Contempt of Court – Alleged Wilful Disobedience of Supreme Court Orders – TDR Compliance - Wilful Disobedience – Orders Passed by Supreme Court – Intentional Delay in Compliance – Allegations of wilful disobedience of Supreme Court orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022, and 19.03.2024 – Petitioners claimed non-compliance by respondents regarding issuance of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for land acquired for road widening projects – Contemnor authorities delayed implementation under pretext of financial hardships and other excuses – Held: Non-compliance was deliberate and intentional, indicating wilful disobedience [Paras 1.10-1.13, 10, 13].

Transferable Development Rights (TDR) – Failure to Issue as Per Rules – Orders mandated issuance of TDR under Karnataka Town and Country Planning Rules, 2016, which require market value determination based on guidance values under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – Respondents calculated TDR at significantly lower values, contrary to rules and judicial directions – Notices issued for compliance were found to contain suppressed facts and contradictory positions by the authorities – Held: Issuance of TDR must align with prescribed rules and market value as determined under the Stamp Act [Paras 11-12, 18-22].

Government's Conduct – Deliberate Inaction and Misrepresentation – Respondents failed to implement court orders from 2014 to 2022, delaying with inter-departmental communications and filing modification applications, all dismissed – Subsequent Government Orders calculated TDR on arbitrary values, ignoring binding judicial directions – Held: Respondents' conduct amounted to wilful disregard of court orders [Paras 5.4, 7-9].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Substantial Compliance Required – Execution of court orders must be substantial and reflect bonafide efforts – Theoretical or partial compliance is insufficient – Held: Contempt proceedings maintain the dignity of courts, and respondents' delay tactics were unjustified and contemptuous [Paras 5.3, 18].

Decision: Respondents directed to issue TDR certificates within six weeks based on market value under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – Specific guidance values: ₹2,83,500 per sq. meter (Bellary Road) and ₹2,04,000 per sq. meter (Jayamahal Road) – Non-compliance would require personal appearance of relevant authorities before the Court [Paras 20, 25].

Additional conditions imposed by the Supreme Court's 19.03.2024 order were recalled to align with earlier orders [Paras 20].

Costs of ₹1 lakh each imposed on contemnors for delaying proceedings, except in CP No. 578 of 2022 [Para 25].

Contempt Petitions allowed – Respondents to report compliance by 22.01.2025 or face further action.
 

Criminal Law – Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Discharge Application – Partial Discharge Granted – Appellants accused of subjecting the deceased (wife of appellant no. 1) to physical and mental harassment, including selling her streedhan and torturing her when she demanded its return – Alleged harassment led to the deceased committing suicide by hanging – Sessions Court and High Court dismissed appellants’ plea for discharge under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Supreme Court, on appeal, discharged appellants from Section 306 IPC while upholding charges under Section 498A IPC – Held: No proximate link between alleged harassment and the suicide to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC – Sufficient material exists to prima facie proceed under Section 498A IPC [Paras 2-28].

Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – Prima Facie Case – FIR alleged persistent physical and mental harassment of the deceased by the appellants, including the sale of her streedhan and subsequent torture – Witness statements corroborated allegations of harassment – Court held that evidence established prima facie cruelty under Section 498A IPC, warranting trial – Mere absence of prior complaints during twelve years of marriage does not negate allegations – Specific incidents cited in the FIR and statements meet the threshold for framing charges [Paras 12-15].

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Mens Rea and Proximity – Appellants argued absence of intent to instigate suicide – Court held that for abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear mens rea and a proximate causal link between the accused's actions and the suicide – Alleged harassment, including the sale of ornaments, occurred a year before the suicide and lacked the necessary proximity and intent – No direct or active act by the appellants to instigate or provoke the deceased to commit suicide – Charge under Section 306 IPC not sustained [Paras 16-27].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Appellants discharged from charges under Section 306 IPC – Charge under Section 498A IPC upheld – Trial under Section 498A IPC to proceed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 26-28].
 

Property Law - Lease Cancellation – Default in Payment – Rule 12(3), Chandigarh Lease Hold Rules – Quashing of Resumption Orders – High Court’s Error – Appellants auctioned a booth site to the respondents on a 99-year lease, requiring installment-based payment of the premium – Respondents defaulted on payments, leading to lease cancellation by the Estate Officer – Appeals and revisions by the allottees were dismissed for non-compliance and delay – High Court restored the lease, citing lack of notice to an alleged tenant (M/s. Mohit Medicos) – Held: High Court erred in interfering with statutory orders – Respondents failed to comply with payment terms despite repeated opportunities – Proxy litigation by alleged tenant, unsupported by evidence, dismissed as an abuse of process [Paras 7-11].

Alleged Tenant’s Locus Standi – Proxy Litigation – No Documentary Evidence – M/s. Mohit Medicos claimed tenancy and challenged resumption orders – No evidence of lease agreement or landlord-tenant relationship with the original allottees provided – Held: Proxy litigation aimed at circumventing the original allottees' non-compliance – Alleged tenant lacked locus standi to contest statutory orders – High Court wrongly entertained writ petition based on vague claims [Paras 9-11].

Public Premises Act – Unauthorized Occupants – No Service of Notice to Alleged Tenant – High Court held that lack of notice to the alleged tenant vitiated the resumption process – Held: Where original allottees defaulted, statutory authorities were not obligated to serve notice to third parties lacking proof of legal tenancy – Resumption orders upheld [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Statutory authorities’ decisions canceling the lease for non-compliance reinstated – Alleged tenant’s writ dismissed as abuse of process – Proxy litigation by alleged tenant disallowed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 12].

Land Acquisition – Redetermination of Compensation – Application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Beneficent legislation to aid inarticulate and poor people – Object to remove inequality in compensation payments – Restrictive interpretation rejected – Appeal allowed

Redetermination of Compensation – Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land acquired for Kundli Manesar Palwal Expressway by notification dated 17.11.2004 – Compensation initially fixed at ₹12,50,000/- per acre – Appellants did not file reference under Section 18 but sought redetermination under Section 28-A based on a High Court judgment in a related appeal that enhanced compensation to ₹19,91,300/- per acre – LAC allowed the application, but the High Court set aside the order citing a restrictive interpretation of Section 28-A – Held: Section 28-A aims to provide equitable compensation and cannot be restricted to the first award of the Reference Court; application within three months of a subsequent High Court judgment is valid [Paras 3.4, 3.6, 11-14].

Judicial Precedents – Conflict in Interpretations – High Court relied on Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat (2018), which limited the applicability of Section 28-A to awards of the Reference Court – Supreme Court clarified that Pradeep Kumari v. Union of India (1995), a prior decision by a co-equal bench, governs the issue – Ramsingbhai deemed per incuriam for not considering Pradeep Kumari – Earlier judgments favoring expansive interpretation to benefit marginalized landowners upheld [Paras 19-24].

Beneficent Legislation – Purpose and Interpretation – Section 28-A is intended to redress inequalities in compensation for inarticulate and poor landowners unable to seek reference under Section 18 – Interpretation should extend, not curtail, the benefits – Applications under Section 28-A must consider the realities of such landowners’ circumstances – Limitation starts from the date of the award on which redetermination is sought, even if it is a High Court judgment enhancing compensation [Paras 10-14, 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 25.11.2021 quashed – Order of LAC dated 15.09.2020 upheld, allowing enhanced compensation to the appellants based on the High Court’s award in a related case – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 25-26].

Civil Law - Auction Sale – SARFAESI Act – Validity of Sale Certificate – Rights of Auction-Purchaser – Held: Auction conducted under the SARFAESI Act is valid when statutory requirements are met – Auction-purchaser’s rights cannot be set aside without evidence of fraud, collusion, or grave procedural irregularities – High Court’s order quashing auction reversed [Paras 26, 31-34].

Ownership Claims – Requirement of Registration – Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act – Held: Ownership claims over immovable property require duly registered documents – Unregistered agreements to sell or general power of attorney cannot confer ownership or interest in property – High Court erred in recognizing claims based on unregistered documents [Paras 27-28, 30].

Right of Redemption – Limitation Under SARFAESI Act – Held: Right of redemption under SARFAESI Act ceases after auction sale is completed and sale certificate is issued – Borrowers or claimants cannot redeem assets post auction without statutory compliance – Respondent No.2 failed to exercise opportunities for redemption [Paras 32].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The High Court's order dated 30/05/2016 in W.P.(C) No. 6881/2014 is set aside. The order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 03/09/2014 is restored, and the order dated 30/08/2012 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to hand over possession of the secured premises to the appellant. Respondent No.2’s claim over the secured asset is not legally sustainable as it is based on unregistered documents that fail to comply with the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act.

Property Rights – Section 14(1) and 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act – Judicial Divergence – Referred to Larger Bench – Analysis of Precedents Required - Multiple judgments from different Benches, including two-judge and three-judge Bench decisions, present inconsistent interpretations of Section 14 – This has resulted in judicial conflict between principles of absolute ownership under Section 14(1) and restricted estate under Section 14(2) – A larger Bench to reconcile inconsistencies for clarity and certainty in the law governing Hindu females' property rights [Paras 1–5, 24–25].

Restricted Estate – Testamentary Disposition – Section 14(2) – Applicability Debated – The appeal involved a testamentary disposition creating a life estate in favor of a Hindu female, with subsequent alienation leading to legal challenges – High Court followed Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike favoring Section 14(2), while appellants argued that this contradicted Tulasamma – Held: Further adjudication needed by a larger Bench [Paras 6–14, 20–25].

Judicial Need for Uniform Interpretation – Conflict in Precedents – Impact on Hindu Females’ Rights – Observed that Section 14 impacts property rights of Hindu females, with inconsistencies causing lack of clarity across courts – Referral to larger Bench deemed essential to reconcile principles and ensure certainty in law [Paras 3, 24–25].

Decision – Interim Referral – Matter Adjourned – Directed Registry to place the appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for referral to an appropriate larger Bench – No final adjudication by the two-judge Bench – Outcome dependent on larger Bench decision [Para 25].

Service Law – Permanent Commission – Discrimination – Appellant, a Short Service Commissioned (SSC) officer in the Army Dental Corps, was denied a third chance for permanent commission due to amendments to age relaxation policies introduced in 2013 – Appellant sought parity with other officers granted permanent commission by Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 – Tribunal rejected appellant’s claim on grounds that she was not a party to the original case – Supreme Court held appellant was identically situated to officers who benefited from the 2013 judgment and deserved similar treatment to avoid discrimination – Relief granted under Article 142 of the Constitution – Directions issued for granting appellant permanent commission with consequential benefits [Paras 1–24].

Policy Amendments – Age Relaxation – Amendments to AI 37/78 in 2013 capped age relaxation for SSC officers seeking permanent commission at 35 years and applied only to those with postgraduate qualifications – Appellant, eligible under pre-2013 rules, was deprived of her third chance – Supreme Court observed that denying the appellant relief while granting it to identically situated officers was discriminatory and unsupported by valid justification – Held: Amendments did not justify exclusion of appellant from consideration for permanent commission [Paras 3–19].

Principle of Parity – Similarly Situated Officers – Officers in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 who were also SSC officers denied a third chance due to the 2013 amendments were granted age relaxation and permanent commission by AFT Principal Bench – Supreme Court reiterated that similarly situated individuals should not be denied relief solely because they did not approach the court – Appellant, having actively pursued her rights since 2014, deserved identical relief [Paras 14–19].

Exercise of Discretion – Article 142 of the Constitution – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to provide full relief, noting appellant’s distinguished service, lack of fault, and longstanding efforts for redressal – Directed grant of permanent commission with seniority, promotion, and monetary arrears to align with similarly situated officers – Directions to be implemented within four weeks [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – AFT Regional Bench, Lucknow’s order dated 05.01.2022 set aside – Appellant granted permanent commission with effect from the same date as similarly situated officers, along with all consequential benefits [Paras 24–25].

Criminal Law - Death Penalty – Delay in Execution – Effect on Convicts' Rights – Undue, unexplained delay in the execution of a death sentence violates the rights of convicts under Article 21 of the Constitution – In the present case, the delay spanned nearly four years from filing mercy petitions to issuing execution warrants – Held: The cumulative delays at multiple stages, including inordinate delays by the State Government and the Sessions Court, rendered the execution unconstitutional – Commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment upheld [Paras 29–34, 42(i)].

Mercy Petitions – Prompt Disposal – Executive Responsibility – Delays in forwarding mercy petitions and providing necessary documents to the Governor and President were avoidable and unjustified – Held: The executive must promptly process mercy petitions and avoid administrative laxity – Guidelines issued for establishing dedicated cells and streamlining processes to prevent delays [Paras 30–31, 42(vii)].

Sessions Court – Role in Issuance of Execution Warrants – Compliance with Natural Justice – Sessions Court delayed issuing execution warrants even after receiving communication of mercy petition rejections – Held: Sessions Courts must ensure procedural safeguards, issue notices to convicts, and provide reasonable time for legal remedies before issuing execution warrants – Directions issued to ensure timely and fair proceedings [Paras 32–33, 42(iv)].

Principle of Proportionality – Death Sentence vs. Fixed-Term Imprisonment – Considering delays and the psychological torment caused to convicts, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment for thirty-five years – Held: Such delays dehumanize convicts and violate constitutional protections, warranting commutation [Paras 34–35, 42(i)].

Decision:

Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment commuting the death sentence to thirty-five years of imprisonment upheld – Directions issued for prompt and fair processing of mercy petitions and issuance of execution warrants [Para 43].

Service Law – Deputation vs. Direct Recruitment – Promotion – The respondent, originally appointed on deputation as Manager (Technical), was later repatriated to his parent department before rejoining the appellant through direct recruitment – Respondent sought recognition of deputation service for promotion eligibility – Held: Repatriation constituted a clear break in service; respondent’s direct recruitment constituted a fresh entry into the appellant’s service – Deputation service prior to direct recruitment cannot be counted for promotion under the Recruitment Regulations or the appellant’s Circular dated 22.05.2017 – Appeal allowed, CAT and High Court orders set aside [Paras 23–29].

Circular Interpretation – Deputation Service and Absorption – Scope and Limits – The Circular issued as a one-time measure permitted deputation service to be treated as regular service for promotion, provided administrative formalities like technical resignation or retirement were fulfilled – The respondent, having been repatriated without such formalities and subsequently rejoining as a direct recruit, fell outside the Circular’s scope – No continuity of service could be claimed for promotion [Paras 25–28].

Doctrine of Equality – No Parity Between Ineligible and Eligible Candidates – The respondent claimed discrimination against three other officers who benefited from the Circular – Held: Parity could not be claimed as those officers had continuous service without gaps, unlike the respondent – Differentiation upheld as lawful and non-arbitrary [Paras 24–27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgments of the High Court and CAT set aside – Original Application filed by the respondent dismissed – Respondent to be considered for future promotions under applicable rules and regulations from his re-entry on 26.08.2015 – No recovery of excess benefits paid to the respondent [Paras 29–30].