Euthanasia – Legality – Petitioner, in a persistent vegetative state for 37 years, sought permission for euthanasia – Supreme Court deliberated on the issue of passive euthanasia and the role of the judiciary in sanctioning it – Held that passive euthanasia is permissible under exceptional circumstances with the approval of the High Court, which must act as parens patriae [Paras 1-144].

Passive Euthanasia – Procedure – Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts to follow when considering passive euthanasia – High Court to constitute a Bench of at least two judges to decide, seeking the opinion of a committee of three doctors – Views of near relatives, next friend, and doctors to be considered [Paras 128-144].

Parens Patriae Doctrine – Explained the doctrine as the inherent power of the state to act as guardian for those unable to care for themselves – Applied to cases involving incompetent persons unable to make decisions regarding withdrawal of life support [Paras 128-132].

Decision: Petition dismissed with observations – Supreme Court recommended Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 of the IPC, which criminalizes attempted suicide – High Courts authorized to permit passive euthanasia under specified conditions until legislation is enacted [Paras 143-144].

Land Acquisition – Invocation of Emergency Provision – Appellants challenged acquisition of agricultural land for construction of district jail, claiming lack of urgency and unjustified invocation of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act – High Court upheld acquisition, dismissing writ petition – Supreme Court found no real urgency justifying dispensation of Section 5A inquiry, quashed notifications [Paras 1-42].

Constitutional Law – Public Purpose and Right to Property – Concept of public purpose must align with welfare state principles – Expropriatory legislation must be strictly construed – Right to property, though not fundamental, remains a significant legal and human right, and abridgement requires strict adherence to legal procedures [Paras 15-25].

Procedure under Land Acquisition Act – Section 5A Inquiry – Recognized as a substantial right providing landowners an opportunity to object – Dispensation of this right requires demonstrable urgency – In absence of urgency, Section 17(4) cannot be invoked merely on executive assertion [Paras 26-41].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Held – Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 relating to appellants' land quashed – Appellants' possession to remain undisturbed except in accordance with law [Paras 41-42].

Euthanasia – Legality – Petitioner, in a persistent vegetative state for 37 years, sought permission for euthanasia – Supreme Court deliberated on the issue of passive euthanasia and the role of the judiciary in sanctioning it – Held that passive euthanasia is permissible under exceptional circumstances with the approval of the High Court, which must act as parens patriae [Paras 1-144].

Passive Euthanasia – Procedure – Supreme Court laid down guidelines for High Courts to follow when considering passive euthanasia – High Court to constitute a Bench of at least two judges to decide, seeking the opinion of a committee of three doctors – Views of near relatives, next friend, and doctors to be considered [Paras 128-144].

Parens Patriae Doctrine – Explained the doctrine as the inherent power of the state to act as guardian for those unable to care for themselves – Applied to cases involving incompetent persons unable to make decisions regarding withdrawal of life support [Paras 128-132].

Decision: Petition dismissed with observations – Supreme Court recommended Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 of the IPC, which criminalizes attempted suicide – High Courts authorized to permit passive euthanasia under specified conditions until legislation is enacted [Paras 143-144].

Land Acquisition – Invocation of Emergency Provision – Appellants challenged acquisition of agricultural land for construction of district jail, claiming lack of urgency and unjustified invocation of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act – High Court upheld acquisition, dismissing writ petition – Supreme Court found no real urgency justifying dispensation of Section 5A inquiry, quashed notifications [Paras 1-42].

Constitutional Law – Public Purpose and Right to Property – Concept of public purpose must align with welfare state principles – Expropriatory legislation must be strictly construed – Right to property, though not fundamental, remains a significant legal and human right, and abridgement requires strict adherence to legal procedures [Paras 15-25].

Procedure under Land Acquisition Act – Section 5A Inquiry – Recognized as a substantial right providing landowners an opportunity to object – Dispensation of this right requires demonstrable urgency – In absence of urgency, Section 17(4) cannot be invoked merely on executive assertion [Paras 26-41].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Held – Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 relating to appellants' land quashed – Appellants' possession to remain undisturbed except in accordance with law [Paras 41-42].

Motor Accident Claims – Compensation – Appellant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, awarded compensation by MACT which was marginally enhanced by the High Court – Appellant contended that MACT and High Court failed to adequately compensate for loss of future earnings and applied an incorrect interest rate – Supreme Court held that compensation should be based on the structured formula in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for just and fair determination [Paras 1-12].

Compensation for Future Earnings – Multiplier Method – Appellant’s monthly income considered for applying the multiplier as per the Second Schedule – Court found that MACT and High Court erred in not using the multiplier method appropriately – Appellant entitled to compensation for loss of future earnings calculated using correct multiplier based on age [Paras 13-14].

Interest Rate – Appellant claimed interest rate should be 9% – Supreme Court found the claim reasonable and adjusted the interest rate from the previously awarded 7.5% to 9% [Paras 14-15].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – Held – Total compensation of Rs. 443,000/- awarded including Rs. 5,000/- for hospitalization, special diet, attendant, and transportation, and Rs. 22,209/- for purchase of medicines – Interest at 9% to be paid by respondents jointly and severally – High Court's judgment set aside [Paras 14-15].

Specific Performance – Contract Law – Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell 1/3rd share in property by Respondent's power of attorney holder – Respondent denied execution of power of attorney for alienation, asserting it was for management only – Trial Court decreed the suit, High Court reversed, setting aside the decree based on inadequate consideration and rise in property value – Supreme Court found High Court erred in not addressing the validity of the power of attorney and proper application of law [Paras 2-24].

Admissibility and Proof of Documents – Secondary Evidence – Trial Court’s acceptance of a photocopy of the power of attorney without proper foundational evidence was incorrect – Respondent only admitted signature, not contents – Supreme Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to provisions for secondary evidence and the requirement of proving documents’ authenticity and relevance [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Review – Appellate Court Obligations – High Court failed to comply with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by not formulating proper points for determination and independently assessing evidence – Supreme Court highlighted the appellate court’s duty to fully consider and adjudicate issues raised, providing well-reasoned findings [Paras 16-19].

Equitable Relief – Discretion and Fairness – Specific performance being discretionary relief, courts must consider fairness and balance – Issues of inadequate consideration and property value rise should be weighed against contractual obligations and proven conduct of parties – High Court’s failure to properly address discretionary factors noted [Paras 20-23].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s judgment set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law, to be expedited given long pendency – Directions issued to ensure proper adjudication on all relevant issues, including power of attorney validity and compliance with evidentiary standards [Paras 23-24].

Inter-State Sales – Section 3(a) CST Act – Assessee engaged in manufacturing and selling electrical fans and other goods – Contended that goods transported to out-of-state depots were stock transfers not subject to CST – High Court dismissed revision, affirming transactions as inter-State sales – Supreme Court examined whether transactions were inter-State sales or branch transfers, scrutinizing agreement between Assessee and Usha Sales Ltd. (UIL) [Paras 1-12].

Nature of Transactions – Sales Agreement – Agreement required Assessee to supply goods to UIL's godowns across states – Indents from UIL specifying model and quantity triggered movement of goods – Goods moved to fulfill contractual obligations under agreement – Movement of goods in pursuance of contract constitutes inter-State sales, not branch transfers [Paras 21-23, 39-40].

Presumption of Inter-State Sales – Legal Burden – Section 3(a) CST Act presumes inter-State sale if sale occasions movement of goods across states – Assessee bears burden to rebut presumption with evidence of stock transfers for self-consumption – Evidence indicated transactions were for fulfilling sales agreement, reinforcing inter-State sale presumption [Paras 17-20, 34-36].

Judicial Review – Fact-Finding by Lower Authorities – Findings of assessing authority, Tribunal, and High Court confirmed by Supreme Court – No perverse or erroneous conclusions found in evaluation of voluminous correspondence and transactional evidence – Supreme Court upheld findings of inter-State sales based on detailed assessment of contractual and transactional context [Paras 38, 45].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed – Held – Transactions deemed inter-State sales under Section 3(a) of Central Sales Tax Act – High Court's dismissal of Assessee’s revision petition affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 45-46].

Land Grabbing – Procedural Requirements – Appeals challenged the High Court’s decision mandating the Special Tribunal and Special Court to call for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer and publish a notification in the Gazette – Supreme Court held that it is not mandatory to call for such a report under Section 7A or Section 8 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Rules – However, notification of taking cognizance in the Gazette is mandatory under the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 7A and Sub-section (6) of Section 8, as well as Rule 7 of the Rules – High Court’s order set aside and matter remanded for further consideration on merits [Paras 1-17]​​.

Mandate of Notification – Statutory Interpretation – The Court emphasized that the use of 'shall' in the provisions concerning notification and publication in the Gazette indicates a mandatory requirement, ensuring due process and the protection of interests of all stakeholders – Procedural provisions are meant for ensuring fairness and avoiding prejudice [Paras 13-16]​​.

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders quashing the proceedings before the Special Tribunal set aside – Matters remanded for reconsideration on the necessity of referring the case to the Mandal Revenue Officer and further proceedings on merits [Paras 17]​​.

Land Acquisition – Procedural Requirements – Appeals challenged the High Court’s decision related to procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act – Supreme Court held that the final price for the housing scheme, including land cost, development charges, and construction cost, was not required to be fixed within three years from the date of allotment, despite the tentative price being provided – The delay due to litigation and encroachments justified – High Court’s order set aside and appeals allowed [Paras 1-17]​​.

Fixation of Final Price – Determination Beyond Three Years – Supreme Court clarified that the TNHB was entitled to determine the final price beyond the stipulated period, taking into account all relevant costs including land acquisition compensation, development charges, and construction costs – No provision in the contract to make the tentative price final in case of delay beyond three years [Paras 12-14]​​.

Interest on Outstanding Amounts – The demand for increased price was accompanied by interest; however, the Supreme Court adjusted the rate of interest to 9% per annum, aligning with contractual provisions and High Court's directions [Paras 27-28]​​.

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders quashing the proceedings before the Special Tribunal set aside – TNHB directed to re-calculate the outstanding amounts with interest at 9% per annum and permit payment in installments – Remanded for reconsideration on the necessity of referring the case to the Mandal Revenue Officer and further proceedings on merits [Paras 27-28]​​.