Encroachment – Jurisdiction – Show Cause Notices – Appellants challenged the show cause notices issued under the Tamil Nadu State Highway Act, 2001 – Contended that the authority under the State Act did not have jurisdiction post enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Supreme Court held that the appropriate legislation for removal of encroachments on National Highways is the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 – Notices issued under State Act are unauthorized – Authority must proceed under Section 26 of the Act of 2002 [Paras 1-14].

Statutory Framework – National Highways – Power under Section 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956 allows Central Government to delegate functions to State Governments – However, the enactment of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 provides a detailed framework for dealing with encroachments – Central legislation prevails over State Act in matters of National Highways – Show cause notices under the State Act lack jurisdiction [Paras 6-12].

Procedural Requirements – Highway Administration – The authority to issue notices for removal of encroachments lies with the Highway Administration established under Section 3 of the Act of 2002 – Notices must follow procedure under Section 26 of the Act of 2002 – Lack of jurisdiction constitutes valid ground for interference with show cause notices [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment and show cause notices set aside – Competent authority under Section 26 of the Act of 2002 may take appropriate action as per law – No orders as to costs [Para 14].

Arbitration – Bank Guarantee – Refusal to Accept – High Court refused to accept irrevocable Bank Guarantee of Rs. 30 Crores issued by ICBC, a Scheduled Bank included in the Second Schedule of the Reserve Bank of India Act – High Court insisted on a fresh Bank Guarantee from a "Scheduled Indian Bank" – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its direction – Legally valid Bank Guarantees from Scheduled Banks, including foreign banks operating in India, should be accepted unless there is specific statutory requirement or proven credibility issues with the bank [Paras 1-60].

Banking Regulation – Scheduled Banks – ICBC as Scheduled Bank – ICBC is a Scheduled Bank included in the Second Schedule of the Reserve Bank of India Act – No distinction in statutory provisions between a "Scheduled Indian Bank" and "Scheduled Bank located in India" – All Scheduled Banks are governed by the regulatory provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act and Banking Regulation Act – High Court’s insistence on a Bank Guarantee from a "Scheduled Indian Bank" is without basis in law [Paras 39-48].

Judicial Orders – Correction of Errors – Court can correct mistakes in its orders – High Court's correction should reflect the true intention and offer made by parties – Appellant's compliance with original order not to be penalized for subsequent clarifications by the Court – Financial expenditure incurred by appellant to obtain Bank Guarantee from ICBC must be considered [Paras 17, 20, 22].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Bank Guarantee issued by ICBC accepted as valid – Appellant’s financial expenditure and compliance with court order acknowledged – Emphasis on legal recognition of all Scheduled Banks under Reserve Bank of India Act [Para 60].

Criminal Law – Summoning Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Appellant challenged the High Court's decision rejecting his application to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC – Supreme Court held that powers under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at any stage before the trial concludes – High Court and Trial Court erred in not summoning additional accused despite specific allegations in the FIR and examination-in-chief – Appeals allowed – High Court and Trial Court orders set aside – Additional accused to be summoned [Paras 1-14].

Powers under Section 319 CrPC – Scope and Ambit – Detailed judicial principles discussed – Court emphasized that the provision aims to ensure no real perpetrator goes unpunished – Powers can be exercised on the basis of examination-in-chief without waiting for cross-examination – Ensures that any person appearing to have committed the offense can be tried together with the original accused – Courts must avoid appreciating evidence on merits at this stage [Paras 13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court orders set aside – Additional accused to be summoned and face trial – Directions to Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 15].

Criminal Law – Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Necessity – Appellant contended that the prosecution failed to conduct a TIP – Supreme Court held that TIP was unnecessary as the appellant was known to the witnesses and was specifically identified by them during the trial – Identity of appellant established through eyewitness testimonies, corroborating his involvement in the crime – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-18].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Multiple witnesses identified the appellant as the person wielding the sword and inflicting injuries – Consistent identification by witnesses deemed reliable despite absence of TIP – Trial Court and High Court’s reliance on these testimonies upheld [Paras 11-18].

Conviction and Sentence – Common Object – Unlawful Assembly – Appellant convicted for murder and participation in an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing death – Assault with sharp and dangerous weapons established – Conviction under Sections 302, 120B, 147, 148, and 324 IPC upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – State to consider appellant’s case for remission on its own merits at an appropriate stage [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Stage of Framing of Charge – Appellant challenged the High Court's decision to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Supreme Court held that the High Court should not evaluate the evidence on merits at this stage – Strong suspicion against the respondent based on the FIR and investigation, including recovery of money and call details, suffices to frame charges – High Court erred in quashing proceedings by pre-judging the merits [Paras 1-14].

Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Exercise of Jurisdiction – Court should determine if there is a prima facie case to proceed – Evaluation of evidence on merits is inappropriate at this stage – Allegations and material evidence should be taken at face value – High Court’s intervention at the charge-framing stage is limited to ensuring that prosecution is not frivolous or vexatious [Paras 13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and order quashing the chargesheet and proceedings set aside – Trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law – Observations are confined to the decision under Section 482 CrPC and do not affect the merits of the trial [Paras 15].

Reservation – Successor States – Bifurcation of Bihar – Appellants originally from Bihar, residing and serving in Jharkhand post-bifurcation – Contention over entitlement to reservation benefits in Jharkhand – Supreme Court held appellants entitled to reservation benefits in Jharkhand based on Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 – Appellants cannot claim benefits in both Bihar and Jharkhand simultaneously – Entitlement restricted to one state to prevent misuse of Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution [Paras 1-60].

Service Conditions – Protection under Reorganisation Act – Employees working before bifurcation in areas now part of Jharkhand protected under Section 73 of the Act – Rights and privileges, including reservation benefits, to remain intact post-bifurcation – Appellants' rights to claim reservation in Jharkhand upheld – High Court’s judgment set aside [Paras 48-60].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment and order set aside – Appellant Pankaj Kumar to be appointed with notional fixation of pay and allowances – Other appellants reinstated with notional pay and allowances – No arrears of salary granted – Compliance within six weeks [Paras 60-62].

Insurance – Fire Insurance Claim – Surveyor's Report vs. Investigation Report – Appellant (insurer) challenged the NCDRC's reliance on the surveyor's report for assessing the fire loss – Supreme Court held that while the surveyor's report is not sacrosanct, it can be relied upon if it inspires confidence and is not contradicted by more reliable evidence – In this case, the surveyor's report was detailed and plausible – Investigation report commissioned belatedly did not hold sufficient weight to rebut the surveyor's findings – NCDRC's reliance on the surveyor's report upheld but interest rate reduced from 12% to 9% per annum [Paras 1-18].

Limitation Period – Consumer Protection Act – Section 24A – Appellant contended the claim was time-barred – Supreme Court held that the cause of action continued due to the insurer’s delay and ongoing correspondence – Complaint filed within limitation period considering the continuous nature of the cause of action [Paras 5-8].

Judicial Review – Reliability of Evidence – Supreme Court reiterated that the surveyor’s report, while not conclusive, forms a significant part of evidence – Courts can rely on it unless convincingly rebutted – Emphasis on timely investigation and adjudication to prevent misuse and ensure fairness [Paras 11-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – High Court’s judgment modified to award interest at 9% per annum instead of 12% – Balance amount to be deposited within six weeks for disbursement as per NCDRC’s direction [Paras 17-19].

Murder – Evidence – Recovery of Weapon – Disclosure Statement – Once recovery is made in pursuance of a disclosure statement by the accused, the matching or non-matching of blood groups loses significance – High Court’s error in presuming scientific evidence without matching blood stains with the deceased's blood – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 1-42].

Penal Code 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Recovery of weapons (knife and lathis) from accused's houses – Forensic Sciences Laboratory (FSL) report showed human blood but not matched with deceased's blood – High Court’s incorrect reliance on FSL report – Prosecution failed to establish blood stains matched the deceased's blood – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeals allowed [Paras 27-32].

Judicial Review – Inherent Contradictions and Investigation Bias – Investigation biased and influenced by political pressure – Incorrect framing of charges against informant and family members instead of actual culprits – Courts failed to properly scrutinize evidence and investigate admissions of investigation bias [Paras 14-22, 35-36].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence by Sessions Court and High Court set aside – All accused to be released forthwith unless held in relation to any other case [Para 37].

Admissions – Centralized Counselling Mandate – The State of Uttar Pradesh mandated centralized counselling for all MBBS/BDS admissions, which Glocal Medical College violated by conducting private counselling. The Supreme Court upheld the requirement for centralized counselling to ensure transparency, merit, and fairness in admissions. [Paras 19-22]

Equitable Relief – Backdoor Entries – The Court emphasized that admissions obtained through non-compliant private counselling were illegal. Despite sympathies for the students, the Court denied equitable relief as it would undermine the integrity of the admission process and contravene legal standards. [Paras 27-28, 35-36]

Previous Judicial Directives – The Court reiterated its previous interim order allowing students to appear for exams without publishing results and the subsequent discharge order by the Medical Council of India (MCI), reinforcing that no modification had been made to permit regularization of the admissions. [Paras 37-39]

Decision: Review petitions dismissed – The admissions made through private counselling were deemed illegal and could not be regularized. All pending applications were also disposed of. [Paras 29-40]