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].

Land Acquisition – Exemption Notification – Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 – Validity upheld – Exemption of land under Sectors 81, 88, and 89 from operation of Section 14 and Chapters VIII, X, and XII of the 1995 Act under Section 178(2) – Held: Notification justified as SAS Nagar (Mohali) expansion was planned prior to the 1995 Act – Government’s satisfaction regarding “expediency” and “public interest” based on rapid urban growth and need to prevent haphazard development not mala fide – Exercise of power under Section 178(2) is within statutory bounds – Court will not interfere with subjective satisfaction of Government absent extraneous considerations [Paras 20–34].

Land Acquisition – Compliance with Planning Act – Non-applicability of Sanjeet Singh precedent – Acquisition for extension of existing township distinguished from acquisition for creation of new town – Declaration under Section 56(5) of 1995 Act validly issued declaring SAS Nagar a Local Planning Area – Absence of challenge to exemption and planning notifications before High Court bars later attack – Once exemption valid, acquisition cannot be struck down for non-compliance with 1995 Act – Sanjeet Singh case inapplicable [Paras 35–40].

Constitution of India – Article 300A – Eminent Domain – Right to Property and Rehabilitation – Compulsory acquisition under valid law with payment of fair compensation satisfies constitutional mandate – Neither Article 21 nor Article 300A mandates rehabilitation as a condition precedent – Rehabilitation measures are matters of policy, not right – State’s 2008 Land Pooling Scheme prospective only – Retrospective application would cause administrative confusion – Bondu Ramaswamy case discussed – Scheme cannot be extended to completed acquisitions [Paras 41–45].

Compensation – Reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act – Though appellants had not sought reference within limitation, Supreme Court directed that if applications are made within six weeks, Collector to refer matter to Civil Court for determination of enhanced compensation – Fair concession by State noted [Para 47].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Exemption and acquisition upheld – Appellants permitted to seek reference for higher compensation under Section 18 within six weeks – No costs.

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Permanent Disability – Future Loss of Earnings – Appellant, a final-year engineering student, suffered 70% permanent disability due to serious injuries including amputation, vision loss, and brain damage – Held: Tribunal and High Court erred in awarding inadequate compensation without applying multiplier method – Supreme Court assessed future loss of earnings based on public sector salary of Assistant Engineer – Deduction of 30% for residual earning capacity – Multiplier of 18 applied based on age of 25 – Total loss of future income assessed at ₹7,56,000 – Medical expenses of ₹1,50,000 maintained – Total compensation enhanced to ₹9,06,000 [Paras 7, 10, 11].

Motor Accident – Application under Section 166 vs. Section 163A – Applicability of Second Schedule – Contention that compensation should be assessed as per Second Schedule rejected – Held: Claim filed under Section 166, and in such cases, Second Schedule is not binding – Multiplier method applicable – Reference pending before larger Bench in Reshma Kumari not a bar to determining claim based on existing law [Para 12].

Damages – Method of Computation – Supreme Court reiterated settled principle that compensation in personal injury claims must aim to restore victim’s position as close as possible to pre-injury state – Use of appropriate multiplier and multiplicand based on career prospects, age, and earning potential remains the proper method of computation [Paras 7–9].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced from ₹3,50,000 to ₹9,06,000 – Interest at 9% per annum on enhanced amount from 07/08/2002 till date of actual payment – Appellant also entitled to ₹15,000 as costs of appeal [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Appellant convicted for murdering three family members and injuring three others due to property dispute – Seven eye-witnesses, including injured witnesses, turned hostile at trial after family “panchayat” pardoned the accused – Held: Statements under Section 161 CrPC and FIR consistently named appellant – Medical and forensic evidence corroborated prosecution version – Hostility of witnesses due to compromise cannot erase prior truthful versions – Conviction upheld [Paras 35–42, 48].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Proof – Even when direct witnesses turned hostile, circumstantial evidence comprising prompt FIR, medical corroboration, ballistic evidence, and motive sufficient to prove guilt – Court reiterated five golden principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra governing proof by circumstantial evidence [Paras 14–15, 48].

Hostile Witness – Evidentiary Value – Testimony of a hostile witness is not effaced entirely – It can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution and is consistent with other evidence – Witnesses turning hostile due to extraneous reasons, such as family compromise, cannot benefit accused [Paras 16–22, 42].

Section 313 CrPC – Examination of Accused – Omission to Put All Circumstances – Effect – Failure to put certain incriminating circumstances (motive, abscondance, compromise) to accused under Section 313 CrPC not fatal – Prejudice must be shown – Appellant was questioned regarding recovery of gun, and he gave explanation – Held: Minor omissions curable; no miscarriage of justice occurred [Paras 43–47].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Recovery of Weapon – Recovery of licensed gun at appellant’s instance from arms dealer proved by Investigating Officer – Appellant admitted depositing same gun with dealer – Held: Sufficient compliance with Section 27; admissible evidence [Paras 38, 44].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof – Courts cautioned against conviction based on moral indignation or emotional reaction to gruesome crimes [Paras 11–13].

Abscondance – Not Conclusive of Guilt – Mere absconding after FIR cannot by itself indicate guilt; may be due to fear or panic – However, unexplained absence for several days may be considered along with other circumstances [Paras 32–34, 46].

Panchayat Pardon – Effect – Family’s or Panchayat’s decision to pardon accused in heinous crime has no legal relevance – Crime is against society; private compromise cannot absolve criminal liability [Para 42].

Held: Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC based on circumstantial and corroborative evidence sustained – Hostility of witnesses due to compromise disregarded – No violation of Section 313 CrPC causing prejudice – Appeal dismissed [Paras 42, 47–48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC affirmed.