Society and Trust Law – Religious Property Ownership Dispute – ISKCON Bangalore vs. ISKCON Mumbai – Long-standing dispute over title and management of ISKCON Bangalore resolved – Supreme Court held that ISKCON Bangalore, a registered Karnataka society, is the absolute titleholder of Schedule ‘A’ land allotted by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) – Held: No legal basis to the claim of ISKCON Mumbai over said property via an unincorporated branch – High Court’s findings contrary to documentary evidence and thus set aside [Paras 33–51, 55–57].

Documentary Evidence – Land Allotment and Registered Sale Deed – Application for BDA allotment (Exh. P-51) made in name of ISKCON Bangalore, signed by its President – Sale deed dated 3rd August 1988 executed in favour of ISKCON Bangalore – All communications, payments, and ULC exemption corresponded to ISKCON Bangalore – No competing application from ISKCON Mumbai or proof of benami transaction produced – Held: Valid title passed to ISKCON Bangalore [Paras 44–51].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 38B BDA Act – Only societies registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act or trusts under MPT Act eligible for BDA allotment – ISKCON Bangalore, being a registered society, legally eligible – No evidence of ISKCON Mumbai applying under trust provisions – High Court erred in overlooking statutory eligibility and clear application trail [Paras 52–54].

Branch Status and Legal Entity – No Independent Existence of “ISKCON Mumbai, Bangalore Branch” – ISKCON Mumbai failed to produce incorporation documents or authority letters – Application, sale deed, and ULC exemption made only by ISKCON Bangalore – Held: Mere reference to branch functioning does not confer legal title or ownership – Branch lacked legal personality to hold property [Paras 50–51].

Adverse Inference – Key Witness Withheld – ISKCON Mumbai did not produce Stoka Krishna Dasa, alleged source of manipulation claims – Court held that non-examination of material witness warranted adverse inference – Held: Allegations of fraud and manipulation unsubstantiated in absence of direct testimony [Para 47].

Procedural History – Trial Court Decree in Favour of ISKCON Bangalore Restored – High Court Judgment in RFA No. 421 of 2009 reversed – All related appeals rendered infructuous – Oversight Committee managing temple to be dissolved after one month [Paras 56–58, 73(d)].

Internal Governance Dispute – Governing Body of ISKCON Bangalore – Suit No. 1758 of 2003 by members claiming to be rightful management dismissed – Concurrent findings by Trial Court and High Court accepted – Annual General Meeting of 1 July 1984 validly elected new governing body – Plaintiffs’ evidence found weak, contradictory and largely withdrawn – Held: No interference warranted in findings of fact [Paras 59–70].

Decision: Civil Appeal Nos. 3821–3822 of 2023 dismissed – Civil Appeal No. 9313 of 2014 allowed – High Court findings in RFA No. 421 of 2009 set aside – Decree in Suit No. 7934 of 2001 in favour of ISKCON Bangalore restored – Oversight Committee dissolved after one month – All connected appeals disposed of as infructuous – No order as to costs [Paras 73–74].

Education Law - Medical Education – Power of Committee to Create Corpus Fund – Not Traceable to Law – GO Dated 06.06.2018 Struck Down - The Court held that neither the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee nor the State Government had legislative authority to mandate diversion of fees from NRI students towards a corpus fund for BPL/EWS scholarships – Such a measure, however noble, requires statutory sanction and cannot be imposed through executive fiat [Paras 16–20, 25–27].

Constitutional Law – Welfare Objective Cannot Override Statutory Limits – Absence of Legislative Backing Fatal - The Court acknowledged the intent behind the GO was laudable but emphasized that policy must operate within constitutional and statutory limits – Welfare schemes must be supported by legislation, not executive orders [Paras 26–27].

Education Law – Autonomy of Private Institutions – Article 19(1)(g) and Article 30 Rights Invoked - Self-financing medical colleges argued that diversion of fee amounts infringes their right to reasonable fee fixation and institutional autonomy – Court upheld the institutions’ right to utilize approved fees subject to reasonable regulation, but not for state-enforced welfare without statutory basis [Paras 6, 30].

Refund of Corpus Fund – NRI Students Not Entitled to Direct Refund – Court Orders Amounts Be Retained for In-House Subsidy - Though the collection was held illegal, the Court declined to refund corpus amounts to NRI students – Instead, it directed that funds be retained by respective institutions and used exclusively for subsidizing education of BPL students admitted therein [Paras 28–32].

Decision – GO Struck Down – No Further Collection Permitted – Funds Already Collected to Benefit EWS Students Only - Held: GO dated 06.06.2018 declared illegal and unsustainable – State directed not to collect any further corpus funds from NRI students – Amounts already collected to be retained in institutional accounts, to be used exclusively for BPL/EWS students within that institution [Paras 33–34].

Environmental Law – Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance – Legality of 2017 Notification and 2021 OM – Held Illegal - The 2017 Notification and 2021 Office Memorandum allowing retrospective environmental clearance were held contrary to statutory and constitutional mandates – The Supreme Court reaffirmed that ex post facto ECs are alien to environmental jurisprudence and violate Article 21 rights to pollution-free environment – Orders struck down for being arbitrary, ultra vires, and inconsistent with binding precedent [Paras 15–20, 26–31, 34–36].

Environmental Jurisprudence – Supreme Court Upholds Precautionary and Polluter Pays Principles – EC Must Be Prior and Not Retrospective - Court reiterated that ECs must be granted prior to project commencement after environmental impact assessment and public hearing – Held: Allowing ex post facto clearances undermines environmental protection and incentivises illegality, flouting principles laid down in Common Cause and Alembic Pharmaceuticals [Paras 16, 17, 29].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 and 51A(g) – Right to Pollution-Free Environment – Infringed by Post-Facto Regularisation - Held: The 2021 OM undermines the right to life and health and fundamental duty to protect the environment – The State is constitutionally obligated to enforce EC norms strictly; any attempt to dilute such standards through retrospective regularisation is violative of fundamental rights [Paras 32–34].

Judicial Undertaking – Central Government Bound by Statement Before Madras High Court – Estoppel Applies - Union’s undertaking in Puducherry Environment Protection Association case that 2017 Notification was a one-time measure was binding – Court deprecated subsequent circulars and extensions in contravention of judicial declarations and government assurances [Paras 21–22].

Decision – 2017 Notification and 2021 OM Struck Down – Government Restrained from Future Ex Post Facto ECs - Held: 2017 Notification and 2021 OM are illegal and void – Supreme Court restrained the Central Government from issuing any future circulars or memoranda providing for ex post facto EC – However, ECs already granted under these instruments till date are not disturbed [Paras 35–36].

Civil Law - Execution of Decree – Successive Execution Petitions – Satisfaction Recorded in Prior EP Not a Bar – Fresh EP Maintainable on Subsequent Interference - Held: Recording of satisfaction in an earlier EP due to absence of decree-holder and written statement by judgment-debtor cannot bar future EP if fresh breach is alleged – Res judicata not attracted where new cause arises [Paras 2–4, 6].

Limitation – No Bar to Execution of Decree Granting Perpetual Injunction – Article 136 of Limitation Act – Perpetual Right of Decree-Holder - Supreme Court held that there is no limitation for execution of a decree granting permanent injunction – Right to seek enforcement survives perpetually against judgment-debtor, their assignees or successors whenever breach occurs [Para 7].

Civil Procedure – Objection under Section 47 CPC – Consideration Deferred to Executing Court – Only Prima Facie Observations Made - Apex Court clarified that its observations regarding objections under Section 47 CPC are prima facie – Objections can be re-agitated before Executing Court which shall decide afresh including claims about cancellation proceedings [Para 8].

Decision – High Court and Lower Courts’ Orders Set Aside – Execution Petition Restored - Supreme Court set aside all impugned orders and restored EP No. 2 of 2012 – Matter remanded to Executing Court for fresh consideration on merits, except on validity of decree which stands untouched [Paras 8–9].

Accident Claim - Motor Accident Compensation – Assessment of Monthly Income – Claim of Rs.10,000 accepted – High Court’s reduction reversed – The Tribunal awarded compensation based on the deceased driver’s claimed income of Rs.10,000 per month – High Court reduced it to Rs.4,076 applying minimum wages – Held: Based on precedent in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram, even unskilled labourers earned around Rs.4,500 in 2004, making Rs.10,000 reasonable for a skilled driver in 2014 – Tribunal’s assessment restored [Paras 3-4].

Future Prospects – 40% Addition – Compensation Properly Calculated – No Interference – The Tribunal rightly added 40% of monthly income towards future prospects – High Court erred in excluding it while calculating reduced compensation – Held: The calculation by the Tribunal aligns with prevailing law and requires no interference [Paras 2-4].

Loss of Consortium – Entitlement of Family Members – Retained Despite No Cross Appeal – Tribunal granted consortium to wife, children, and parents – Held: As per New India Assurance Co. v. Somwati, all dependents are entitled to consortium – Supreme Court retained the same though no appeal was filed by the claimants seeking enhancement [Paras 4-5].

Restoration of Tribunal’s Award – High Court Order Set Aside – Tribunal’s compensation confirmed – Appeal Allowed – Held: There was no justification for the High Court’s downward revision of compensation – Tribunal’s award reinstated in full, to be disbursed within two months and apportioned equally among legal heirs – In case of minors, amount to be held in fixed deposit [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Tribunal’s Compensation Restored – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court restored the full compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, setting aside the reduced award passed by the High Court – Compensation to be distributed as per Tribunal’s direction [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Law - Probation of Offenders Act – Inapplicability under PoFA Act – Section 20AA prohibits probation – Probation benefit denied - Section 20AA clearly excludes the application of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the CrPC to those convicted under the PoFA Act unless the offender is under 18 years of age – The Court held that the provision is explicit, unambiguous, and constitutionally valid – Hence, probation not applicable [Paras 40-42].

Mollification of Sentence – FSS Act Repeal and Savings Clause – Reduced punishment not permitted – Benefit denied - Despite lesser punishment under the FSS Act, the repeal and savings clause under Section 97 preserves penalties under the repealed PoFA Act – The Court held that the presence of such a clause prevents application of lighter sentence from new law – Hence, no reduction in sentence permissible under FSS Act [Paras 43-44].

Adulteration Evidence – Discrepancy in Reports – Sentence converted to fine – Lead appeal partly allowed - In the case of Nagarajan and Selvaraj, the two lab reports on curd adulteration had significant differences—one showing deficiency in fat content, the other meeting the required standard – Applying precedent in C. Mohammed, the Court converted the 6-month imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 30,000 each [Paras 45-46].

Judicial Comity – Reliance on Coordinate Bench despite disagreement – Connected appeal partly allowed - Although the Bench disagreed with the reasoning in A.K. Sarkar & Co., it followed the decision to prevent further litigation, converting Naresh Chandra’s sentence to a fine of Rs. 20,000 in the interest of equity and justice [Paras 47-48].

Decision – Convictions upheld, Sentences modified – Probation relief and sentence reduction under FSS Act denied – However, due to specific factual circumstances and prior rulings, sentences were converted to fines – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 48-51].

Suo Motu - POCSO Cases – Setting Up of Exclusive Courts – Implementation of Judicial Directives – Compliance Directed - The Court directed that each district with more than 100 POCSO cases must establish exclusive courts under a Central scheme with appropriate staffing and child-friendly infrastructure – Majority of States complied but high-pendency States (UP, WB, Bihar, TN, Orissa, Maharashtra) were found lacking – Held: Union and State governments must prioritise timely establishment of such courts [Paras 1, 3, 5-6].

Forensic Delay – Effective Functioning of FSLs – Expedited Processing Ordered – Court acknowledged forensic delays as key bottleneck in trial completion – Directed State Forensic Labs to ensure swift analysis and reporting in POCSO cases – Mandated Chief Secretaries to ensure compliance [Para 1].

Child Sensitisation and Support – Appointment of Trained Support Persons and Prosecutors – Awareness Measures – Directions were issued to appoint child-sensitive support persons and prosecutors, and to run public awareness campaigns in cinemas and media with helpline information prominently displayed – Responsibility assigned to Ministry of Women and Child Development [Paras 1, 4].

Timely Trial – Adherence to Statutory Deadlines – States Reminded of Duty – Despite POCSO Act’s time-bound process for investigation and trial, delay persists due to inadequate infrastructure – States instructed to strictly follow the law and ensure completion of investigations and trials within statutory periods [Paras 2, 6].

Closure of Proceedings – Compliance Noted – Matter Concluded – Noting significant implementation of earlier directions and pending areas requiring attention, the Court closed the suo motu proceedings with appreciation for the amicus curiae and counsel – Held: Further monitoring not required at this stage [Paras 7-8].

Motor Accident Claim – Liability of Insurer – Duty limited to monetary compensation – High Court’s directive for lifetime support set aside – The High Court directed the insurer to provide prosthetic limbs, motorized wheelchair, travel expenses, and ensure ongoing support – Held: Insurer’s statutory role is limited to indemnifying loss in monetary terms, and not to maintain lifelong support infrastructure – Directions contrary to statutory framework and unsustainable [Paras 2-4, 6].

Compensation – Disability and Future Needs – Additional Rs.12 lakhs awarded – Expenses quantified for future wellbeing – The victim suffered 100% functional disability due to loss and impairment of both lower limbs at age 22 – Held: A prosthetic limb costing approx. Rs.2 lakhs, replaced every 5 years, and wheelchair costing Rs.40,000 require long-term provision – Court awarded Rs.12 lakhs with 6% simple interest to cover future expenses and mobility needs [Paras 5, 7-8].

Appeal by Insurer – No bar on grant of just compensation – High Court’s enhancement restructured – Though the appeal was filed by the insurer and not the claimant, the Supreme Court upheld the right to restructure compensation in monetary terms, in lieu of specific services previously directed – Held: The Court is merely converting non-monetary directions into quantified award and not increasing compensation beyond High Court’s intent [Paras 8-9].

Final Directions – High Court Order Set Aside – Award modified and appeal disposed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s directions and substituted them with quantified compensation payable within two months – Directions given to respondent to furnish account details for online transfer – Pending applications also disposed [Paras 9-12].

Arbitration – Objection on Jurisdiction – MP Act Applicability Raised Late – Award Restored – The respondent failed to object to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal during arbitration or in initial Section 34 petition – Only after the L.G. Chaudhary (II) decision was such a ground introduced – Held: In line with precedent, an award cannot be annulled solely on jurisdictional ground if no such plea was raised at the relevant stage – Award restored [Paras 6–9, 36–40].

Jurisdictional Plea – Not Raised Under Section 16 – Considered Waived – In absence of timely objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, a jurisdictional plea is deemed waived – No valid reason shown to excuse delay in raising such a plea – Held: Respondent cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate – High Court’s annulment of award erroneous [Paras 27–35, 39–41].

L.G. Chaudhary (II) vs. Lion Engineering – No Real Conflict – Limited Exception Carved – While Lion Engineering allows legal pleas on jurisdiction in Section 34, L.G. Chaudhary (II) clarified that MP Act applicability raised post-award without earlier objection will not annul the award – Held: L.G. Chaudhary (II) not per incuriam, reflects conscious carving of exception due to earlier inconsistent precedents [Paras 18–23, 36–37].

Decision – Civil Appeal Allowed – Arbitral Award Restored – High Court’s annulment set aside – Matter remanded to Commercial Court to adjudicate other Section 34 objections without disturbing the award on ground of jurisdiction – Held: MP Act objection cannot be raised post-award without prior challenge [Paras 40–41].