Land Acquisition – Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 – Solatium and Interest – Non-statutory grant – Whether permissible – Held: Although the Act does not expressly provide for solatium or interest, where there is inordinate delay (16 years) in appointment of arbitrator for determining compensation, equitable principles justify award of solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for first year and 15% thereafter till payment – Delay caused unjust deprivation of property and benefit of possession – Hence solatium and interest rightly awarded [Paras 3–8].

Constitutional Validity – Comparison with Land Acquisition Act – Not permissible – Court reiterated that acquisitions under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act cannot be equated with those under the Land Acquisition Act – Yet, equitable relief may be granted in exceptional circumstances of gross delay [Para 4].

Precedents – Applied – Hari Krishan Khosla (1993 Supp (2) SCC 149), Chajju Ram (2003) 5 SCC 568, Prabhu Dayal (1995) 4 SCC 221 and Parmal Singh (2009) 1 SCC 618 followed – Principle reaffirmed that interest and solatium may be awarded on equitable basis in cases of delayed arbitration [Paras 4–8].

Compensation – Enhancement – Land situate near Pathankot acquired in 1970 – Arbitrator awarded Rs. 50–200 per marla – High Court confirmed Rs.150 per marla – Supreme Court held owners entitled to enhancement to Rs. 350 per marla based on parity with similarly situated owners in Shankar Singh v. Union of India (1988 (1) PLR 163) and Inder Singh v. Union of India (LPA 1918/1989) – Uniform compensation warranted for similarly acquired lands – Solatium and interest to apply on enhanced amount [Paras 9–11].

Relief – Civil Appeals of owners allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 350 per marla with proportionate solatium and interest – Union of India’s appeals dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 11–12].

Land Acquisition – Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 – Solatium and Interest – Delay in Appointment of Arbitrator – Equitable Relief – Lands requisitioned and later acquired for defence purposes – Arbitrator appointed after 16 years’ delay – Awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 200/- per marla with solatium (30%) and interest (9% and 15%) – Held: Though the 1952 Act contains no express provision for solatium or interest, long and unexplained delay in appointment of Arbitrator justifies equitable award of solatium and interest following Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 149 – Principle reaffirmed in Union of India v. Chajju Ram and Prabhu Dayal v. Union of India – Benefit of parity extended to similarly placed landowners [Paras 5–9].

Interest on Compensation – Equity and Fairness – Even where statute is silent, equitable principles demand award of interest for delayed payment of compensation – Interest becomes payable from date of acquisition, not from date of requisition – Doctrine reaffirmed with reliance on Union of India v. Parmal Singh and Satinder Singh v. Amrao Singh [Paras 8–9].

Compensation – Enhancement – Comparable Awards – Lands situated on outskirts of Pathankot acquired for same defence purpose and under proximate notifications (Jan–Mar 1970) – High Court erred in denying uniform enhancement granted in Shankar Singh v. Union of India and Inder Singh v. Union of India – Held: Compensation enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 350/- per marla with corresponding solatium and interest benefits – Principle of parity applied where circumstances identical [Paras 10–12].

Article 14 – Equality in Compensation – Discrimination in awarding lower compensation for similarly situated landowners offends Article 14 – Where acquisitions are identical in purpose, time, and locality, uniform compensation must be ensured [Paras 9–11].

Administrative Delay – Governmental Lapse – Sixteen-year delay in appointment of Arbitrator deprecated – Delay cannot prejudice landowners’ equitable entitlement to solatium and interest – State cannot benefit from its own default [Paras 3–5, 9].

Held:

(1) Landowners entitled to solatium @30% and interest @9% for first year and @15% thereafter due to inordinate delay in appointment of Arbitrator.

(2) Compensation enhanced to Rs. 350/- per marla for appellants’ lands, with proportionate solatium and interest.

(3) Appeals by Union of India dismissed; appeals by landowners partly allowed [Paras 12–13].

Decision:

Civil Appeals Nos. 9198–9202/2010 and 9218–9219/2010 (Owners’ Appeals): Allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 350/- per marla with solatium and interest.

Civil Appeals Nos. 9203/2010, 9204/2010, 9205–9209/2010, 9210–9215/2010, and 9216–9217/2010 (Union of India’s Appeals): Dismissed – No recovery of solatium or interest permitted.

Costs: Owners entitled to proportionate costs before all courts.

Tax Exemption – Meaning of ‘Investment’ – Small Scale Industrial Unit – Term “investment” under Notification No. 1428-F.T. dated 26.05.1994 and Rule 41 of West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 interpreted as actual capital outlay on plant and machinery – Depreciation not deductible in computing investment – Expression “investment” denotes gross acquisition cost, not net depreciated value – Since appellant’s investment exceeded ₹5 lakhs, exemption rightly denied [Paras 13–19].

Interpretation – Exemption Notifications – Liberal Construction – Though object of notification was to promote small industries, eligibility criteria must be strictly construed – Liberal interpretation not applicable unless taxpayer clearly satisfies all preconditions – Held: Appellants, not fulfilling ₹5 lakh cap, not entitled to benefit [Paras 20–26].

Tax Law – Interest – Liability Without Prior Assessment – Liability to pay interest arises from date of tax default based on self-assessment return – Statutory interest under Section 10A of 1941 Act and Section 31 of 1994 Act is automatic – Not dependent on assessment order or demand notice – Interest is compensatory and payable for delayed tax payment even before formal assessment [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Exemption denied on factual ground of investment exceeding statutory limit – Statutory interest upheld – No costs [Para 31].

Medical Education – Admission to Postgraduate Courses – In-Service Candidates – No Objection Certificate (NOC) – 2008 Prospectus required in-service doctors to submit NOC as per Government circular dated 13.05.1996 – Amendment dated 30.07.2007 enhanced bond period from 5 years to 10 years – Held: Since the 2008 Prospectus did not refer to the 2007 amendment, it could not be retrospectively applied – Two doctors having sufficient residual service permitted to continue studies on furnishing bond per original 1996 circular – Third doctor (Dr. Khullar), ineligible even under 1996 norms due to imminent retirement, given conditional permission to complete course [Paras 9–12].

Administrative Law – Prospectus as Binding Document – Interpretation – Where the prospectus mandates compliance with a specific circular but omits a later amendment, amended requirement cannot be enforced against candidates – Held: Candidates cannot be subjected to undisclosed conditions not mentioned in the prospectus – Bona fide expectation from terms of prospectus must be respected [Para 9].

Service Law – Medical Officers – Bond Obligation – Public Interest – Doctors selected for government-sponsored PG courses required to serve state post-qualification – Court balances state interest in enforcing bond conditions with public interest in avoiding waste of partially completed medical education – Directions issued to ensure service obligation or monetary compensation [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part –

(i) Dr. Kamal Kishore and Dr. G.S. Dhaliwal to continue course after furnishing bond for Rs. 2 lakhs to serve 5 years post-course –

(ii) Dr. V.K. Khullar given option to either resign and be considered under 40% quota or pay Rs. 2 lakhs as liquidated damages for non-fulfillment of service requirement –

(iii) Amendment dated 30.07.2007 held inapplicable to 2008 admissions – Court leaves open its applicability to future years [Para 12].

Electricity Laws – Faulty Meter – Revised Electricity Bill – CT connection found to be defective by Board – Revised bill issued retrospectively without prior notice or opportunity of hearing – Clause 23 of Conditions of Supply required issuance of show cause notice – Held: Revised bill issued in violation of contractual and natural justice requirements – Bill declared null and void [Paras 2–4, 35–39].

Evidence – Meter Readings and Fault – Board failed to install check meter – Reliance placed by High Court on monthly reading chart was unjustified – Readings did not support claim of under-recording post-correction – Trial and appellate courts rightly found revised billing unjustified – Held: Interference by High Court was perverse and unwarranted [Paras 31–34].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Revised demand issued without prior notice, inspection without presence of municipal officers, no opportunity for objection – Held: Breach of natural justice and Clause 23 of supply agreement – No requirement to prove prejudice when procedural safeguards are denied [Paras 28–30, 36–38].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Trial Court and First Appellate Court judgments restored – No order as to costs.

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation for Permanent Disability – Functional vs. Medical Disability – Appellant sustained fractures and was issued disability certificate of 45% for left lower limb – Tribunal equated limb disability with whole-body functional disability, assessing 45% loss of earning capacity – Held: Tribunal erred in mechanically applying limb disability to entire body – Proper assessment must determine impact on earning capacity – Functional disability assessed at 25%, with 20% loss of future earning capacity [Paras 6–10, 18].

Assessment of Future Earnings – Income Assumption – Appellant was a cheese vendor with no documentary proof of income – Tribunal took minimum wages (Rs. 900/month) – Held: For a 1991 accident, monthly income should reasonably be taken as Rs. 1,500 (Rs. 18,000 annually) based on nature of occupation – Courts must adopt realistic estimates in absence of documents for informal sector workers [Para 19].

Deduction for Personal Expenses – Not Applicable in Injury Claims – Tribunal deducted one-third towards personal expenses while assessing loss of future earnings – Held: In injury claims, deduction towards personal/living expenses is inapplicable as injured is receiving compensation for own loss, not dependents – Full income to be considered for loss of earnings computation [Para 20].

Principles for Disability Compensation – Supreme Court outlines multi-step process: determine if disability is permanent/temporary, assess functional impact on earning capacity, and avoid mechanical application of medical percentage – Emphasised that same injury affects earning capacity differently depending on profession, education, and age – Loss of earning capacity is factual determination, not to be equated blindly with medical disability [Paras 6–14].

Medical Evidence – Acceptability of Disability Certificate – High Court rejected certificate as it was issued in Uttar Pradesh despite treatment in Delhi – Held: No inconsistency – Appellant resided in U.P. and continued treatment locally – Certificate issued by Medical Board including orthopaedic expert and CMO is valid – Tribunal rightly relied on it [Paras 17–18].

Tribunal’s Role – Duty to Assess Evidence Proactively – Tribunal must play active role in injury compensation cases – Expected to seek clarifications from medical witnesses, understand technical terms, and ensure evidence is sufficient for just compensation – Advised use of standard medical references and tools like Workmen’s Compensation Schedule and expert medical panels if needed [Paras 11–12].

Enhancement – Recalculated Compensation – Functional disability held to be 25%, with 20% earning loss – Revised income at Rs. 18,000/year – Applying multiplier of 18, total future loss of earnings calculated at Rs. 64,800 – Past income loss during treatment increased to Rs. 12,750 – Held: Compensation enhanced by Rs. 20,000 with interest as awarded by Tribunal [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced by Rs. 20,000 with interest from date of petition to date of payment – Tribunal’s findings modified accordingly.

Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Suo Motu Proceedings – Appellant, a judicial officer, was not serving in the High Court when interim order dated 22.03.2001 was passed – Suo motu contempt initiated in 2006 based on assumption that appellant deliberately obstructed implementation of that order – Held: No wilful disobedience proved – Contempt proceedings based solely on speculation and inference are not sustainable [Paras 1–5, 10–13, 20–21].

Civil Contempt – Wilful Disobedience – Essential Ingredient – Wilful disobedience must be clearly established for contempt under Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act – Mere administrative lapse, lack of clarity in communication, or delay without mala fides does not constitute contempt – Appellant’s request for case number and order date was routine and not obstructive [Paras 11–14, 18].

Administrative Communication – Role of Registry Officers – Registrar (Vigilance) repeatedly failed to mention case number or date of order while requesting compliance – Appellant merely requested clarification in routine course of duty – Held: Initiation of contempt for such clerical exchange unjustified and disproportionate [Paras 7–8, 15–17].

Judicial Oversight – Scope of High Court’s Power – Though single Judge can initiate contempt, court must ensure that contempt jurisdiction is not exercised based on mere assumptions without factual verification – Failure to verify record before issuing contempt notice renders action arbitrary [Paras 12, 14, 16].

Standard of Proof – Disobedience Must Be Wilful – Court reaffirms that absence of wilfulness in disobedience, or mere error or delay, does not justify contempt action – Contempt is not to be invoked lightly or based on unsubstantiated inference of mala fides [Paras 13, 18–20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Suo moto contempt proceedings initiated against appellant set aside – Regular contempt petition quashed – No costs.

Foreign Exchange Management – Show Cause Notice – Supply of Documents – Rule 4(1), FEMA (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 – Scope of Disclosure – Appellant contended entitlement to all documents in possession of Adjudicating Authority, including unused ones, before forming opinion under Rule 4(1) – Held: Rule 4(1) requires notice only to enable formation of opinion whether inquiry should be held – Statute does not mandate supply of all documents, but fairness requires furnishing of relied upon documents forming basis of the show cause notice – Principles of natural justice supplement, not supplant, statutory procedure – No right to demand all materials irrespective of relevance – Duty of adequate disclosure confined to relied-upon documents [Paras 16–25, 36].

Natural Justice – Fair Hearing – Reasonable Opportunity – The right to fair hearing under Articles 14 and 226 includes right to know evidence used against the noticee – Disclosure, however, does not mean supply of all materials; inspection or reference suffices – Non-disclosure of unused or irrelevant material does not vitiate proceedings – Fairness must operate within statutory framework [Paras 19–24].

Duty of Disclosure – Scope – Doctrine of adequate disclosure cannot compel production of documents upon which no reliance was placed – Such disclosure duty applies only when material is used against the person or affects fairness of inquiry – Authorities must act within the statutory limits of FEMA and Rules [Paras 25–26, 36].

Interpretation – Rule 4(6), FEMA Rules – Power to Summon Documents – Power under Rule 4(6) to summon or require production of documents arises only after inquiry begins, not at pre-inquiry stage – Appellant’s request for pre-inquiry disclosure beyond statutory mandate rejected [Para 37].

Practice and Procedure – Judicial Discipline – Inclusion of Uncited Judgments in Compilation – Court deprecated practice of including list of authorities in compilation without leave of Court or reference during hearing – Such judgments not considered part of record [Para 38].

Litigation Conduct – Delay in Adjudication – Court noted appellants’ repeated and unreasonable demands delayed adjudication since 2006 – Directed Adjudicating Authority to proceed expeditiously and dispose of complaint within statutory timeframe without undue adjournments [Paras 39–40].

Held: FEMA and its Rules form a self-contained code – Adjudicating Authority required to supply only documents relied upon in forming prima facie opinion – Demand for all documents unsustainable – Appeals dismissed with costs – Inquiry to proceed strictly in accordance with law [Paras 24–26, 36, 40–41].

Decision: Appeals dismissed with costs – Adjudicating Authority directed to complete inquiry expeditiously and in accordance with law.

Specific Relief – Readiness and Willingness – Attorney Holder’s Testimony – Plaintiff (NRI) neither signed the agreement of sale nor the plaint and did not enter the witness box – Suit was filed and prosecuted by subsequent attorney holder who lacked personal knowledge of the transaction – Held: In absence of testimony by plaintiff or original attorney holder, readiness and willingness not proved – Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act not satisfied – Suit barred [Paras 9–16].

Civil Procedure – Evidence by Attorney – Attorney holder can only depose to matters within his personal knowledge – Plaintiff’s readiness and willingness being a matter of personal conduct, only plaintiff or original attorney could have proved it – Plaintiff’s failure to depose gave rise to presumption against his case [Paras 10–13].

Contract Law – Breach and Specific Performance – Liquidated Damages Clause – Agreement provided for refund and forfeiture of earnest money in case of breach – No bar to specific performance expressly stated – Held: Clause did not exclude specific performance, but plaintiff still required to prove entitlement – Readiness and willingness not proved, hence no relief [Paras 17–19].

Contract Law – Time for Performance – Conduct of Parties – Though time was not of the essence, defendant’s readiness on 7.6.1979 contrasted with plaintiff’s failure to arrange funds, buy stamp paper, or show preparedness to conclude sale – Held: Plaintiff not ready or willing even during extended period – Breach attributable to plaintiff [Paras 20–22].

Specific Relief – Burden on Plaintiff – Even if defendant failed to furnish clearances, plaintiff still had to prove his own readiness and willingness – Breach by defendant does not excuse non-compliance with Section 16(c) – Plaintiff not entitled to specific performance or refund [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of trial court, first appellate court, and High Court set aside – Suit for specific performance dismissed – Forfeiture of earnest money upheld [Para 26].