Arbitrary Allotment of Government Land – Violation of Rules and Procedures – Allotment Quashed - The State allotted land to MRCHS, which did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, in violation of Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Rules and the Government Resolutions. The process lacked transparency, and favoritism was evident – Held: Allotment arbitrary and invalid; set aside [Paras 10, 12, 19].

Transparency in Land Allotment – Importance of Public Notification – Guidelines Ignored - The Maharashtra Government failed to notify the public about available plots or invite applications through a press note, as required by the GR. The allotment lacked justification for exercising discretionary powers – Held: Allotment in violation of public policy; invalidated [Paras 14, 15, 18].

Eligibility Criteria for Allotment – Non-Compliance by MRCHS – Membership Manipulated - MRCHS altered its membership multiple times to meet eligibility criteria. Despite such changes, it failed to satisfy the core purpose of the allotment (housing for Tata Memorial Hospital employees), making it ineligible – Held: Allotment canceled due to non-compliance [Paras 11, 16].

Quashing of Allotment Order – Procedural Flaws – Appeal Allowed - The High Court failed to address the procedural lapses and arbitrariness in the land allotment to MRCHS. The Supreme Court quashed the allotment and directed authorities to ensure transparency in future allotments – Held: Appeal allowed; MRCHS’s allotment canceled [Paras 18, 19].

Motor Accident Claim - Loss of Earning Capacity Due to Disability – Assessment of Compensation – Enhanced - The appellant, a minor at the time of the accident, was determined to have a 75% mental disability rendering her reliant on others for life – The Supreme Court rejected the notional income approach applied by the lower courts, adopting the minimum wage for skilled workers and increasing the compensation to ₹13,18,000/- [Paras 31-32].

Pain and Suffering – Non-Pecuniary Damages – Enhanced Significantly - The court acknowledged the lifelong physical and mental trauma caused by the accident – Based on precedents (Kajal v. Jagdish Chand), the compensation under this head was increased to ₹15,00,000/- from ₹1,00,000/- awarded by the High Court, reflecting the severity of the appellant's condition [Paras 26-27].

Attendant Charges – Need for Full-Time Skilled Attendant – Increased - Contrary to the High Court's view, the Supreme Court recognized the necessity of a full-time skilled attendant for the appellant, enhancing the award to ₹9,42,000/- based on Delhi's minimum wages for skilled workers at the time of the accident [Paras 48-50].

Loss of Marriage Prospects – Increased for Non-Pecuniary Loss - Observing the impact of the appellant's disability on her ability to form marital and familial bonds, the court increased the compensation under this head from ₹1,00,000/- to ₹5,00,000/- [Paras 45-46].

Future Medical Treatment – Enhanced for Comprehensive Care - Taking into account ongoing medical needs, the court awarded ₹5,00,000/- for future medical treatment, addressing the risk of potential complications such as convulsions [Paras 51-52].

Decision: Appeal allowed; total compensation enhanced to ₹50,87,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition [Paras 55-57].

Arbitration Petition – Appointment of Arbitrator – Non-Arbitrable Disputes – Petition Dismissed – The respondent's petition for appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was challenged by the appellant – Held: Disputes related to non-payment of wages and wrongful termination fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of statutory authorities under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and are therefore non-arbitrable – The petition under Section 11(6) was dismissed with costs [Paras 14-16, 21].

Arbitration Agreement – Invocation of Non-Disclosure Clause – Claim Rejected – The respondent sought damages under a non-disclosure obligation mentioned in the employment agreement, which was neither raised in earlier proceedings nor substantiated by evidence – Held: This claim was an afterthought and was not arbitrable, as it lacked factual basis and was unrelated to the statutory disputes at hand [Paras 9, 16-17].

Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – Exclusive Jurisdiction – The disputes involving non-payment of wages were already under adjudication before the statutory authorities under Section 15(2) of the PW Act, rendering them non-arbitrable – Held: Section 22 bars civil courts, and by extension, arbitral tribunals, from entertaining such matters [Paras 18-19].

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Termination Dispute – Exclusive Jurisdiction – The appellant’s challenge to his termination was pending before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Held: Jurisdiction for such disputes is exclusive to statutory authorities, precluding arbitration [Paras 20-21].

Abuse of Process – Arbitrator Appointment Petition – Found to Be Malicious – The Court found the respondent's arbitration petition to be an abuse of process aimed at coercing the appellant, who had legitimately approached statutory authorities – Costs of ₹5 lakhs imposed on the respondent for misuse of legal remedies [Para 23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order appointing an arbitrator, holding the disputes non-arbitrable and imposing costs on the respondent [Para 23].

Gift Deed – Nature of Gift – Validity of Gift Condition – Absolute Transfer Upheld – The oral gift of agricultural land in 1953 was challenged by the plaintiffs on the grounds that it was conditional upon the defendants rendering perpetual services to the donor and his heirs – Held: The gift was an absolute transfer of ownership, and the condition of rendering perpetual services violates Article 23 of the Constitution, as it amounts to forced labor – The condition is invalid, but the gift itself remains valid [Paras 16-17].

Limitation – Resumption of Land – Barred by Delay – Plaintiffs sought resumption of land gifted in 1953, alleging breach of conditions of service in 1998 – Held: The suit was filed after an inordinate delay of 45 years, during which the defendants enjoyed peaceful possession – Plaintiffs failed to provide any specific evidence of non-performance of services or demands for such services – Suit barred by limitation [Paras 6, 12-13].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Applicability in Erstwhile Punjab – Principles of Equity Applied – While TPA was not applicable in Punjab in 1953, principles of equity, justice, and good conscience were applied – Held: Sections 126 and 127 of TPA were considered, but the alleged conditional clause for perpetual service is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced [Paras 8, 14-15].

Burden of Proof – Failure to Establish Breach of Gift Condition – Plaintiffs Failed to Discharge Burden – The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of the specific nature of services agreed upon, any demand for services, or refusal of services by the defendants – Consequently, the breach of conditions was not established [Paras 10-11].

Historical Context – Land Transfers and Reforms in Post-Independence India – Impact on Interpretation of Gift – The Court considered the historical context of land reforms post-Independence, where gifts of land were often made by large landowners to comply with land ceiling laws – Held: The 1953 gift deed must be interpreted in light of this context as an absolute transfer of property, not contingent upon perpetual service [Paras 5, 15].

Constitutional Perspective – Perpetual Service as Forced Labour – Void Under Article 23 – The clause requiring the donees to render services indefinitely was held unconstitutional under Article 23 of the Constitution, which prohibits forced labour – The gift deed is valid without such a condition [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ suit, affirming that the gift deed was an absolute transfer, the suit was barred by limitation, and the condition of perpetual service was unconstitutional [Para 18].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance Pendente Lite – Section 24 HMA – Independence from Divorce Petition – Appellant argued that withdrawal of the divorce petition rendered Family Court functus officio to decide maintenance – Held: Section 24 proceedings are independent and survive withdrawal of the main case – Statutory provisions aim to ensure financial security of the dependent spouse despite procedural developments – High Court rightly upheld the Family Court’s jurisdiction [Paras 10-11].

Custody and Maintenance of Children – Section 26 HMA – Paramount Interest – High Court held that Section 26 proceedings addressing children's welfare are of paramount importance – These proceedings persist irrespective of withdrawal of the divorce petition, ensuring ongoing support for dependent children – Emphasized protection of children's rights to maintenance and education [Paras 11-12].

Maintenance – Misrepresentation by Spouse – Appellant’s Concealment of Wealth – Evidence revealed the appellant’s deliberate suppression of financial records, including undeclared investments and properties – Appellant failed to discharge moral and legal obligations towards wife and son – Held: Concealment tactics warrant enhanced maintenance to align with respondent’s needs and social status [Paras 13-15].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Article 142 – Decree of Divorce Granted – Marriage subsisted nominally for over two decades with no cohabitation since 2004 – Serious allegations by both parties and failed reconciliation attempts established irretrievable breakdown – Exercising Article 142 powers, the Court dissolved the marriage and awarded a decree of divorce [Paras 27-28].

Permanent Alimony – Fair and Equitable Settlement – Quantum Determination – Considered the appellant’s substantial income (Rs. 10-12 lakhs per month) and assets, including investments exceeding Rs. 5 crores – Granted one-time settlement of Rs. 5 crores to the wife and Rs. 1 crore for the son’s education and financial security – Objective to ensure reasonable standard of living and protection of financial interests of dependent spouse and child [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Appeals disposed of. Marriage dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution. Appellant directed to pay Rs. 5 crores to the respondent and Rs. 1 crore to the son as a one-time settlement within four months.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – FIR and chargesheet challenged as vague, retaliatory, and without specific evidence – FIR quashed.

Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations of Dowry Harassment – FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 was registered against the appellants under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – High Court refused to quash the FIR but directed that no arrest be made until filing of the chargesheet – Allegations in the FIR deemed vague and lacking specific details regarding the time, place, and manner of alleged harassment – Held: FIR was filed as a retaliatory measure in response to appellant No.1's legal notice seeking divorce by mutual consent – Allegations found to be unsupported by concrete evidence [Paras 18, 20-22, 32].

Family Members’ Involvement – Abuse of Process – Appellants Nos.2 to 6, who lived in different cities, had no connection to the matrimonial disputes – Allegations against them were generalized and without specificity – Courts cautioned against implicating family members without evidence, as it constitutes abuse of legal process – Criminal proceedings against family members found to be an abuse of process and were quashed [Paras 24-26, 32].

Judicial Precedents – Misuse of Section 498A IPC – Reiterated the cautionary approach from State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and subsequent cases, such as G.V. Rao and Preeti Gupta, which emphasize the need to prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC – Observed that matrimonial disputes often result in sweeping allegations against the husband’s family, necessitating careful judicial scrutiny [Paras 11, 30-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order dated 16.02.2022 refusing to quash the FIR set aside – FIR No.82 of 2022, chargesheet dated 03.06.2022, and pending trial quashed – Case held to be a misuse of criminal provisions to settle personal scores and an abuse of judicial process [Paras 32-33].

Service Law - Temporary Employment – Principles of Engagement and Termination – Public Employment Rules – Respondent engaged as a Computer Technician for a fixed term of one year or until regular selection – Termination before the term's expiry was non-stigmatic – Held: Temporary engagement cannot confer rights akin to regular employment – In absence of regular recruitment, continuation or reinstatement is unsustainable – Compensation for unfulfilled term deemed sufficient [Paras 2-6, 14, 17].

Parity in Employment Decisions – No Claim to Negative Equality – Respondent relied on Tribunal orders reinstating similarly terminated individuals – Held: Article 14 does not recognize "negative equality" – Erroneous or administrative reinstatements do not establish legal precedent – Employment decisions require examination on individual merits, as laid down in State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati and State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma [Paras 18-20].

Natural Justice – Procedural Fairness in Termination – Limited Applicability – High Court relied on lack of opportunity to be heard prior to disengagement – Held: In cases of temporary employment, procedural fairness requirements are limited when termination is non-stigmatic – No contravention of principles of natural justice established in this case [Paras 8, 15].

Compensation as Equitable Remedy – Rs. 5 Lakhs Awarded – Prolonged litigation and unequal treatment led to respondent's expectation of similar relief – Held: Equitable compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs awarded as full and final settlement – No grounds for reinstatement or continuation due to expiration of term and lack of regular recruitment [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed. High Court's order for reinstatement and reengagement set aside. Respondent awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs as final settlement, payable within three months. Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302 IPC – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Reversed – Prosecution alleged the appellants murdered the deceased, Hamida Parween, to usurp property – Trial Court and High Court convicted based on circumstantial evidence, including motive and last seen theory – Supreme Court held: Chain of incriminating circumstances not established; motive not proved beyond doubt; no credible evidence of the accused being last seen with the deceased – Accused acquitted by granting benefit of doubt [Paras 5-37].

Motive – Property Dispute – Evidence Insufficient – Prosecution claimed ongoing disputes over property motivated the crime – No direct evidence corroborated motive; alleged complaint by the deceased was not produced in court – Supreme Court observed mere familial disputes do not substantiate motive for murder – Trial Court erred in finding motive established [Paras 28-30].

Last Seen Theory – Section 106 of Evidence Act – Invocation Invalid – Prosecution relied on "last seen together" theory to shift burden under Section 106 – Evidence failed to establish exclusive presence of accused with deceased on the fateful day – No witnesses or credible evidence corroborated proximity of accused to the crime – Court ruled shifting the burden was improper without establishing foundational facts [Paras 31-37].

Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution’s Case Found Flawed – Lack of credible evidence and unexplained gaps in the prosecution's narrative weakened the case – Appellants’ convictions reversed, and Abdul Rahman Khan (non-appealing accused) also acquitted under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 38-40].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Accused Acquitted – Supreme Court acquitted appellants Nusrat Parween, Ahmad Khan, and Abdul Rahman Khan – Bail bonds discharged; custody release ordered if no other cases pending – Appeals allowed with pending applications disposed [Paras 40-42].

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.