Motor Accident Claims – Contributory Negligence – The Supreme Court found that the lower courts incorrectly applied the principle of contributory negligence, leading to a reduced compensation award – The claimant was engaged in a regular overtaking maneuver when the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the other vehicle – The finding of contributory negligence was reversed, and the compensation was accordingly revised [Paras 10-13].

Multiplier Method – Misapplication – The Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 9 – Based on the age of the deceased and the principles in Sarla Verma, the correct multiplier should have been 15 – This correction significantly increased the compensation awarded [Paras 14-16].

Future Prospects – Inclusion in Compensation – The Court applied the principles from Pranay Sethi to include 25% future prospects in the income calculation of the deceased – This adjustment further increased the compensation amount due to the surviving family members [Para 15].

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, modifying the compensation awarded to Rs. 11,25,000 from Rs. 1,01,250 – The interest rate was adjusted to 8% p.a. – Other directions of the Tribunal were left undisturbed​.

Interest on Arbitration Award – Compound Interest – The Court held that unless explicitly provided under the statute, contract, or award, compound interest or interest on interest is not permissible – The decree of the lower court granting simple interest was upheld – The Court emphasized that awards and decrees should clearly specify the nature of interest awarded to avoid ambiguity [Paras 23-28].

Interpretation of Statutes – CPC Section 34 & Arbitration Act – Interest should only be awarded on the principal sum adjudged unless the statute or contract specifies otherwise – The Court relied on established precedents to conclude that compound interest cannot be awarded without explicit authorization [Paras 14-17].

Decision:

The Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, upholding the view that the petitioner was not entitled to compound interest on the awarded amount.

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Respondents alleged to have violated Supreme Court's order granting interim anticipatory bail – Petitioner contends wrongful detention, custodial torture, and failure to comply with procedural safeguards – The Court issued notice of contempt to police officers and judicial authorities involved, with subsequent discharge of certain respondents after determining no willful disobedience – Apologies tendered by respondents considered by the Court – The Court emphasizes the need for strict adherence to judicial orders, especially in custodial matters [Paras 1-40].

Police Custody Remand – Improper Grant – Petitioner was remanded to police custody despite Supreme Court’s order granting interim anticipatory bail – The Court scrutinized the remand application and the Magistrate's conduct, finding procedural irregularities and misuse of judicial discretion – Highlights the distinction between non-cooperation in investigation and refusal to confess – Court reiterates that police custody should not be granted mechanically and must be backed by substantial justification [Paras 33-35].

Custodial Torture – Allegations and Inquiry – Petitioner alleged torture during police custody, claiming injuries and coercion – Judicial officer conducted an improper inquiry by physically inspecting the petitioner, which was outside her jurisdiction – The Court notes the allegations are subject to independent inquiry and refrains from commenting, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural norms in such inquiries [Paras 31-34].

Decision:
Contempt notices discharged for some respondents; the petition was partly allowed – Detailed inquiry and adherence to procedural norms mandated – Apologies by respondents were accepted by the Court, with admonitions to avoid similar lapses in the future.

Judicial Discipline – Comity Between Courts – The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of remarks made by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that were considered unnecessary and derogatory towards the Supreme Court – Emphasized that compliance with Supreme Court orders is not discretionary but a constitutional obligation – The Court reiterated the importance of maintaining judicial discipline to uphold the dignity of all courts in the hierarchical judicial system [Paras 3-9].

Expunging of Remarks – Judicial Restraint – The Supreme Court expunged the remarks made by Justice Sehrawat, stressing that such observations were uncalled for and could harm the sanctity of the judicial process – The Court also highlighted the need for caution in making public statements, especially in an era of widespread media coverage, to avoid undermining public trust in the judiciary [Paras 9-10].

Decision:

The Supreme Court expunged the controversial remarks made by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat in the order dated 17 July 2024 – The Court expressed hope that greater caution would be exercised in the future and disposed of the proceedings without issuing notice to the judge involved.

Motor Accident Claims – Compensation – Enhancement of award – The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation granted by the High Court from ₹2,05,000 to ₹3,81,900, correcting the multiplier, personal expense deductions, and future prospects additions – The Court applied 30% towards future prospects instead of 25%, as per Pranay Sethi guidelines – Deduction for personal expenses reduced to 1/4th considering four dependents – Enhanced compensation includes Rs. 1,93,600 for loss of consortium, as per updated calculations of conventional heads [Paras 6-9].

Future Prospects – Calculation – Court adjusted future prospects from 25% to 30% in line with guidelines for individuals aged 40-50 – The High Court’s calculation on this aspect was corrected to align with the Pranay Sethi precedent [Para 6].

Deduction for Personal Expenses – Four Dependents – The Supreme Court reduced the personal expense deduction from 1/3rd to 1/4th, given the four dependents on the deceased – This adjustment resulted in a higher amount for loss of dependency [Para 5].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses – Updated amounts were calculated with a 10% increase every three years since 2017 – Court adjusted the compensation accordingly to Rs. 1,93,600 under loss of consortium, and Rs. 36,300 under loss of estate and funeral expenses [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 10,06,900 from Rs. 8,30,000 – Interest rate modified to 7.5% p.a. from 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Delay in Filing Appeal – The appellant, a retired civil servant, challenged the dismissal of his application to set aside a minor penalty of stoppage of increment, citing that his counsel withdrew the earlier application without consent – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders, holding that the delay in filing the fresh application was justified and should have been condoned – The Court emphasized that a party should not suffer due to the mistake of counsel, and the penalty imposed on the appellant was disproportionate considering the facts [Paras 20-24].

Judicial Review – Discretion in Condonation of Delay – The Court underscored that the approach to condonation of delay should be liberal and justice-oriented, particularly when the delay is attributable to factors beyond the control of the appellant – The High Court erred by addressing the merits of the case instead of focusing on the sufficiency of the cause for delay [Paras 20-23].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The orders of penalty were set aside – The appellant was held entitled to all consequential benefits, and the respondents were directed to process these within three months.

Civil Services Examination – Medical Fitness – Re-examination – The petitioner, after being declared temporarily unfit due to BMI during the medical examination for the Civil Services Examination, 2014, missed the scheduled re-medical test – Subsequently, the petitioner’s name appeared in a reserve list published on 19.01.2016, where less meritorious candidates were allocated service – The Supreme Court directed a re-medical examination under Article 142, emphasizing that the petitioner would not be entitled to appointment in the 2014 batch or claim seniority, and the decision would not serve as a precedent [Paras 10-16].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Plenary Jurisdiction – The Court exercised its plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 to direct a re-medical examination for the petitioner, despite the significant time lapse since the original examination, to do complete justice – The decision was made with the specific limitation that it should not be treated as a precedent in other cases [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – The Court directed the respondents to schedule a re-medical examination within four weeks – No costs were awarded.

Property Law – Nazul Plot – Auction and Conversion – Appeal concerning a Nazul plot wherein the highest bid by City Montessori School was initially accepted but later cancelled – Subsequent conversion of leasehold rights to freehold in favor of an alleged lessee found to be illegal by the High Court – Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for transparency and fairness in the sale of State-owned property, rejecting the notion that such properties can be transferred at nominal prices to lessees without public auction [Paras 9-16].

State Largesse – Fair and Transparent Process – The State’s discretion in transferring property must be exercised transparently, ensuring the best price is fetched – Discrimination or favoritism in such transfers violates Article 14 of the Constitution – The Court underscores the need for public auction or other transparent methods to prevent arbitrary or unjust allocation of State assets [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conversion of leasehold rights into freehold set aside – The question of whether the plot can be put to auction and the validity of the lessee’s leasehold rights is left open for future proceedings – The State Government directed to consider refund applications from both parties within six weeks [Paras 16-17].

Taxation Law – VAT and Taxable Turnover – Appeal concerning the computation of taxable turnover under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (GVAT Act) – Dispute over whether VAT paid and purchases on which no tax credit was claimed should be included in the taxable turnover – High Court and Tribunal ruled in favor of excluding these amounts – Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the purchase price, as defined under Section 2(18) of the GVAT Act, is exhaustive and does not include VAT unless expressly provided – Emphasized strict interpretation of tax statutes under Article 265 of the Constitution, which prohibits taxation without clear legislative authority [Paras 1-20].

Interpretation of Statutes – Definition of ‘Purchase Price’ – Definition under Section 2(18) of GVAT Act held to be exhaustive – Purchase price includes only the amounts specifically enumerated in the statute, excluding VAT – Courts cannot expand the scope of taxation by interpretation – Principles of strict interpretation of taxing statutes applied [Paras 11-17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Tribunal and High Court judgments upheld – VAT and unclaimed tax credits excluded from taxable turnover – Transfer Cases allowed in light of the decision [Paras 18-21].