Administrative Law – Nature of Control – Deep and Pervasive Control Not Established – Court held that ICSSR’s control over CRRID is limited to funding and regulatory oversight under Grant-in-Aid Rules – Presence of nominees on CRRID's Governing Body does not amount to deep and pervasive control – Held: CRRID is an autonomous private society, not a ‘State’ under Article 12; High Court erred in holding otherwise [Paras 13–17].

Grant-in-Aid – Withholding of Grants for Rule Violations – ICSSR Action Justified – Following audit findings of irregular appointments, fake degrees, and misuse of funds, ICSSR withheld grants as per Rule 6 of Grant-in-Aid Rules – Court held ICSSR was justified in its decision to suspend disbursement from April 2021 to March 2023 – Held: Grant-in-aid is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a right; institutions must comply with prescribed conditions [Paras 18–22].

Employment Law – No Master-Servant Relationship Between ICSSR and CRRID Employees – Court ruled that respondents were employees of CRRID, not ICSSR – There was no privity of contract between them and ICSSR – Held: Employees cannot claim salaries directly from ICSSR; responsibility lies with CRRID [Paras 24–26].

Judicial Review – Compassionate View vs. Legal Liability – High Court Orders Set Aside – Court observed that although the High Court took a compassionate view, legal responsibility for paying salaries lies with CRRID – Held: Orders of Single Judge and Division Bench directing ICSSR to release funds are unsustainable in law [Paras 13, 26–28].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court Orders Set Aside – Supreme Court directed CRRID to pay salaries from its own resources for April 2021 to March 2023 – ICSSR permitted to withhold future grants if compliance is not shown – Amount deposited by ICSSR in court to be returned – Held: ICSSR not liable to fund CRRID salaries under law [Paras 28–30].

Taxation Law - Corporate Insolvency – Resolution Plan and Tax Demands – Binding Effect under Section 31 of IB Code – Tax Demands Set Aside - The Supreme Court held that once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), all claims not part of the plan stand extinguished – Income tax demands for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, which were not submitted prior to approval and were not part of the resolution plan, were thus invalid – Held: Demands raised by the Income Tax Department post-approval are extinguished and unenforceable under Section 31(1) of the IB Code as interpreted in Ghanashyam Mishra [Paras 5-9].

Binding Nature of Resolution Plan – Extinguishment of Undisclosed Claims – Fresh Start Doctrine – Tax Claims Invalid - Court reinforced that successful resolution applicants are entitled to a “fresh slate” – The inclusion of belated or undisclosed claims would undermine certainty and business revival under the IB Code – Held: All statutory dues not claimed before CIRP and not part of the approved plan are extinguished [Paras 7-13].

Failure of NCLT and NCLAT – Ignorance of Binding Precedent – Orders Set Aside - The NCLAT erroneously refused to consider binding precedent from the Supreme Court merely because it was not cited before the NCLT – Supreme Court rebuked this approach as perverse and unjustified – Held: Orders of both NCLT and NCLAT set aside; costs imposed by NCLT also quashed [Paras 9-10, 14].
 

Land Acquisition – Sovereign Power of Eminent Domain – Private Settlement Impermissible – The appellant, a statutory board, challenged an arbitral award enforcing a private agreement that returned part of the acquired land to the original owner – The Supreme Court held that once land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it vests absolutely in the Government and cannot be returned through a private settlement – Held: A statutory beneficiary of land acquisition cannot override the sovereign power of eminent domain by entering into a private contract to reverse the acquisition process [Paras 16-18].

Arbitral Award Against Public Policy – Contravention of Fundamental Principles of Law – The Court found that the arbitral award, which upheld the private settlement, was in clear violation of statutory provisions governing public acquisitions – Under Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, an arbitral award that contradicts the fundamental policy of Indian law can be set aside – Held: The award, which sought to nullify a lawful public acquisition through an illegal private agreement, was contrary to public policy and had to be set aside [Paras 15-17].

Land Vested in Government – No Right to Reverse Acquisition – The land was acquired in 1963 and possession was taken in 1986 – The Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, as the beneficiary, attempted to return part of the land to the original owner through an agreement in 1988 – The Court held that once possession is taken, the land vests in the Government absolutely under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Held: Even the Government itself could not withdraw from the acquisition after possession was taken, making the Board’s agreement legally untenable [Paras 13-14].

Fraudulent Transaction – Lack of Authority in Chairman’s Actions – The agreement was executed one day before the Chairman’s tenure ended, without proper approval from higher authorities – The Court noted that the preparation of the agreement, including the purchase of stamp papers, took place before the Board even discussed the matter – Held: The transaction was conducted in undue haste, raising serious doubts about its legality and propriety [Paras 17-18].

Judicial Oversight in Arbitration – Failure to Apply Public Policy Test – The Court found that neither the Delhi High Court’s single judge (under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act) nor the Division Bench (under Section 37) properly examined whether the arbitral award violated public policy – Held: Courts must scrutinize arbitral awards to ensure they do not contravene statutory provisions or the fundamental legal framework of the country [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in FAO (OS) No. 436 of 2013, the judgment of the Single Judge in OMP No. 561 of 2007, and the arbitral award dated 10.07.2007 were set aside. Pending applications were disposed of, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement of Award – The claimants, legal heirs of the deceased, sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and partially increased by the High Court – The Supreme Court found that the High Court underestimated the deceased’s income, failed to apply an appropriate multiplier, and did not adequately compensate for future prospects – Held: Compensation revised based on Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi principles, increasing the award from Rs.5,96,761/- to Rs.13,82,500/- [Paras 10-15].

Calculation of Monthly Income – Inclusion of Pension and Notional Wages – The High Court determined the deceased’s monthly income as Rs.5,819/-, excluding certain pension components – The Supreme Court found that the pension and homemaker services should be considered together, revising the monthly income to Rs.7,000/- – Held: When assessing loss of dependency for a deceased homemaker receiving pension, the combined value of pension and notional wages should be used [Paras 11-12].

Future Prospects – Application of Pranay Sethi Standard – The Court held that loss of future prospects should be granted at 25%, considering the deceased’s age of 45 years – Held: Future prospects of Rs.1,750/- per month added, following the standard laid down in Pranay Sethi [Paras 14].

Multiplier and Deduction for Personal Expenses – Correction of Errors – The High Court applied a multiplier of 9 and deducted 1/5^th of the income for personal expenses – The Supreme Court corrected the multiplier to 14 and the personal expenses deduction to 1/4^th, per Sarla Verma – Held: The correct application of the multiplier and deductions resulted in a higher loss of dependency calculation [Paras 15].

Loss of Love and Affection – Application of Magma General Insurance Standard – The Court increased compensation for loss of love and affection to Rs.2,40,000/-, applying Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram – Held: Compensation should be granted per claimant, considering familial relationships [Paras 15].

Just Compensation – Beneficial and Welfare Legislation – The Court emphasized that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a welfare legislation and that courts must award ‘just compensation’ – Held: Courts must ensure that compensation adequately reflects the loss suffered by claimants while adhering to settled legal principles [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Compensation increased to Rs.13,82,500/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim petition.

Recording of Advocate Appearances – Restriction to Arguing and Assisting Counsel – The applicants sought modification of para 42 of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 20.09.2024, which directed that only the names of arguing counsel and one assisting Advocate-on-Record (AOR) be recorded in the court proceedings – The Court clarified that the appearance slip should reflect only those advocates who are physically present and actively participating in the case – Held: The practice of marking multiple advocates in proceedings without verification undermines judicial discipline; Court Masters must ensure compliance with the amended rules [Paras 20-22].

Advocate-on-Record’s Role – Responsibility in Filing Vakalatnama and Representation – The Court reiterated that an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) is responsible for certifying that the Vakalatnama was executed in their presence or properly verified – Held: An AOR must remain accountable for filings, and Senior Advocates cannot appear in the Supreme Court without an AOR [Paras 14-16].

Judicial Oversight on Legal Ethics – Curbing Abuse of Process – The Court observed that the previous system allowed misuse, with advocates being listed in proceedings despite not appearing in court – The new system ensures transparency and accountability – Held: AORs must inform the Court Master of any changes in representation via a fresh appearance slip, preventing fraudulent claims of participation [Paras 24-26].

Impact on Bar Elections and Professional Growth – No Adverse Effect on Rights – The applicants argued that restricting recorded appearances would negatively impact junior advocates’ career progression, chamber allotments, and SCBA voting rights – The Court rejected this claim, stating that statutory rules must take precedence over unwritten practices – Held: The allocation of chambers and voting rights remain subject to established SCBA rules, and professional advancement should not depend on inflated appearance records [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Miscellaneous Applications partially allowed. The directions in para 42 of the judgment dated 20.09.2024 were modified to clarify that:

1. Only advocates physically present and arguing, along with one assisting AOR, shall be recorded.

2. AORs must verify and endorse Vakalatnamas properly.

3.Senior Advocates must always appear with an AOR in Supreme Court proceedings.

4. Court Masters shall strictly implement these directions.

Criminal Law – Challenge Summoning under Section 319 CrPC – Duty to Consider Entire Evidence – Supplementary Report Ignored – Trial Court erred in not considering supplementary investigation report which exonerated the appellant and her father-in-law – Material collected post-application under Section 319 CrPC cannot be overlooked – Trial Court and High Court failed to apply settled principles of Section 319 – Orders liable to be set aside [Paras 15-22].

Distinction between Accused – Husband and Wife Treated Differently – Court found that unlike the appellant’s husband (absconding), there was a clear finding in the supplementary report absolving the appellant and her father-in-law – The absence of such findings regarding the husband distinguishes the appellant's case – Objection on maintainability rejected [Para 14].

Scope of Section 319 CrPC – Requirement of Stronger Evidence than Prima Facie Case – Reaffirmation of Hardeep Singh and Juhru Principles – The power under Section 319 is extraordinary and must not be invoked casually – The Court reiterated that evidence must disclose more than a mere probability to summon additional accused – Mere reliance on initial deposition without considering fresh material violates due process [Paras 17-19].

Procedural Safeguard – Supplementary Report Must Be Evaluated – Supplementary report under Section 173(8) CrPC is part of the record and must be considered before summoning – Trial Court’s omission to evaluate supplementary report held to be impermissible – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Summoning Order Set Aside – Matter Remanded – Appeal Partly Allowed – The Trial Court and High Court orders were quashed – Trial Court directed to decide the Section 319 CrPC application afresh considering all materials on record – Trial to be expedited within two months [Paras 22-25].

Criminal Law – Copyright Infringement – Expert Report – Appellant alleged that respondents copied the design of its bookbinding machine, leading to registration of FIR under Copyright Act, IPC, and IT Act – High Court initially ordered expert opinion by FSL with involvement of an engineer – FSL and IO submitted a report dated 21.03.2019 – Respondents dissatisfied and sought further directions [Paras 3-7].

Procedural Law – Maintainability – Application in Disposed Petition – Second application filed in disposed Special Criminal Application held improper – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the second application post disposal of the main petition and ordering additional expert opinion [Paras 8-14].

Investigation – Validity of Multiple Expert Opinions – Supreme Court held that once the High Court accepted the initial expert report, it was improper to direct IO to obtain a fresh expert opinion – The direction would prejudice the investigation and parties – Investigation should proceed on existing report subject to objections by the accused before the IO [Paras 13-16].

Investigation – Discretion of Investigating Officer – Supreme Court granted liberty to respondents to raise objections before IO regarding expert report – IO to exercise discretion whether further expert opinion is required under applicable laws without mandatory direction from High Court [Para 16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s direction for additional expert opinion quashed – Liberty given to respondents to raise objections before IO – IO permitted to proceed as per law without compulsion to seek second opinion [Paras 16-17].

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement of Award – Future Prospects Considered – The appellant suffered quadriplegia (100% disability) due to a motor accident and sought enhancement of the compensation awarded by the High Court – The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in not considering future prospects while calculating loss of income – Held: Future prospects should be added at 40%, increasing the loss of income calculation – Compensation enhanced from ₹15,25,600/- to ₹36,84,000/- [Paras 10-12].

Income Assessment – Minimum Wages as Basis for Calculation – Proper Multiplier Applied – The High Court assessed the income at ₹5,600/- per month, which was below even the minimum wage for an unskilled worker (₹6,447.75/- per month in 2014) – The Supreme Court corrected this and set income at ₹7,500/- per month, applying multiplier of 18 – Held: Revised loss of income calculation: ₹22,68,000/- [Paras 9-10].

Pain and Suffering – Compensation for Special Diet, Attendant Charges, and Future Medical Expenses – The appellant, a state-level volleyball player, required lifelong assistance and continuous medical care – The Supreme Court enhanced compensation for pain and suffering from ₹15,000/- to ₹1,00,000/-, special diet from ₹25,000/- to ₹1,00,000/-, and awarded ₹5,00,000/- for attendant expenses and ₹2,00,000/- for future medical expenses – Held: Compensation for permanent disability must reflect actual suffering and lifelong dependency [Paras 10-12].

Physiotherapy and Loss of Marriage Prospects – Judicial Recognition of Life Altering Impact – The appellant required continuous physiotherapy, but lacked documentary proof – The Court took judicial notice of the need for physiotherapy and granted ₹50,000/- in lump sum – Additionally, ₹2,00,000/- awarded for loss of marriage prospects due to permanent disability – Held: Disability compensation must account for social and emotional impact on life [Paras 11-12].

Digital Payment System for Compensation – Direct Bank Transfers Ordered – The Supreme Court issued landmark directions for reforming compensation disbursement – Held: Motor accident compensation must be directly transferred to claimants' bank accounts instead of being deposited with tribunals, avoiding unnecessary delays and procedural hassles – Directed all tribunals to collect bank details at the time of filing claims and mandate direct transfers – Held: The new system ensures faster and more efficient disbursal of compensation [Paras 17-20].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Compensation enhanced to ₹36,84,000/- with interest at the same rate as awarded by the High Court – Insurance company directed to transfer the enhanced amount directly to the appellant’s bank account within six weeks – Directions issued for nationwide implementation of direct bank transfer of accident compensation [Paras 12-13, 17-21].

Education Law – Eligibility Criteria for Admission – Subsequent Fulfillment of Requirements – Relief Granted – The appellant secured admission to a B.A.M.S. course despite not meeting the eligibility requirement of passing English in the 10+2 examination – His college was later de-recognized, and students were transferred, but he was denied transfer on eligibility grounds – The appellant, acting on a provisional admission letter, reappeared for the 12th class examination, passed English, and completed almost the entire B.A.M.S. course – Held: Given the peculiar facts, including the appellant's substantial completion of the course and compliance with eligibility criteria during his studies, he should be allowed to complete the course and internship, and be issued his degree [Paras 7-9].

Doctrine of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit – Court Should Not Prejudice a Party Due to Its Own Actions – The appellant pursued the course under interim orders for nearly six years and completed part of his mandatory internship – The High Court's decision to deny relief disregarded the principle that a court’s action should not cause undue hardship to a litigant (actus curiae neminem gravabit) – Held: Since the appellant had substantially complied with the eligibility requirements and invested significant time and effort, denying him relief would be unjust [Para 8].

Judicial Review – Power to Intervene in Academic Matters – Exceptional Circumstances Justifying Relief – Courts generally do not interfere in academic matters unless there is manifest injustice – The appellant’s admission was initially irregular, but subsequent compliance with eligibility norms and completion of studies justified intervention – Held: Exceptional circumstances warranted setting aside the High Court’s order, ensuring that the appellant is not unfairly deprived of his degree [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s orders dated 18.06.2014 (W.P. No. 10267 of 2012) and 01.08.2014 (Review Petition No. 236 of 2014) – The appellant shall be allowed to complete his course and internship at Shaskiya Swasashi Dhanwantari Ayurvedic Medical College, Ujjain – The concerned authorities shall issue the appellant his B.A.M.S. degree upon completion – No order as to costs [Para 9].