Land Acquisition – Public Interest vs. Private Interest – The case involves the acquisition of appellants' property for constructing a road – The Supreme Court emphasized that public interest, particularly when urgent and pressing, must take precedence over private interests to the necessary extent – The Court underscored that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, individual rights are paramount and should not be arbitrarily infringed upon; any curtailment of such rights must be scrutinized meticulously [Paras 1-16, 20-42].

Interplay Between MRTP Act and MMC Act – The MRTP Act and MMC Act operate in distinct but sometimes overlapping fields – The powers under the MMC Act are not subsumed by the MRTP Act – The Municipal Corporation can act under the MMC Act to acquire land for public purposes such as road construction without amending the Development Plan under the MRTP Act [Paras 24-43].

Procedural Compliance – Section 91 of MMC Act – Despite the application for acquisition being forwarded by the Office of the Chief Engineer instead of the Commissioner, the Supreme Court held that this was a procedural defect and not a substantive violation – Emphasis on procedural laws being the handmaid of justice, not its mistress, and minor procedural lapses should not defeat the substantive rights or objectives of the legislation [Paras 44-71].

Adequate Safeguards and Hearing of Objections – Appellants were provided sufficient opportunity to raise objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act – The Supreme Court noted that Appellants focused on halting the acquisition process due to pending litigation rather than substantiating their claims regarding the lack of public purpose [Paras 50-57].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The acquisition process under the MMC Act upheld – Public interest in constructing the link road recognized as paramount – Adequate procedural safeguards and opportunity for objections were provided.

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – High Court reversed the findings of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge Satna and accepted the plea of juvenility for the first respondent based on fabricated documents – Supreme Court emphasized the procedure under Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for age determination, allowing medical examination only when no valid documentary proof is available – High Court's reliance on a forged birth certificate and school records was erroneous – Medical Board's assessment confirmed non-juvenility [Paras 1-7, 17-29].

Credibility of Documents – Court scrutinized the credibility of the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation and the date of birth recorded in the school register – Inquiry found both documents to be fabricated – First respondent's mother's statements and the absence of credible underlying documentation for school admission highlighted – Supreme Court found High Court's acceptance of these documents to be a significant error [Paras 25-28].

Role of Medical Opinion – Medical Board opined the first respondent's age to be between 17 to 21 years – The assessment was necessary due to the lack of reliable documentary evidence – The approximate age was calculated as 19 years, confirming non-juvenility on the date of the incident [Paras 7, 29].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Findings of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the plea of juvenility sustained – Case remanded for trial – Emphasized the importance of adhering to prescribed legal procedures for age determination and the scrutiny of documentary evidence.

Murder – Quantum of Punishment – Conviction under Section 302 IPC mandates either death or imprisonment for life along with a fine – Minimum sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC is imprisonment for life – High Court's reduction of sentence to period already undergone (approximately seven years and ten months) was held impermissible and unsustainable by the Supreme Court – Sentence less than life imprisonment for murder contrary to Section 302 IPC [Paras 1-6].

Right to Private Defence – High Court maintained conviction but gave benefit of right to private defence to respondent while reducing sentence – Supreme Court reiterated that once convicted under Section 302 IPC, the minimum sentence cannot be less than life imprisonment regardless of right to private defence considerations [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order reducing the sentence to the period already undergone set aside – Original sentence of life imprisonment restored – Respondent granted eight weeks to surrender before the concerned Court/Jail Authority to undergo life imprisonment.

Land Acquisition – Procedural Compliance – The acquisition of land for constructing grade separators and other structures was challenged on the grounds of non-compliance with procedural requirements under Rule 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 – Supreme Court held that non-filing of a statement by the Highways Department in response to landowner objections does not vitiate the acquisition process – Rule 5(2) is procedural and not mandatory – Purpose is to provide Highways Department an opportunity to respond to objections, not a compulsory step [Paras 5.1-6].

Subordinate Legislation – Consistency with Parent Act – High Court's view that Rule 5(2) is inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, was unnecessary – Supreme Court held Rule 5 is not inconsistent with the parent Act – Procedural rules are meant to ensure fair hearing and response but are not grounds to invalidate the acquisition if substantially complied with [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Substantial compliance with procedural requirements found – Acquisition upheld.

Arbitration – Post-Award Interest – Arbitrator has discretion to grant post-award interest on part of the sum – Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not fetter arbitrator’s discretion – If arbitrator does not grant post-award interest, award-holder is entitled to interest at eighteen percent per annum – Arbitrator’s discretion must be exercised reasonably and in good faith [Paras 19-22].

Interpretation of “Sum” and “Unless the Award Otherwise Directs” – Phrase “sum” includes principal and pre-award interest – Phrase “unless the award otherwise directs” qualifies only the rate of post-award interest, not the arbitrator’s discretion on granting post-award interest on part of the sum – Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa overruled SL Arora to the extent it restricted post-award interest on principal and pre-award interest [Paras 14-22].

Purpose of Post-Award Interest – Ensure award-debtor does not delay payment – Arbitrator must consider financial standing of award-debtor and circumstances of parties – Discretionary power to grant post-award interest should be exercised reasonably, taking cognizance of relevant circumstances [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Delhi High Court’s judgment upheld – Arbitrator’s award of post-award interest on principal amount does not suffer from error [Paras 23-24].

Amendment of Pleadings – Legal Principles – High Court permitted plaintiffs to amend plaint seeking enhancement of damages in a suit for specific performance – Supreme Court reiterated principles under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC: amendments should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided they do not cause injustice, withdraw admissions, or introduce time-barred claims – Emphasized liberal approach before trial commencement, ensuring opposite party can meet amended case [Paras 19-30].

Bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – Supreme Court clarified Order 2 Rule 2 CPC applies to subsequent suits, not amendments within the same suit – Rejected appellant’s contention that amendment should be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 – Cited past judgments reinforcing that bar is only on subsequent suits based on same cause of action [Paras 43-50].

Doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata – Doctrine inapplicable as there was no formal adjudication between parties – Amendment allowed to enhance damages did not alter the nature of the suit for specific performance [Para 52].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Proviso to Section 21(5) and Section 22(2) of Specific Relief Act discussed – Court’s discretion to award compensation in lieu of or in addition to specific performance highlighted – Amendment to enhance damages aligned with reliefs permissible under the Act [Para 54].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision to allow amendment upheld – Emphasized discretion of courts to permit amendments that facilitate effective adjudication and justice.

Land Allotment – Disabled Ex-Servicemen – Allotment Cancelled Due to Non-Compliance – Appeal concerns land allotment to a disabled ex-serviceman which was deemed canceled due to non-possession within six months as per Rule 7(4) – Supreme Court emphasizes that inter-departmental communication cannot be treated as a letter of allotment, and claims based on such communication after 30 years are invalid [Paras 1-18].

Inter-Departmental Communication – Legal Status – Inter-departmental letters do not constitute enforceable orders – Supreme Court reiterates the principle that official actions and decisions must be formally expressed and communicated as required by law – Previous judgments cited to affirm this principle [Paras 14-15].

Alternative Land Allotment – High Court Overreach – Criticism of the High Court’s intervention in directing the allotment of land close to a National Highway – Supreme Court finds the High Court’s actions unwarranted and the writ petition to be without merit [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – No order as to costs [Paras 19].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal against conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC – Appellants convicted for the murder of Amar Tanti based on the testimonies of the deceased's parents, alleged eyewitnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) – Supreme Court finds inconsistencies and improbabilities in their testimonies, leading to reasonable doubt about the appellants' guilt – Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 1-22].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility – PW-2 and PW-3 claimed to have witnessed the assault but their conduct post-incident was deemed unnatural and unreasonable – Supreme Court highlights the importance of credible and consistent witness testimonies in criminal cases – Absence of independent witness support weakens prosecution case [Paras 15-18].

Reasonable Doubt – Benefit to Accused – Emphasizes the principle that any reasonable doubt arising in a criminal case must be resolved in favor of the accused – In this case, the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt warrants acquittal of the appellants [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Ordered immediate release unless held in other cases [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Recovery and Presumption – Appellant convicted for possessing 47.370 Kgs. of ganja – Conviction based on the testimony of the investigating officer (PW-7) and lack of corroboration by independent witnesses who turned hostile – Supreme Court highlights procedural lapses and inconsistencies, particularly regarding the involvement and statements of independent witnesses [Paras 1-34].

Independent Witnesses – Hostile Testimony – Independent witnesses CW-1 and CW-2 denied witnessing the search and seizure, contradicting the investigating officer's testimony – Their explanation for signing documents under different circumstances casts doubt on the prosecution’s case – Supreme Court underscores the necessity of reliable witness testimony in NDPS cases [Paras 19-32].

Burden of Proof – Section 54 NDPS Act – Presumption from possession requires clear proof of recovery from the accused – Supreme Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish a credible recovery, thus the presumption under Section 54 cannot apply – Appellant granted benefit of doubt [Paras 33-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith unless in custody for another case [Para 34].