosed [Paras 1(ix)-(xii)].

Decision – Union of India Directed to Convene Meeting – Union of India directed to convene meeting of Chief Secretaries and Health Secretaries of all States and UTs, collect comprehensive data as outlined, and submit a report before the Supreme Court by 18.07.2025 – Matter to be listed on 21.07.2025 [Paras 2-3].

Public Premises Act – Applicability of Limitation – Section 18 of Limitation Act Held

Applicable – Recovery Proceedings Revived - The Estate Officer’s proceedings under

Section 7(1) of the PP Act were held barred by limitation by the District Judge and High Court – Held: Though limitation under Article 52 of Limitation Act applies, the acknowledgment in writing by the Licensees vide letters dated 04.02.2015,

07.09.2015, and 25.02.2016 extended limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act – Fresh period of limitation commenced from the date of acknowledgment – The recovery proceedings were within limitation [Paras 12-14].

Acknowledgment – Letters Seeking Deferment Amount to Acknowledgment - Even though the Licensees objected to payment pending decision in intra-court appeal, the correspondence acknowledging pending liability suffices for Section 18 of the Limitation Act – The contention that the liability was denied was rejected – Court clarified that acknowledgment is valid even if accompanied by a plea for deferment [Paras 12-14].

Doctrine of Consistent Conduct – Licensees Bound by Own Stand - Respondents consistently took the stand that the liability be deferred pending decision in intra-court appeal – No express denial of liability – Conduct amounts to acknowledgment – Plea of limitation taken for the first time at appellate stage cannot override admitted facts [Paras 14-17].

Retrospective Revision of Tariff – Not Decided in Present Case - Supreme Court left open the issue of legality of retrospective revision of license fee under TAMP notification dated 23.07.2010 – Ordered that pending intra-court appeals in Karnataka High Court will decide this issue – If Licensees succeed, demand would fail automatically – Else, recovery proceedings would continue [Para 18].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Writ Petition Restored - Appeals allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – The recovery proceedings are not barred by limitation – The writ petitions are remanded to the High Court to be heard together with pending intra-court appeals regarding validity of retrospective tariff [Paras 18-19].