Land Acquisition – Section 17 Urgency Provisions – Compliance with Section 17(3A) mandatory for absolute vesting – Non-compliance with Section 17(3A) leads to lapsing of acquisition if award not made within two years – Compliance with Section 17(3A) and taking possession ensures vesting and avoids lapsing under Section 11A – Acquisition in present case deemed not to have lapsed due to development on land and partial compliance [Paras 1-26].

Section 11A Applicability – Period within which award must be made applicable to acquisitions under Section 17 – Requirement of tendering and paying 80% of compensation before possession essential – Non-compliance leads to lapsing unless landowner consents – In present case, retrospective application not feasible due to completed development and partial compliance [Paras 8-17].

Relief and Remedy – Market value to be determined as on 09.06.2008 – Statutory benefits calculated from date of original notification – Award to be passed afresh with opportunity for appellant to seek enhancement – Relief molded considering development on land and procedural delays [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court's judgment set aside – Directed respondents to determine market value as on 09.06.2008 and calculate benefits from original notification date – Compensation to be paid accordingly – No cause of action for other land losers to seek re-determination [Paras 26-28].

Family Pension – Work-Charged Employee – Appellant's deceased husband was engaged as a Muster Roll employee and later appointed to the work-charged establishment – Deceased remained a work-charged employee until his demise – Work-charged employees not covered under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 – Board had adopted National Pension Scheme for work-charged employees, which the deceased did not opt for – High Court's denial of family pension upheld [Paras 1-15].

Regulation and Rules – Applicability – M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 explicitly exclude work-charged employees – M.P. Housing Board had not adopted relevant pension rules for work-charged employees – National Pension Scheme extended to work-charged employees in 2015 – Deceased did not exercise option for NPS [Paras 6-14].

Legal Precedent – Prem Singh Case – Not applicable to present case as it dealt with regularized employees' pension eligibility – Deceased in present case not regularized [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Deceased not regularized and did not opt for NPS – Appellant not entitled to family pension – No interference with High Court's judgment [Paras 15-16].

Adverse Possession – Title Suit – Plaintiffs not found to be owners – Plaintiffs' claim of title by adverse possession and ownership through sale deed contradictory – High Court erred in granting permanent injunction – Appeal allowed, lower courts' judgments quashed, Trial Court judgment restored dismissing suit [Paras 1-6].

Contradictory Claims – Plaintiffs' ownership claim via sale deed and adverse possession are mutually exclusive – High Court's recognition of contradiction but failure to reverse injunction decree incorrect – Substantial question of law on adverse possession decided in favor of appellant – Injunction for possession as encroacher untenable [Paras 3-5].

Legal Misinterpretation – Courts below misunderstood legal implications of adverse possession claim when ownership not proven – Injunction without ownership validation improper – Plaintiffs' possession considered encroachment [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and First Appellate Court judgments set aside – Trial Court judgment dismissing suit restored – No order as to costs [Paras 5-6].

Stamp Duty Remission – Cooperative Societies – High Court held remission under Section 40(1)(a) of Kerala Act 1969 limited to instruments executed by or on behalf of society or by an officer/member for society business – SRO 75/60 broader remission scope inconsistent with Section 40(1)(a) and not saved under Section 110(2) – Appeal against limited remission dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 40(1)(a) limits remission to specific circumstances – Instruments by members in personal capacity excluded – SRO 75/60's broader scope inconsistent with Section 40(1)(a) – SRO 75/60 not saved under repealed Act provisions [Paras 7-9].

Remission Scope – Instruments must be for society business by eligible parties – Personal capacity instruments by members/guardians not covered – Consistency required with Kerala Act 1969 [Para 8].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Full Bench High Court's interpretation upheld – Appellants not entitled to remission under broader SRO 75/60 terms – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Motor accident resulting in the death of the deceased, Hari Ram – Appellants, the claimants (wife, son, and mother of the deceased), challenged the initial compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – High Court increased the compensation from Rs. 433,000 to Rs. 655,000, correcting the age of the deceased from 60 to 50 years and adjusting the multiplier accordingly – High Court also increased the interest rate from 7% to 7.5% – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding no ground for interference [Paras 1-5].

Determination of Age – Scientific Evidence – High Court revised the deceased’s age based on scientific evidence, impacting the multiplier used for calculating compensation – Change from 60 to 50 years resulted in the application of a higher multiplier, increasing the compensation amount – Court emphasized the importance of accurate age determination for fair compensation [Paras 3-4].

Interest Rate Adjustment – High Court justified the increase in interest rate from 7% to 7.5%, aligning with prevailing standards and ensuring adequate compensation for the appellants – Supreme Court found the adjustment reasonable and necessary for equitable relief [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order of enhanced compensation and revised interest rate affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 5].

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution – Statutory remedy of appeal under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002 – High Court entertained a writ petition against the Assessment Order denying Input rebate despite availability of statutory appeal – Supreme Court held High Court’s decision unsustainable, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 1-8].

Taxation – Assessment Order – Input Tax Rebate – Assessing Officer denied Input rebate under Section 14 of the MP VAT Act, 2002 – Respondent bypassed statutory appeal and filed writ petition – High Court quashed the Assessment Order and allowed Input rebate – Supreme Court set aside High Court’s decision, directing respondent to pursue statutory appeal [Paras 2-8].

Judicial Precedents – Importance of statutory remedies – Referred to various precedents emphasizing non-entertainment of writ petitions when statutory remedies are available, including decisions in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, and others – Reinforced principle that High Courts should not short-circuit statutory appeal processes [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashed – Respondent directed to file statutory appeal within four weeks – Appeal to be entertained without raising limitation issues, subject to compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 7-9].

Co-operative Society – Redevelopment Project – Appellant Society’s administrative building in dilapidated condition – Decision to demolish and rebuild through a joint venture with a developer – General Body of Society approved the project – Respondent member objected and initiated litigation – High Court restrained the redevelopment citing lack of provision in Act/Rules for involving a third party developer – Supreme Court set aside High Court's order, emphasizing General Body's supreme authority and the cooperative principles of democratic functioning and collective decision-making [Paras 2-58].

Democratic Functioning – General Body’s Authority – Final authority of Co-operative Society vested in General Body of members – General Body’s resolutions for redevelopment of building binding on all members – Respondent bound by majority decision – Supreme Court stressed cooperative principles of unity and collective decision-making, aligning with constitutional mandate post 97th Amendment [Paras 32-45, 52-56].

Judicial Interpretation – Role of Courts – Courts to interpret statutes in light of constitutional spirit and cooperative principles – Emphasis on ensuring democratic, autonomous functioning of cooperatives – Supreme Court highlighted necessity for judiciary to support cooperative movement by enforcing the spirit of cooperative laws [Paras 47-51].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashed – Appellant Society permitted to proceed with redevelopment project as per General Body’s resolutions – No costs imposed on Respondent considering potential benefit to society [Paras 57-59].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder of wife – Deceased died due to asphyxia caused by throttling – Injuries on the body indicative of foul play – Appellant failed to explain injuries and cause of death – Prosecution established a chain of circumstances pointing to guilt of the appellant – Conviction upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 1-11, 12-19].

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act – Applicability – Burden of proof – When a death occurs within the privacy of the home and the accused is the only person with the deceased, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances leading to death – Appellant's failure to offer a satisfactory explanation strengthens the prosecution case – Court affirmed the principle that false or no explanation can be an additional link in the chain of circumstances [Paras 12-13, 18-19].

Concurrent Findings – Judicial Review – Supreme Court reiterated the principle that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a manifest illegality or error resulting in grave injustice – High Court and Trial Court had concurrent findings establishing guilt of the appellant – No ground for interference found [Paras 11, 19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment upheld – No interference with concurrent findings of lower courts [Para 19].

Central Excise Act – Classification of Goods – Product manufactured by appellant described as Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers (MVAC) – Appellant claimed classification as heat pumps under Heading 84.18 for concessional excise duty – Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise negated the claim – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld appellant’s classification – CESTAT reversed decision, classifying product under Sub-heading 8418.10 as refrigerating equipment – Supreme Court affirmed CESTAT’s decision, holding MVAC primarily functions as chiller, not heat pump, despite incidental hot water production [Paras 1-21].

Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) – Definition and Interpretation – HSN definition of heat pumps: devices drawing heat from suitable sources and converting it into intense heat – MVAC primarily produces chilled water, with hot water production being incidental – Market parlance test supports classification as refrigerating equipment – HSN definition used as guiding principle for tariff classification – Consistency with international standards emphasized [Paras 6-10, 18-21].

Precedents – Relevant Case Law – References to previous cases including Central Excise Delhi vs. Carrier Aircon Ltd., Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Voltas Ltd., and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Amritsar vs. D.L. Steels – Consideration of market recognition and primary functionality in classification disputes – Principles of functional classification upheld [Paras 5.3-5.6, 12-15, 17-20].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – MVAC classified under Sub-heading 8418.10 as refrigerating equipment – CESTAT’s decision affirmed – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 21].