Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Private Complaint – Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC – Petitioner approached High Court seeking anticipatory bail – Supreme Court held that once summons is issued, accused is required to appear before Magistrate – Mere issuance of summons does not give rise to apprehension of arrest – Petition for anticipatory bail misconceived in absence of warrant – SLP disposed of [Paras 2-5, 9].

Process – Summons vs Warrant – Section 87 Cr.P.C. – Court may issue warrant in lieu of or in addition to summons only after recording reasons in writing – Contingencies: (a) belief that accused has absconded or will not obey summons, (b) failure to appear despite due service without reasonable excuse – In present case, Magistrate did not invoke Section 87 while issuing summons – Held: In absence of warrant, apprehension of arrest unfounded [Paras 6-7].

Complaint Case – Procedure – Case instituted otherwise than on police report – Magistrate after taking cognizance to proceed in accordance with Chapter XIV Cr.P.C. – Trial Court directed to follow statutory procedure upon appearance of accused [Paras 5, 8].

Decision: Special Leave Petition disposed of – Petitioner directed to appear before the Magistrate pursuant to summons – Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 9-10].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – State as Litigant – Appeal dismissed as time-barred – High Court refused to condone delay of over 11 years in filing appeal without certified copy – Supreme Court held that no “sufficient cause” shown – Mere procedural delay in obtaining approvals not a valid ground – Delay characterized as “lame excuse” and not explanation – SLP dismissed as time-barred [Paras 12, 20-22; ].

Section 5 Limitation Act – “Sufficient Cause” – Elastic but not limitless – Expression must subserve ends of justice – Court reiterated that condonation is discretionary and cannot be claimed as matter of right – Bureaucratic red tape not an automatic ground for condonation [Paras 13, 21; ].

State Litigant – Liberal Approach – Earlier decisions in Katiji and Ramegowda allowed latitude to Government recognizing institutional delays – However, later trend including Living Media, University of Delhi and Pathapati Subba Reddy reflects stricter scrutiny – Court observed that there is a point beyond which even courts cannot assist Government litigant suffering from bureaucratic indifference [Paras 14-19; ].

Explanation vs Excuse – Distinction – Court emphasized that cause shown must be genuine explanation and not routine, stereotyped justification – Government’s plea of procedural approval delay held inadequate – Conduct found “utterly lethargic, tardy and indolent” both before High Court and Supreme Court [Paras 17, 20; ].

Public Policy – Law of Limitation – Object is to ensure finality and prevent indefinite pendency of litigation – Merits of case cannot be examined at stage of condonation of delay [Para 16; ].

Decision: Applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing SLP rejected – Special Leave Petition dismissed as time-barred.

Land Acquisition – Applicability of 2013 Act – Section 24(1)(a), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Held – Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies to cases where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the 1894 Act but the award was passed after the commencement of the 2013 Act – In such cases, only the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply, excluding rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements, as these are new benefits not extended retrospectively – This ensures just and fair compensation under the beneficial legislation – The 2013 Act, being a special law, is intended to provide more benefits and a robust mechanism for compensation. [Paras 4, 14-17, 22-23, 97(i), 97(ii)]

Land Acquisition – Role of Collector and Authority – Sections 23, 51, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 70, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Held – The Collector, when passing an award under Section 23 or making a reference under Section 64, performs quasi-judicial and executive functions, but not an exclusively judicial role – The Authority established under Section 51 of the 2013 Act, comprising a legally trained person, exercises powers akin to a Civil Court (Section 60), conducts judicial proceedings (Section 61), and its award under Section 69 is deemed a decree and judgment (Section 70) – The Authority acts as the first judicial forum, and proceedings before it are original in nature – Consequently, the Collector does not have the discretion to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in reference applications. [Paras 24, 26-28, 30-31, 33, 74]

Limitation – Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals under Section 74 of 2013 Act – Section 74, 103, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 5, 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963 – Held – Section 74 of the 2013 Act, which provides for a 60-day period for filing appeals to the High Court with a further 60-day grace period, does not expressly exclude the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 103 of the 2013 Act clarifies that its provisions are "in addition to and not in derogation of" other existing laws, thereby facilitating borrowing from enactments like the Limitation Act – A mere prescription of a limitation period in a special law does not imply an express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act – The High Court, as an appellate court, is entitled to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in appeals under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, adopting a liberal and pragmatic approach consistent with the beneficial nature of the 2013 Act and the right to fair compensation. [Paras 35-36, 37-38, 59-62, 63, 67-68, 71, 75-78, 79, 80-81, 97(iv)]

Judicial Administration – Condonation of Delay – Accountability of State Instrumentalities – Held – Given the beneficial nature of the 2013 Act and the interest of justice, all applications for condonation of delay in filing first appeals before the High Courts under Section 74 of the 2013 Act are allowed, setting aside impugned judgments that held Section 5 of the Limitation Act inapplicable – The widespread delays and lackadaisical approach by acquiring bodies and their counsel indicate potential collusion or carelessness, undermining public confidence – State Governments are directed to implement necessary measures to ensure timely filing of appeals and to fix responsibility on erring officials to prevent future delays. [Paras 82-85, 97(v), 97(vii), 97(viii)]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgments set aside insofar as the issue of application of Section 5 of the 1963 Act is concerned – All applications seeking condonation of delay in preferring the first appeals before the High Courts under Section 74 of the 2013 Act stand allowed – High Courts are expected to adjudicate on merits, except to the extent of observations made pertaining to the incidental issue – The respective State Governments will have to take necessary measures and issue appropriate directions to the officers dealing with the appeals under Section 74 of the 2013 Act against the awards passed after the commencement of the 2013 Act to ensure that the appeals are filed as provided under Section 74 of the 2013 Act – High Courts shall avoid a pedantic approach as against a pragmatic one in dealing with the applications seeking condonation of delay – Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. [Paras 83, 97, 98, 99]

Anticipatory Bail – Time Limitation – Restricting Protection Till Filing of Charge-Sheet – High Court granted anticipatory bail but limited it till filing of police report – Fresh application rejected after charge-sheet – Held: Once discretion exercised in favour of accused, there was no justification to restrict relief till filing of charge-sheet – Filing of charge-sheet or taking cognizance does not automatically terminate anticipatory bail – Impugned order set aside [Paras 11–15, 27–29].

Section 438 CrPC – Scope – No Bar After Filing of Charge-Sheet – Relying on Bharat Chaudhary and Ravindra Saxena – Held: No restriction under Section 438 CrPC to grant anticipatory bail even after filing of charge-sheet or taking cognizance – Protection can continue till end of trial unless special reasons recorded [Paras 16–19, 25].

Constitution Bench – Sushila Aggarwal – Duration of Anticipatory Bail – Protection ordinarily not to be limited by arbitrary timelines – Mere filing of charge-sheet cannot compel accused to surrender and seek regular bail – Risk to be managed through conditions, not expiry clauses – Limiting tenure without special reasons unsustainable [Paras 19–20, 25–26].

Personal Liberty – Arrest Not Mandatory – Section 170 CrPC – Custody Does Not Mean Compulsory Arrest – Filing of charge-sheet does not obligate police to arrest if accused cooperated – Arrest must be justified, not routine – Endorsing Siddharth v. State of U.P. [Paras 21–23].

Interim Protection – Mechanical Rejection After Charge-Sheet – High Court erred in directing surrender despite cooperation during investigation – Once investigation completed and no custodial necessity shown, rejection of anticipatory bail unsustainable [Para 24].

Addition of Graver Offences – Effect on Bail – If new cognizable and non-bailable offences of serious nature added after grant of bail, court must reconsider entitlement – Investigating agency may seek cancellation under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC – Arrest on addition of offence requires judicial order – Liberty not automatically extinguished but subject to fresh judicial scrutiny [Paras 30–34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Appellant directed to be released on anticipatory bail in event of arrest subject to conditions imposed by Investigating Officer – Appellant to furnish fresh bail bonds before Trial Court – Directions issued to circulate order to High Court of Allahabad [Paras 27–37].

Anticipatory Bail – Alleged House Trespass and Theft – FIR under Sections 329(1), 329(4), 62, 351(3), 305 and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Appellant accused of trespassing into complainant’s house and committing theft – Complainant claimed possession on basis of agreement to sell – Bail rejected by Trial Court and High Court – Interim protection granted by Supreme Court subject to cooperation with investigation – Appellant appeared before Investigating Officer – Held, mere refusal to answer certain questions does not ipso facto amount to non-cooperation – Existence of civil dispute regarding immovable property and parity with co-accused already granted bail considered – Appellant entitled to anticipatory bail [Paras 4–6].

Cooperation with Investigation – Scope – Court observed that appearance before Investigating Officer pursuant to interim protection satisfies condition of cooperation – Non-answering of questions by itself not sufficient to deny anticipatory bail in facts of case [Paras 5–6].

Parity – Grant of Bail – Where co-accused have been granted bail and allegations arise in context of civil property dispute – Principle of parity applicable – Appellant granted anticipatory bail on appropriate terms and conditions [Para 6].

Order: Leave granted – Appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Appellant directed to be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the jurisdictional Investigating Officer – Appellant to appear before Trial Court on all dates of hearing unless specifically exempted – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 7–8].

Contract – Public Works Contract – Delayed Payment – Interest – Contractor completed work and received principal amount belatedly – Suit filed seeking interest for delayed payment – Preliminary agreement contained Clause (5) expressly barring claim for interest or damages for belated settlement of bills – Held: Parties bound by contractual terms – Clause prohibiting claim for interest on delayed payment is valid and enforceable – Contractor not entitled to interest [Paras 3-7].

Interest Act, 1978 – Section 3(1) and 3(3) – Applicability – High Court relied on Section 3(1) to award interest but failed to consider exception under Section 3(3) – Where parties have agreed otherwise by contract, statutory grant of interest does not override express contractual bar – Interest Act operates in absence of agreement or where agreement is contrary to law – Not applicable where parties consciously waived interest [Paras 6-9].

Section 34 CPC – Scope – Section 34 concerns rate of interest pendente lite and post-decree – Does not override express contractual prohibition or Section 3(3) of Interest Act – Cannot be invoked to nullify agreed contractual stipulation barring interest [Para 10].

Government Contract – Article 12 – Kerala Water Authority is ‘State’ – Clause introduced in context of public project where commencement preceded fund availability – Contractor aware of possible delay and consciously accepted risk – No element of coercion or unconscionability established [Paras 4, 8].

Appellate Interference – High Court reduced interest from 14% to 9% but overlooked binding contractual bar – Impugned judgment set aside – Appeal by Kerala Water Authority allowed – Contractor’s appeal dismissed [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 17823/2023 (Kerala Water Authority) allowed – Impugned judgment dated 23.02.2023 set aside – Contractor not entitled to interest on delayed payment in view of Clause (5) of preliminary agreement. Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 24631/2023 (Contractor) dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.

Motor Accident Compensation – Just Compensation – Proof of Income – Mandatory future prospects for fixed salary employee below 40 years – “Loss of love and affection” not a separate head – Such loss subsumed within consortium – Compensation enhanced.

Motor Vehicles Act – Just Compensation – Governing Principles – Compensation under Sections 166 and 168 is not a bonanza but a fair and reasonable estimate to alleviate financial and emotional hardship of dependants – Determination involves estimation guided by settled legal principles and binding precedents – Award must balance fairness, consistency and equity [Paras 12–14].

Assessment of Income – Documentary Proof – Error by High Court – Salary certificate issued by employer (Ex. P-14) and corroborated by employer’s affidavit clearly established monthly income of deceased at Rs. 10,000/- – Insurer failed to impeach evidence – Courts cannot resort to conjecture when cogent evidence is available – Income fixed at Rs. 10,000/- per month [Paras 16].

Future Prospects – Fixed Salary Employee – Mandatory Addition – Deceased aged 37 years and employed on fixed monthly salary – As per Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, addition of 40% towards future prospects is compulsory – High Court’s failure to grant future prospects held to be manifest error of law – Binding nature of Article 141 reiterated [Paras 17–19].

Computation of Loss of Dependency – Monthly income Rs. 10,000/- – Addition of 40% towards future prospects – Deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses – Multiplier of 15 applicable – Total loss of dependency computed at Rs. 18,90,000/- [Paras 20].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Love and Affection – Not Maintainable as Separate Head – Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi overruled Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh – Compensation confined to loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses – Award of separate compensation for “loss of love and affection” impermissible [Paras 22–24, 29].

Consortium – Expanded Meaning – Spousal, Parental and Filial Consortium – Consortium is a compendious term encompassing spousal, parental and filial consortium – Emotional deprivation of love, care, affection and companionship subsumed within consortium – Principle clarified in Magma General Insurance and harmonised in Satinder Kaur [Paras 26–28].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedents – Constitution Bench decisions bind courts of lesser strength – Tribunals and High Courts must adhere to structured formula and recognised heads to maintain uniformity and certainty in awards [Paras 23, 28].

Final Award – Re-determination by Supreme Court – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,80,000/- – Interest awarded @ 9% p.a. from date of filing of claim petition till realization considering prolonged litigation of 15 years – Insurer directed to pay balance within twelve weeks [Paras 30–32].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court modified – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,80,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. – Insurer directed to deposit balance amount within stipulated period.

Land Reforms – Vesting under WBEA Act – Revenue Officer has no statutory power to review concluded vesting order – Executive directions cannot confer review jurisdiction – Review order passed after four decades held void – Company failed to prove exclusive engagement in farming under Section 6(1)(j) – High Court judgment set aside.

West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 – Vesting of Land – Finality of Determination – Vesting order dated 07.10.1971 passed after full adjudication denying benefit under Section 6(1)(j) attained finality after dismissal of writ petition in 1975, rejection of restoration in 1987 and dismissal of appeal in 2002 – Respondent-company stood divested of land and ceased to have any right, title or interest therein [Paras 9–13].

Power of Review – Quasi-Judicial Authorities – No Inherent Power – Power of review is not inherent and must be expressly conferred by statute – Revenue Officer under WBEA Act is a quasi-judicial authority and cannot exercise review in absence of specific statutory provision – Sections 53, 57, and 57A do not confer substantive power of review [Paras 31–35].

Section 57A – Investment of Civil Court Powers – Limited Scope – Conferment of “all powers of a Civil Court” under Section 57A does not include power of substantive review – Review being a core judicial function requires explicit legislative mandate – Omnibus conferment cannot be read to include review [Paras 34–35, 49].

Section 57B – Statutory Bar on Reopening Concluded Matters – Proviso to Section 57B(3) expressly prohibits Revenue Officer from reopening matters already enquired into or decided – 1971 vesting order fell squarely within statutory bar – Review proceedings directly contravened legislative command [Paras 50–52].

Separation of Powers – Independence of Judiciary – Executive Overreach – Review of concluded quasi-judicial orders by executive authorities violates doctrine of separation of powers forming part of basic structure – Executive authorities cannot sit in judgment over their own decisions – Allowing such review would erode finality and rule of law [Paras 37–39, 56–57].

Government Order – No Jurisdictional Cure – Government Order dated 26.02.2008 directing review could not confer jurisdiction where none existed – Executive instructions cannot override statutory limits – Ministerial approval does not substitute legislative conferment of power [Paras 18, 49, 91].

Scope of Review – Review Not an Appeal in Disguise – Review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record or analogous sufficient reasons – Reappreciation of evidence or policy considerations impermissible – Review order of 2008 failed all statutory tests under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC [Paras 59–63, 74–83].

Section 6(1)(j) – Retention of Land by Company – Exclusive Engagement in Farming – Company must prove exclusive engagement in agricultural farming as on 01.01.1952 – Mere ownership of agricultural land, payment of agricultural tax or inclusion of agriculture in MOA insufficient – Respondent failed to discharge burden despite repeated opportunities – 1971 vesting order legally sound [Paras 64–71, 73].

Belated Documents – No Ground for Review – Documents relied upon in 2008 review either existed earlier or were generated decades later – Failure to produce documents during original proceedings defeats claim of “discovery” – Review cannot be used to cure negligence [Paras 75–76, 71].

Delay – Review After Four Decades – Impermissible – Review initiated after nearly forty years without legally sustainable explanation – Non-distribution of land, continued possession or non-payment of compensation do not invalidate vesting – Economic expediency or employment potential irrelevant for review [Paras 83].

Doctrine of Estoppel – No Estoppel Against Statute – Promissory estoppel cannot validate an action taken without jurisdiction – Withdrawal of cases or alleged settlement cannot legitimise void review order [Paras 87].

Nullity – Order Without Jurisdiction – Order passed without jurisdiction is void ab initio – Can be challenged at any stage even without specific prayer – Tribunal competent to quash review order [Paras 88–89].

Tribunal and High Court – Error Corrected – Tribunal rightly quashed review order for lack of jurisdiction – High Court erred in restoring review by conflating executive direction with statutory power – High Court judgment unsustainable [Paras 92–93].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Calcutta High Court dated 17.05.2012 set aside – Order of Tribunal dated 31.03.2010 restored – Review order dated 07.05.2008 quashed – Vesting order dated 07.10.1971 to continue to operate in accordance with law.

Constitutional Law – Advisory Committee – Transgender Rights – Modification of Earlier Order – Appointment of Members – Miscellaneous Application filed by Amicus Curiae seeking inclusion of a Senior Associate of the Centre for Law and Policy Research as a member of the Advisory Committee constituted by Supreme Court order dated 17.10.2025 – Court noted that the earlier nominated member had ceased to be associated with the Centre – However, in view of her extensive work in the field of transgender rights, Court clarified that she would continue as a member of the Advisory Committee – In addition, Court appointed another Senior Associate of the Centre to ensure effective representation and functioning of the Committee – Held: Continuity of expertise and institutional representation justified appointment of additional member – Application disposed of with directions [Paras 1–5].

Judicial Directions – Continuity in Institutional Committees – Role of Amicus Curiae – Prayer made by learned Amicus Curiae for modification of composition of Advisory Committee – Supreme Court recognised importance of sustained scholarly and advocacy contribution in sensitive constitutional matters relating to transgender rights – Court exercised inherent powers to balance individual expertise with institutional representation – Directions issued in furtherance of effective implementation of earlier judgment [Paras 1, 3–4].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application allowed – Clarification issued regarding continuation of existing member – Additional member appointed to Advisory Committee – Application disposed of.