Delayed Judgment Delivery – Timeliness and Judicial Conduct – Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Judgment Set Aside - The appellants contended that the judgment of the High Court dated 1st March, 2023, dismissing their petition, was issued without reasons and that reasons were provided more than a year later, violating judicial discipline. The Supreme Court held that a delay in providing reasons for a judgment breaches judicial ethics and undermines trust in the system. It stressed the importance of delivering timely and reasoned judgments to uphold the rule of law, setting aside the High Court judgment for being improperly timed [Paras 5-11, 17-19, 23-24].

Pronouncement of Judgments – Requirement of Reasons Following the Decision – High Court's Failure to Follow Precedents – The Court reiterated that reasons for judgments should be provided promptly after the decision, referring to previous cases like Anil Rai vs State of Bihar. The failure of the High Court to adhere to these standards was a serious violation. The Court noted that not delivering the reasons immediately after the dismissal led to substantial prejudice against the appellant, rendering the decision unsustainable [Paras 12-16, 20-22].

Judicial Accountability – Ethical Conduct in Judgment Writing – Judge Overstepped Ethical Boundaries – The High Court Judge failed to issue a reasoned order after pronouncing the dismissal of the petition. The Supreme Court observed that this was an act of judicial indiscretion, as the reasons were given after more than a year, and advised that a better course would have been to recall the order and reassign the case. Upholding judicial integrity and ensuring transparency in the decision-making process are paramount [Paras 14-19].

Decision – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 1st March, 2023, and directed the Chief Justice of the High Court to restore the petition and assign it to a different Bench for fresh consideration [Paras 23-26].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Enhanced Compensation Restored – The appellants challenged the High Court's reduction of compensation, asserting that their lands in Mewat had immense potential due to strategic location near infrastructure developments. The Reference Court had enhanced compensation based on relevant sale exemplars – Held: The High Court erred in relying on sale exemplars executed after the Section 4 notification. The compensation granted by the Reference Court, based on pre-notification sale deeds, was fair and just, and the High Court's judgment was set aside [Paras 2-37].

Comparable Sale Instances – Smaller Plot Exemplars – Application of Development Charges – The Court acknowledged that smaller land parcels can command higher prices and held that such exemplars could be relied upon after appropriate deductions. A deduction of 46% to 50% was considered reasonable in the circumstances to estimate compensation for the larger tract of land under acquisition [Paras 26-34].

Market Value Determination – Highest Valued Exemplar – It was reiterated that when several sale exemplars are available, the highest bona fide transaction should be considered for determining compensation. The sale exemplar Ex. P5 was held to be the most suitable for determining the market value of the land, and compensation was based on this exemplar with relevant deductions [Paras 27-30].

Decision: Appeals Allowed – The Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restored the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. The respondents were directed to pay the compensation, along with all statutory benefits, within eight weeks [Paras 38-40].

Land Acquisition – Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act – Compliance with Procedure – Objections Dismissed – The respondents challenged the acquisition of their land, asserting that their objections under Section 5A were not duly considered and that similarly situated lands were exempted from acquisition – Held: The State Government complied with the mandatory procedure of Section 5A, including hearing and report stages, and was entitled to disagree with the Collector's recommendation based on a High-Powered Committee's findings. The objections were not automatically binding on the Government [Paras 11-18].

Discrimination – Article 14 of the Constitution – Claim of Discriminatory Treatment – The respondents alleged discrimination in the acquisition, claiming that similarly situated lands were exempted – Held: The High Court’s finding of discrimination was erroneous as the State had acquired 99.78% of the notified land, including the exempted land at a later stage. Negative equality cannot be claimed to invalidate the acquisition [Paras 27-31].

Doctrine of Merger – Appeals Dismissed for Non-Prosecution – Whether the present appeals are maintainable – Held: The doctrine of merger does not automatically apply in cases of dismissal for non-prosecution. The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, holding that the previous dismissal did not bar the present appeal [Paras 47-53].

Settlement Between Parties – Agreement to Release Land – State’s Decision to Release the Land During Appeal Scrutinized – Held: The decision to release the land was arbitrary, lacked due consideration of public interest, and was not accepted by the Court. The land was ordered to be acquired for the intended public purpose [Paras 32-46].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and directed the acquisition of the respondents' land to proceed in accordance with the original notifications under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court further directed the State to take possession and utilize the land for public purposes, with appropriate compensation to be awarded. The Court also granted liberty to the respondents to seek higher compensation under Section 18 of the Act, if applicable [Paras 54-57].

Arbitration Clause – Applicability of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Public Premises Act, 1971 – The appellant raised a question whether the Public Premises Act overrides the Arbitration Act – Held: The dispute arises from the lease agreement containing a valid arbitration clause, covering issues of storage charges and lease renewal – The Public Premises Act governs eviction and possession post-expiry of lease but does not override or interfere with arbitration matters under the agreement [Paras 13-14].

Jurisdiction – Section 11 of the Arbitration Act – Appointment of Arbitrator – The High Court appointed an arbitrator for disputes under the agreement, including revised storage charges and the respondent's right to renew the lease – Held: The High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction as the disputes fell under the arbitration clause, and the referral court’s role under Section 11 is limited to ascertaining the existence of a valid arbitration agreement [Paras 14-15].

Costs and Resumption of Arbitration – Appeal Dismissed – The appeal was deemed unnecessary and dismissed with costs imposed on the appellant – The arbitration proceedings, stayed during appeal, were directed to resume with the arbitral tribunal to expedite its award [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The Court rejected the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The appellant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 50,000, and the arbitral proceedings were directed to continue without delay [Paras 15-17].
 

Criminal Law – Remission of Sentence – Conditions Imposed – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – The State Government of Gujarat remitted the appellant's remaining sentence under Section 432(1) of the CrPC – However, conditions were imposed including that the appellant must "behave decently" for two years and face re-arrest if involved in any cognizable offense – The appellant challenged the vagueness and arbitrariness of these conditions – Held: The condition requiring decent behavior was arbitrary and unconstitutional under Article 14 and was struck down – The second condition was clarified, requiring compliance with principles of natural justice before any cancellation of remission [Paras 1, 3, 5, 13-18].

Remission Powers – Discretionary Nature – Section 432(1) of the CrPC grants the government discretionary power to remit sentences, either unconditionally or subject to reasonable conditions – The remission can only take effect if the convict accepts the conditions – While a convict does not have an automatic right to remission, the conditions imposed must be fair and reasonable and cannot violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution – The court noted that any arbitrary conditions imposed may vitiate the remission order [Paras 9-12, 17(i), 17(iii)-(iv)].

Principles of Natural Justice – Cancellation of Remission – The cancellation of remission under Section 432(3) of the CrPC or Section 473(3) of the BNSS affects the convict's liberty, thus, requiring adherence to principles of natural justice – Before revocation, the convict must be served a show cause notice detailing the grounds for action – The convict must have an opportunity to respond and be heard before any decision on cancellation is made – Revocation of remission cannot occur solely based on registration of a cognizable offense without substantive evidence of breach of conditions [Paras 14-16, 17(v)-(vi)].

Decision – The condition requiring the appellant to behave decently for two years was struck down as manifestly arbitrary – The second condition was clarified, stating that revocation of remission must follow due process and principles of natural justice – The appeal was partly allowed [Paras 17, 18].
 

Service Law – Pay Discrepancy – Appellant, an Artificer III in the Indian Navy, challenged the lower grade pay granted to Artificers I, II, and III, compared to the non-technical Chief Petty Officers, despite their technical competence and relative ranks – The appellant contended this was discriminatory, arguing that Artificers of Class III and above should receive the same grade pay as non-technical Chief Petty Officers (Rs. 4200) based on Navy instructions and regulations – Held: The differentiation in grade pay based on the promotional hierarchy and responsibilities is neither arbitrary nor illegal [Paras 2, 4, 6, 12].

Navy Regulations – Command and Rank – Regulation 247 and other Navy instructions indicated that Chief Artificers hold command over Artificers I, II, and III – While the rank equivalency for seniority purposes was acknowledged between Artificers III and Chief Petty Officers, the Court emphasized the operational and hierarchical differences between these ranks – The promotional avenues available to Artificers and Chief Petty Officers justified the variance in grade pay [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Grade Pay Anomaly – Speaking Order – The 2009 speaking order clarified that while Artificers I to III are given relative ranks akin to Chief Petty Officers for seniority, they are not directly promotable to higher posts like Master Chief Artificers, unlike Chief Petty Officers – The appellant’s claim for equal grade pay was denied as Artificers I to III are positioned between Artificer IV and Chief Artificer in the pay structure, justifying the lower grade pay of Rs. 3400 compared to the Rs. 4200 granted to Chief Artificers [Paras 11, 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the pay disparity between Artificers III to I and Chief Petty Officers is lawful and not discriminatory – No merit in the appeal [Paras 13, 14].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Admonition – The appellant, an Airman in the Indian Air Force, was charged with insubordination and violation of good order after an incident at a railway crossing – The appellant was admonished and later sought quashing of the Admonition, arguing the proceedings were flawed due to lack of proper sanction under Section 83 of the Air Force Act – The Armed Forces Tribunal quashed the Admonition but did not grant compensation – Held: The Tribunal's order was upheld, and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh was awarded for the undue hardship caused by the long-drawn litigation and disproportionate punishment [Paras 1-12].

Vindictiveness – Handling of Minor Infraction – The Tribunal noted that the incident could have been handled more appropriately by the superior officer without escalating it – The conduct of the officer was decried as vindictive, resulting in the appellant’s unnecessary detention and punishment – Held: The disproportionate response to a minor infraction was inappropriate, and the appellant was entitled to compensation for the harassment and humiliation suffered [Paras 6.1-6.2, 8-12].

Compensation – Monetary Award for Loss of Dignity – The Court observed that while monetary compensation cannot fully restore lost dignity, it serves as a token of recognition of the appellant’s identity and rights – Rs. 1 lakh was granted as compensation for the emotional and financial distress caused by the unjust disciplinary action [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Admonition order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh in compensation to the appellant within 30 days [Paras 12-13].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Conviction – Deposit Condition under Section 148 – Authorized Signatory's Liability - Authorized Signatory Liability – Deposit Condition Quashed -  appellant, an authorized signatory/director of M/s. Gee Pee Infotech Pvt. Ltd., challenged the requirement to deposit 20% of the fine amount as a condition for suspension of sentence under Section 148(1), NI Act. The Supreme Court held that an authorized signatory is not a “drawer” under Section 148(1), aligning with the principles in Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh & Ors., and therefore, cannot be directed to deposit any amount under the said provision. The High Court’s decision imposing such a condition was set aside [Paras 13, 28-35].

Distinction Between Drawer and Signatory – Sections 143-A and 148 of the NI Act – Liability Clarified - Supreme Court emphasized that liability under these provisions pertains strictly to the "drawer" of the cheque. Authorized signatories are not considered drawers for the purposes of interim or additional compensation under Sections 143-A and 148, reinforcing the principle of strict interpretation of penal statutes [Paras 13, 28-35].

Appellate Court Powers – Exceptional Circumstances – Mechanistic Application of Section 148 Rejected - Court highlighted that imposing a deposit condition under Section 148 must be based on a proper assessment of whether the appellant is indeed the drawer of the cheque, and not applied mechanically. The orders imposing the deposit condition were quashed as they failed to consider these principles [Paras 13, 28-35].

Decision – Appeals Allowed - Supreme Court quashed the orders directing deposit of 20% of the fine amount by the appellant, an authorized signatory, under Section 148(1) of the NI Act. The suspension of sentence granted by the Appellate Court was upheld with execution of bonds as the sole condition until the disposal of the pending appeals [Para 35].

Service Law - Revision of Pension – Government-Aided College Staff Entitlement – Rule 6 of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – The appellants, retired from government-aided private colleges before 01.01.2006, claimed entitlement to revised pension under Rule 6 on par with government college staff – Held: Revised pension is payable to the appellants as per the Rule 6 guidelines, in alignment with orders passed for government college retirees; however, interest on delayed payment was not warranted [Paras 8-10].

Interest on Delayed Pension Payment – No Entitlement for Interest Based on Fence-Sitting – Rule 6 of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – The appellants contended they were entitled to interest on delayed pension as the State initially committed to pay such interest through oral instructions in court – Held: The High Court correctly ruled that the appellants, who waited until previous litigations resolved, could not claim interest by simply following the outcomes; the absence of written commitment from the State negates entitlement to interest [Paras 17-18].

Oral Instructions in Judicial Proceedings – Caution Advised – The Court emphasized the importance of government counsel relying solely on written instructions to avoid misrepresentations that can mislead judicial proceedings – Observed: Future representations by government officials should be substantiated with written documentation to ensure accuracy and accountability; failure to provide truthful information may result in penalties [Para 22].

Decision: Appeals are dismissed, with no costs awarded.