Administrative Law – Fairness in Administrative Actions: The Supreme Court emphasized that even if the High Court found the actions of the authorities to be irregular, illegal, or perverse, such findings alone do not imply deliberate action or bad faith on the part of the Assessing Authority. It is necessary to have concrete evidence to impute motives or bad faith​​ .

Service of Notice – Procedural Compliance: The Court observed that while the Assessing Authority must ensure proper service of notice, mere procedural errors do not automatically indicate malafide intentions. In this case, attempts were made to serve notice at both the registered and changed addresses, but the High Court did not accept these as proper service under the rules​​ .

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations: The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act is narrower than that of an appellate court. The High Court's role is to ensure compliance with the law without re-appreciating evidence or acting beyond its limited revisional powers​​ .

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the adverse observations and directions against the appellant made by the High Court. It held that the strictures and costs imposed were unwarranted as there was no sufficient basis to conclude deliberate or bad faith actions by the appellant. The matter was directed to be closed with annulment of the adverse remarks​​ .

Contract Law – Neglect by Promisee: Section 67 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, stipulates that if the promisee neglects or refuses to provide reasonable facilities for the promisor to perform the promise, the promisor is excused from non-performance. In this case, the High Court’s conclusion that the appellant abandoned the contract was erroneous. The evidence showed the respondents failed to provide essential materials and modified the contract terms without resolving the appellant’s demands for a modified rate​​.

Remand of Case – Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction: The High Court’s decision to remand the case based on perceived abandonment was found unjustified. The Supreme Court reiterated that procedural lapses on the respondent's part excused the appellant from performance, and there was no abandonment​​.

Effect of Non-Performance by Respondent: The refusal of the appellant to continue the work without reciprocal performance from the respondent did not constitute abandonment. The appellant's refusal to perform was deemed a reaction to the respondent’s failure to meet contractual obligations​​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s decree. The bank guarantee provided by the appellant was discharged, affirming the appellant’s claims for the value of work done, idle labor, and other heads​​.

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – Section 24 of the 2013 Act: Under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings if the award is not made as of the date of commencement of the 2013 Act (01-01-2014). Compensation must be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. Section 24(2) provides for deemed lapse if the authorities fail to take possession or pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act's commencement. The period during which interim orders were subsisting must be excluded in this computation​​.

Compensation Tender – Legal Requirements: The obligation to pay compensation under the 1894 Act is complete upon tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The original landowners who refuse compensation or seek higher compensation cannot claim lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment or non-deposit in court​​.

High Court’s Error – Interim Orders and Exclusion Period: The High Court erred in its decision by not considering the period of the subsistence of interim orders. As clarified in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., the period during which interim orders were operative must be excluded in computing the five years​​.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The impugned judgment declaring the land acquisition proceedings as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was quashed and set aside. The Court emphasized that proper consideration of interim orders and the correct application of legal principles under the 2013 Act and the 1894 Act were essential​​.

Restitution – Principle and Application: Section 144 of the CPC embodies the principle of restitution, which mandates that no party should benefit from a wrong order of the court once it is set aside by a higher court. This principle ensures that parties are restored to their original position as if the erroneous order had never been passed. The High Court's judgment permitting the State to recover excess amounts paid to the original writ petitioners was upheld based on this principle. The excess amounts were paid pursuant to an order later set aside, and thus, the State's right to recover was affirmed​​.

Study Leave vs. Deputation: The Court clarified that the period of the three-year Nursing Course for in-service candidates cannot be treated as deputation but must be considered leave as per the applicable rules. The original writ petitioners, who were working as ANM, Lab Technicians, Multi-Purpose Workers, Accounts Clerks, or similar posts, sought this benefit, which was initially granted by the Single Judge but later reversed by the Division Bench​​.

Recovery of Excess Payment: The Supreme Court agreed with the Division Bench's decision allowing the recovery of excess amounts paid under the erroneous Single Judge's order. It emphasized that employees cannot retain benefits accrued from a judgment that was subsequently overturned. The recovery should be made in easy equal installments, ensuring that the employees are not unduly burdened​​.

Decision: Appeals dismissed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which set aside the Single Judge's order and allowed the State to recover the excess amount paid to the original writ petitioners, was upheld. The recovery is to be made in thirty-six equal monthly installments starting from April 2022​​.

Mandatory Injunction – Maintainability: A suit for mandatory injunction to execute a sale deed based on participation in a public auction is not maintainable if there is no vested right with the plaintiff. Participation in an auction does not confer any equitable or legal right unless the auction is confirmed by the competent authority​​.

Restitution – Principle and Application: Section 144 of the CPC embodies the principle of restitution, ensuring no party benefits from a wrongful order once set aside. The courts emphasized that restitution requires placing parties in their original position as if the erroneous order had never been passed​​.

Auction Confirmation – Legal Requirements: The approval of an auction by the competent authority, such as the Deputy Commissioner, is necessary for any rights to be vested. An inter-departmental communication without formal approval does not confer any enforceable rights to the highest bidder​​.

Delay and Limitation: The suit for mandatory injunction filed in 2011 for an auction held in 1999 was barred by limitation, as suits for specific performance must be filed within three years of the auction. The courts failed to properly consider the aspect of limitation​​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts. The Municipal Committee was directed to take possession of the land and the amount paid by the plaintiff was ordered to be forfeited as damages for illegal occupation. The High Court's decision to dismiss the second appeal was deemed a perverse reading of the law and facts​​.

Liability under Arms Act – Section 29 and 30: The prosecution must prove that the appellant knowingly delivered the firearm to another person not entitled to possess it under the Arms Act. In this case, there was no evidence that the appellant willingly handed over the firearm to the co-accused. The firearm was taken without the appellant's knowledge or permission from a jointly owned farmhouse [Paras 17-18]​​.

Exoneration under Section 120-B IPC: The High Court acquitted the appellant of conspiracy charges under Section 120-B IPC. Consequently, the conviction under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act, based on the same factual matrix, was found unsustainable [Para 6, 19]​​.

Principles of Criminal Liability – Knowledge and Intention: Criminal liability under Section 29(b) of the Arms Act requires evidence of the license holder's knowledge and intention in delivering the firearm. The absence of such evidence led to the appellant's acquittal. Similarly, for Section 30, the prosecution failed to establish any willful contravention of license conditions or the Arms Act by the appellant [Para 20]​​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment convicting the appellant under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act. The appellant was acquitted of all charges [Para 21]​​.

Compensation for Paraplegic Child – Enhancement: The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant, recognizing the significant and lifelong impact of the injuries. The Court noted the need for continuous medical care, assistive devices, and the lifelong dependency on an attendant [Paras 1-16]​​.

Future Earnings and Prospects: For calculating the loss of future earnings, the Court considered the minimum wages applicable at the time of the accident and added 40% for future prospects. This approach aligned with principles set in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [Para 10]​​.

Medical and Attendant Expenses: The Court awarded substantial amounts for medical expenses, future medical expenses (including the cost of assistive devices), and attendant charges, acknowledging the severe and permanent nature of the appellant's disability [Paras 11-12]​​.

Loss of Marriage Prospects and Pain and Suffering: Recognizing the non-economic impact of the injuries, the Court awarded compensation for loss of marriage prospects and for pain and suffering. The overall compensation was calculated to ensure it covered the multifaceted nature of the appellant's losses [Paras 11, 13]​​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, enhancing the total compensation to Rs. 4,993,000, inclusive of interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim application until realization. A portion of the amount was directed to be disbursed immediately, with the remainder to be invested in fixed deposits to secure the appellant’s future needs [Paras 13-16]​​.

Disciplinary Proceedings – Constitution of Inquiry Committee: The School Tribunal and High Court found the Inquiry Committee's constitution improper under Rule 36(2)(b) of the MEPS Rules, as the President of the Management was not part of the committee. However, the Supreme Court noted that the President was initially a member but was replaced due to ill health, invoking the doctrine of necessity [Paras 1-23]​​.

Doctrine of Necessity: The doctrine of necessity applies when an otherwise improper constitution of an authority or committee is rendered valid due to unavoidable circumstances. The President's replacement due to ill health fell under this doctrine, justifying the Inquiry Committee's composition [Paras 13, 23]​​.

Interpretation of Rule 36(2)(b): The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 36(2)(b) should apply to the Head who is also the Chief Executive Officer, ensuring the words "referred in sub-rule (1)" are not rendered redundant. The Full Bench of the High Court's interpretation extending this rule to all Heads, irrespective of their role as Chief Executive Officer, was incorrect [Paras 17-22]​​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court and School Tribunal's judgments. The penalty of removal from service imposed on the respondent was upheld, invoking the doctrine of necessity and proper interpretation of Rule 36(2)(b). Monetary benefits granted to the respondent due to any interim orders were not to be recovered [Para 23]​​.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Limitation Act, Section 17(1) – The appellant's suit was rejected as barred by limitation. The Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the fraud and exercised reasonable diligence. The Single Judge's decision to reject the plaint was upheld, but the differences in interpretation by the bench necessitated a referral to the Chief Justice for appropriate orders [Paras 1-26].

Plaintiff's Knowledge and Diligence – The Court emphasized that Section 17(1) does not protect those who ignore circumstances that would reveal fraud. The plaintiff's claim of ignorance was found unconvincing given the facts and documents admitted [Paras 22-23].

Rejection of Amendment Applications – Amendments sought by the plaintiff were deemed unnecessary and mala fide as the suit was already time-barred. The Court affirmed the lower court's rejection of these applications [Para 24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed; suit barred by limitation upheld; applications for amendments rejected [Paras 24-26].