Licensee Status – Injunction for Old Age Home – The appeal examines whether the respondents, as licensees in an old age home, can seek an injunction to stay despite causing disturbance to other inmates and the administration. The Court held that licensees are expected to maintain discipline and good behavior. If their actions disrupt the peace of other inmates, the administration has the right to terminate the license and ask them to vacate [Paras 1-27].

Legal Right to Stay – Compliance with Conditions – The Court found that the respondents, as licensees, do not have a legal right to stay in the old age home without complying with the terms and conditions of their license. The possession of the respondents was deemed permissive, not legal, and could be revoked by the administration [Paras 12-24].

Mental Trauma – Balance of Interests – The Court acknowledged the mental trauma faced by parents abandoned by their children but emphasized that this cannot justify disturbing other inmates or the administration. The administration's decision to evict was upheld to maintain a peaceful environment for all inmates [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the interim injunction sought by the respondents. The appellants were directed to arrange an alternative old age home for the respondents, and the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority was tasked with overseeing the welfare of inmates in the old age home [Paras 25-29].

Legitimate Expectation – Doctrine – Abuse of Power – The Court discussed the doctrine of legitimate expectation, emphasizing that if a government induces a substantive expectation, departing from it without compelling public interest constitutes abuse of power. The respondents' expectation of merger into the BES was based on government actions and assurances, and its denial was deemed unfair and an abuse of power [Paras 1-38].

Merger of Cadres – Historical Context – The Court reviewed the historical context of the Bihar Education Service and the subordinate education service, noting various government decisions and judicial pronouncements that impacted the status and merger of +2 lecturers into the BES [Paras 4-9, 20-21].

Encadrement and Discrimination – The encadrement of +2 lecturers with nationalized school teachers through the 2009 Rules was found to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The Court held that +2 lecturers were entitled to the benefits of the BES cadre, and the artificial distinction created by the government was unjustified [Paras 14-29].

Previous Judicial Findings – Binding Nature – The Court highlighted that previous judicial findings in favor of the respondents, establishing their entitlement to the BES cadre, could not be ignored. The government's fluctuating stands and subsequent actions contravened these findings, reinforcing the respondents' legitimate expectations [Paras 19, 24, 37].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment that declared +2 lecturers as part of the BES cadre. The State of Bihar was directed to comply with this decision within six months, ensuring that all service benefits of the BES cadre were extended to the +2 lecturers [Paras 37-38].

Application for Sanction for Construction – Vested Rights – The Court held that merely submitting an application for sanction for construction does not create any vested right in favor of the applicant. The statutory provisions do not confer any automatic entitlement to approval merely by submission of the application [Paras 1-3].

Discontinuation of Scheme – No Vested Right – The discontinuation of a scheme by the Noida Authority does not entitle the applicants to claim any right to allotment under the discontinued scheme. The closure of the scheme was within the authority's rights, and applicants had no basis to challenge the termination unless they established discrimination or arbitrariness [Paras 4-5].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – The doctrine of legitimate expectation was invoked by the respondent, claiming entitlement to the allotment of plots. However, the Court clarified that such expectations must align with statutory provisions and cannot override explicit terms allowing scheme closure [Paras 16-18].

Subsequent Scheme – Consideration of Applications – The Court observed that applications submitted under a discontinued scheme could only be considered under the prevailing scheme at the time of consideration. The respondent's applications were appropriately dealt with under the new scheme, as per the authority's discretion [Paras 20-21].

Contempt Proceedings – Misinterpretation of Directions – The High Court's direction to consider the applications "in accordance with law" was interpreted correctly by Noida to mean under the new scheme. The High Court’s contempt proceedings against Noida for considering the applications under the new scheme were deemed unwarranted and erroneous [Paras 20-21].

Disclosure Obligations – Equitable Relief – The Court held that the respondent’s failure to disclose its subsequent allotment of a plot under the new scheme during the pendency of writ proceedings disentitled it to equitable relief. Complete and truthful disclosure is essential for invoking equitable jurisdiction [Para 22].

Decision: Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgments and orders. Noida's actions were validated, and the respondent’s claims under the old scheme were rejected [Paras 23].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Absence of Written Agreement – The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any written contract containing the arbitration agreement, Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall not be applicable, and therefore, an application under this provision shall not be maintainable. The parties themselves had agreed on a procedure for appointment of the arbitrator and had appointed and nominated an arbitrator by mutual consent. Consequently, the application under Section 11(6) of the Act was not maintainable [Paras 6.1-6.3].

Termination of Arbitrator's Mandate – Section 14(1)(a) – The High Court had terminated the mandate of the sole arbitrator on the grounds of undue and unreasonable delay in proceeding with the arbitration. The Supreme Court clarified that if a controversy remains concerning any of the grounds referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 14, a party must apply to the "court" to decide on the termination of the mandate. The dispute regarding the termination of the arbitrator's mandate should not be decided in an application under Section 11(6) of the Act [Paras 6.7-7.3].

Mandate Termination Procedure – Jurisdiction – The Court noted that when there is an undue delay in the arbitration proceedings by the arbitrator, the aggrieved party should approach the court as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. The High Court erred in terminating the arbitrator's mandate under Section 11(6) without referring the matter to the appropriate court as specified in Section 14(2) [Paras 6.4.1-6.4.2].

Decision: Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order. The applications under Section 14(2) filed by the respondents before the concerned court were directed to be revived and adjudicated on their merits. The concerned court was instructed to consider the applications expeditiously within four months. If the court ultimately finds that the mandate of the sole arbitrator is terminated due to undue delay, a fresh arbitrator must be appointed following the same procedure as the initial appointment. If the applications are dismissed, the sole arbitrator must conclude the arbitration proceedings and declare the award within nine months from the decision of the court [Paras 11-13].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – The appeals focus on whether the determination of market value subsequent to the notification can be relevant for land acquired more than two years earlier. The Court held that while appreciation in price can be presumed, market value cannot be assessed by applying suitable deductions based on subsequent notifications. Development activities following earlier notifications influence market value, not the percentage increase [Paras 1-15].

High Court and Reference Court Findings – Consistency – The High Court maintained the compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs per acre awarded by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar. The High Court's reliance on previous determinations, where no appeals were filed, was found appropriate. The consistency in judicial determinations was emphasized [Paras 14-18].

Compensation Assessment – Relevant Judgments – The Reference Court's award, based on Ex. P/13 pertaining to the same notification, was upheld. The Court rejected comparisons with compensation awards for different villages, noting that geographical and temporal differences affect land value [Paras 6-11, 14].

Development Activities – Impact on Market Value – The Court highlighted that subsequent notifications reflect development activities influencing land value. The development due to previous acquisitions justified the compensation awarded without applying deductions from later notifications [Paras 15-16].

Market Value Calculation – Yearly Increase – The Court provided a calculation showing yearly increases from the base value determined in 1981, supporting the Rs. 4 lakhs per acre compensation as reasonable and just [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the High Court's orders. The compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs per acre was upheld, affirming the Reference Court and High Court's consistent and fair assessment [Paras 18-19].

Interest Pendente Lite – Inclusion in Awarded Sum – The appeal addresses whether the "sum" awarded under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, includes interest pendente lite. The Court held that the sum awarded under this provision does include such interest unless there is an agreement to the contrary between the parties [Paras 10-13].

Agreement Between Parties – Binding Nature – The Court emphasized that where there is an agreement between the parties regarding interest, the Arbitral Tribunal must adhere to this agreement, as specified in the phrase "unless otherwise agreed by the parties" in Section 31(7)(a). The Tribunal does not have discretion in such cases and must follow the terms of the agreement [Paras 14-22].

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Case – Interpretation – The Court referred to the majority judgment in Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited v. Governor State of Orissa (2015) 2 SCC 189, which established that the sum awarded may include principal and interest for the pre-award period. This decision was upheld in the current context, reaffirming that post-award interest is calculated on the total sum, including pre-award interest, unless otherwise agreed by the parties [Paras 11-13].

Contractual Provisions – Enforcement – The Court examined the Concession Agreement between DAMEPL and DMRC, specifically Article 29.8, which detailed interest on termination payments. The Tribunal correctly followed the contractual terms, awarding interest as stipulated in the agreement, thus binding the parties to their pre-determined terms [Paras 25-28].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and the Tribunal's award, which adhered to the specific agreement between the parties regarding interest. The ruling emphasized that the Tribunal's discretion is curtailed by any existing agreements between the parties [Paras 36-38].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Money Laundering – Proceedings initiated under PMLA against appellant following seizure of cash and gold by Income Tax Department – Appellant contended no evidence of scheduled offence – High Court dismissed quashing petition – Supreme Court analyzed evidence and procedural lapses, including failure to identify involved bank officials – Proceedings quashed – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-20].

Procedure under Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court’s failure to consider all material evidence – Supreme Court emphasized requirement of strong evidence for continuation of PMLA proceedings – Proceedings quashed due to lack of incriminating material [Paras 14-19].

Evidence – Lack of Identification of Bank Officials – Adjudicating Authority’s observation on absence of identification of bank officials involved in alleged money laundering – Supreme Court found lack of material evidence to support continuation of proceedings under PMLA [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Proceedings under PMLA against appellant quashed – Supreme Court set aside High Court’s order dismissing quashing petition – Emphasized that until allegations are substantiated, appellant is presumed innocent [Para 20].

Land Reforms – Pre-emption Application – Compliance with Section 9 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act – Pre-emptors must deposit entire sale consideration with additional 10% before further enquiry – Non-compliance renders pre-emption application not maintainable [Paras 1-9].

Deposit Requirement – Mandatory Condition – Failure to deposit full sale consideration with additional 10% – Pre-emption application liable to be rejected – High Court erred in allowing deposit of balance consideration at a later stage [Paras 3-9].

Statutory Interpretation – Strict Construction – Right of pre-emption considered a weak right – Provisions enforcing pre-emption must be strictly construed – Compliance with statutory conditions mandatory [Paras 6.1-6.3].

Pre-emption Right – Consideration and Time-frame – Deposit of sale consideration and additional amount is sacrosanct – Inquiry into consideration amount can occur only after initial deposit is made [Paras 24-33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Held – High Court and First Appellate Court orders set aside – Pre-emption application dismissed – Respondents permitted to withdraw deposited amounts – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Determination – Applicability of Section 24 of 2013 Act – Compensation determined as per circle rate applicable to commercial properties – Award passed in violation of interim stay by Supreme Court – Additional penal interest awarded for delayed payment [Paras 1-33].

Compensation and Interest – Circle Rate for Commercial Properties – Deduction of Development Charges – Compensation to be calculated based on circle rate of Rs. 110,000/- per sq. meter for commercial land – High Court’s deduction of 50% towards development charges set aside [Paras 22-33].

Statutory and Penal Interest – Delay in Payment – Compensation to include statutory interest under Section 34 of 1894 Act and additional 3% penal interest for delay – Total compensation to be paid within six weeks [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Held – Compensation to be determined based on circle rate of Rs. 110,000/- per sq. meter – No deduction towards development charges – Statutory interest and additional 3% penal interest awarded – Amount to be paid within six weeks [Paras 33].