Civil Law – Religious Endowments – Suit jewellery claimed by the appellant as private property – Jewellery kept in the Temple's Kudavarai and used for adorning the deity during festivals – Concurrent findings by three courts affirming the jewellery as a specific endowment to the deity – Dedication inferred from long possession and use for religious purposes [Paras 15-25].

Specific Endowment – Evidence and Inference – Evidence showed jewellery was donated by the ancestors of appellant – Suit jewellery recorded in the Temple's register as endowment – Long possession and usage for adorning the deity confirmed the public nature of the endowment – Appellant's claim based on inheritance from adoptive parents rejected [Paras 15-19].

Bar of Res Judicata – Prior Suit – Previous suit dismissed for technical reasons, not on merits – Subsequent suit for declaration of title and injunction not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata – Plea of Order II Rule 2 of CPC also rejected as causes of action in the suits were different [Paras 26-34].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment and decree of declaration of specific endowment upheld – Direction to appellant to hand over the keys of the Kudavarai and the suit jewellery to the Temple authorities during festival times – Appellant restrained from interfering with the Temple's right to use the jewellery [Paras 37-40].

Murder – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Conviction based on the non-cooperation of the accused in a test identification parade – Courts drew adverse inferences without considering the exposure of witnesses to the accused in the police station – Identification parade is part of the investigation and should not be overemphasized – Prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution’s evidence lacked reliability and consistency – Convictions and sentences under Section 302/34 set aside [Paras 1-15].

Test Identification Parade – Evidentiary Value – The evidence available on record must be scrutinized when the accused have been exposed to witnesses prior to the identification parade – Reliance on such evidence without corroboration is flawed – Prosecution failed to establish common intention and occurrence beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3-14].

Constructive Liability – Section 34 IPC – Section 34 does not constitute an offence by itself but creates constructive liability based on proven foundational facts – Prosecution failed to demonstrate common intention and participation in the crime adequately – Evidence presented was inconsistent and not wholly reliable [Para 13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants to be released forthwith [Paras 15].

Selection Process – Award of Marks for Experience – Appellant contested the denial of marks for prior experience as a daily wager – High Court failed to consider the merits of this plea – Specific challenge was against the Selection Committee's decision – High Court should have adjudicated on whether the Selection Committee's actions were justified [Paras 2-3].

Eligibility Criteria – Qualifications of Selected Candidate – Appellant contended that respondent no.6 did not meet the eligibility criteria of having experience in a Computer Science Lab – High Court did not assess this claim on merits, deferring to the Selection Committee’s decision without judicial review – Matter remanded to Single Judge for fresh consideration on both issues [Paras 2-3].

Judicial Review – Scope of High Court’s Power – High Court’s refusal to interfere with the Selection Committee’s decisions on the grounds of judicial review was erroneous – High Court required to examine if the Selection Committee's actions were arbitrary or unjustified [Para 3].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench set aside – Case remanded to Single Judge to reconsider writ petition on merits regarding the awarding of marks for experience and the qualifications of respondent no.6 – Parties allowed to submit additional documents within four weeks – Single Judge to complete hearing within six months [Paras 4].

Auction Sale – Rule 60, Second Schedule, Income Tax Act – Recovery of Debts – The right to set aside an auction sale under Rule 60 is a valuable right for the judgment debtor to save his property – Mistake by Recovery Officer in specifying exact amount payable cannot prejudice the debtor’s right – Substantial compliance with Rule 60 must be considered if debtor acted promptly and in good faith – High Court's decision quashed for being overly technical and not considering the judgment debtor's bona fide compliance [Paras 6-8].

Valuable Right – Substantial Compliance – The legislative intent of Rule 60 is to give the debtor a final opportunity to save their property – Courts should not allow this right to be defeated on technical grounds – Judgment debtor should not suffer due to Recovery Officer’s error in specifying the amount payable [Paras 6.3-6.4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – DRAT's decision to annul the auction sale restored – Appellant directed to compensate respondents with an additional sum for justice [Para 8].

Constitutional Law - Transfer of Writ Petitions - The Supreme Court examined the feasibility of transferring writ petitions challenging the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015, pending before various High Courts to the Supreme Court. It emphasized the need to have the benefit of High Court judgments before addressing the issues at the Supreme Court level​​.

Retrospective Effect - The writ petitions challenge the retrospective effect of the amendments to the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and the linkage of bonus calculations to minimum wages set by appropriate governments​​.

Decentralized Adjudication - The Supreme Court underscored that the variance in minimum wages across states requires jurisdictional High Courts to address specific state-related issues. The transfer to one High Court or the Supreme Court would not be practical for these varied and localized issues​​.

Decision: Transfer petitions dismissed - The Supreme Court declined to transfer the writ petitions to itself or any single High Court. It vacated all interim stay orders and directed the respective High Courts to expedite the hearings and dispose of the pending writ petitions with reasonable priority​​.

Criminal Law - Last Seen Theory - When the last seen theory is found to be not true, there must be more concrete and clinching evidence to implicate the accused. [Paras 12-14]

Criminal Law - Motive - Circumstantial Evidence - In cases of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significance. Though the motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon circumstantial evidence. [Paras 13, 15]

Criminal Law - Conviction - Mere Suspicion - No one can be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion, however strong it may be. The conduct of an accused must be looked at in its entirety. [Paras 15-16]

Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Dead body found - Recovery of material in the form of a firearm - Doubts were raised by PWs 1 and 2 pointing the finger of suspicion at the accused, a friend of the deceased. Upon securing the accused, the recovery of the firearm was made. Both the observation Mahazar along with the sketch and the recovery Mahazar under Section 27 of the Act were signed by the police officers, with the latter signed by PW2 as well. The lack of independent witnesses' signatures raised questions. [Paras 16-17]

Decision - Appeal allowed - The order of conviction rendered by the High Court was set aside, restoring the acquittal by the trial court. The evidence presented did not form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 20-24]

Arbitration and Conciliation – Award Modification – The court held that it is not permissible to modify an arbitral award under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appropriate remedy is to set aside the award and remit the matter to the Arbitrator in terms of Section 34(4) of the Act .

Market Value Determination – The court examined the determination of market value for land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, and its interplay with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The court affirmed the High Court’s decision, which upheld the Arbitrator's award based on the market value determined using guidelines issued by the Department of Stamps and Registration, even when such guidelines were notified post the acquisition notification .

Compensation Enhancement – The court highlighted that the SLAO’s award remains an offer of compensation and does not gain the status of a judicial order. The Arbitrator is allowed to consider additional evidence for just compensation even if it was not before the SLAO. The use of subsequent guideline values by the Arbitrator was found justified in determining fair compensation .

Patent Illegality – The court emphasized that an arbitral award may be set aside on grounds of patent illegality only when such illegality goes to the root of the matter. This includes contraventions of the substantive law of India or the Arbitration Act itself. However, erroneous application of law or mere contravention not linked to public policy does not qualify as patent illegality .

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the enhanced compensation awarded by the Arbitrator. The court declined to interfere, noting the limited scope for judicial review under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation - Loss of Love and Affection - Loss of love and affection is comprehended within loss of consortium and should not be awarded as a separate head. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded: loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses​​.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Calculation of Compensation - Pecuniary Loss - The Tribunal's methodology of basing the deceased's notional income on her husband's income was upheld. The High Court's approach of using her last drawn salary, three years prior to the accident, was deemed inappropriate​​.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Deduction for Personal Expenses - The proper deduction for personal living expenses is one-third of the income, as per the precedent set in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation​​.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Future Prospects - An addition of 40% to the notional income for future prospects was mandated, as the deceased was below 40 years of age​​.

Decision - Appeal allowed - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reduction of the pecuniary loss compensation and quantified it to be Rs. 44,10,000. The award for loss of love and affection was subsumed under loss of consortium, with Rs. 40,000 awarded for each appellant, totaling Rs. 1,60,000. The total compensation amount, including funeral and medical expenses, was determined to be Rs. 46,17,350, payable within two months, with an interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till payment​​.

Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Ecologically Sensitive Area - Appellant challenged the environmental clearance granted to Ultratech Cement Limited for limestone mining on grounds of ecological sensitivity, lack of consent from private landholders, and adverse environmental impacts. The clearance was challenged under Section 16 of the NGT Act​​ .

Natural Justice - Composition of NGT Bench - Single Member Bench - The NGT's dismissal of the applications for restoration and condonation of delay was deemed null and void due to the improper constitution of a single member bench. The Supreme Court highlighted the requirement of equal numbers of judicial and expert members on the bench as per Section 4(4)(c) of the NGT Act​​ .

Limitation Period - Environmental Clearance - The period of limitation for challenging the environmental clearance was calculated from the date of publication of the clearance, not from individual knowledge. The NGT Act does not permit condonation of delay beyond 90 days​​ .

Decision - Appeals allowed - The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the NGT dated 16 July 2021, and the original order dated 29 January 2018. The matter was remitted to the NGT for fresh disposal. All rights and contentions of the parties, including the issue of limitation, were kept open​​ .