Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Permanent Disability – The appellant, aged 21, suffered 69% permanent disability due to a motor accident resulting in severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility – Tribunal awarded Rs. 574,320/- which was enhanced to Rs. 1,431,752/- by the High Court – Supreme Court held that the compensation awarded by the High Court did not reflect the full impact of the disability on the appellant's earning capacity and quality of life [Paras 1-10].

Assessment of Disability – Functional Disability – Supreme Court observed that the 69% physical disability translated to 100% functional disability in terms of loss of earning capacity – Compensation should reflect the true impact on the claimant’s life and ability to earn a livelihood – Enhanced compensation awarded considering the requirement for full-time assistance and recurring medical expenses [Paras 12-16].

Just Compensation – Realistic Recompense – Emphasis on providing compensation that restores dignity and accounts for ground realities – Importance of recognizing the non-quantifiable impacts on the claimant’s life such as loss of self-dignity and becoming a burden on others – Adequate compensation to ameliorate the claimant’s suffering and aid in negotiating life's unforeseeable twists [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,767,800/- with additional sums awarded under specific heads: expenses for bystander, future medical expenses, compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power, and loss of earning – Directions issued for payment within six weeks with adjustments for any amounts already paid [Paras 18, 20].

Evidence Act – Sections 91 and 92 – Partnership Agreement – Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act apply when the document contains all terms of the contract – Written agreements are conclusively presumed to be the full and final statement of the parties' intentions – Oral evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of the document is excluded unless it falls within the exceptions under Section 92 – The trial court and High Court erred in holding the plaintiffs entitled to only 10% share in the partnership firm despite clear terms in the partnership deeds [Paras 19-24, 37-39].

Partnership Firm – Share in Profits and Losses – Amendment of Partnership Deed – The 1995 Deed amended the terms of the partnership firm, including the share of profits and losses – Plaintiffs were entitled to 25% share each as per the 1995 Deed – Defendants' contention that the share was by mistake is unsupported – Burden on defendants to prove the mistake, which they failed to do – Courts must give effect to the terms of the written agreement [Paras 25-36, 40].

Expulsion of Partners – Validity – Clause 17 of the 1992 Deed allowed expulsion of partners on specified grounds – Trial court upheld the expulsion of plaintiffs based on sound reasons – No interference warranted in the expulsion decision [Paras 40-41].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Plaintiffs entitled to 50% share in profits and losses till 18.6.2004 – Expulsion of plaintiffs from the partnership firm effective from 18.6.2004 upheld – Other directions of the trial court maintained [Paras 42-45].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – High Court quashed proceedings citing the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC and delay in lodging the FIR – Supreme Court held that quashing was impermissible without a full trial – The aspect of delay and necessity for sanction should be considered during the trial, not in a petition under Section 482 – The presence of serious allegations and potential misuse of power by police officers justifies continuation of proceedings [Paras 8-16].

Indian Penal Code and Atrocities Act – Allegations Against Police Officers – Appellant alleged police officers abused their power, leading to injury and threats – Allegations include ransacking the complainant's house and using casteist slurs – Supreme Court observed that such allegations, if proven, fall outside the scope of official duties, negating the protection under Section 197 CrPC – High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings without trial found to be erroneous [Paras 7, 15-16].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – Requirement for sanction debated – Supreme Court clarified that in cases of misuse of power where actions are not part of official duties, sanction is not required – The Court emphasized that determination of the necessity for sanction should be based on trial evidence [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashing criminal proceedings set aside – Case to proceed in the Special Court for offenses under IPC and Atrocities Act – Directions issued for expeditious trial [Para 16].

Military Engineering Service – Seniority Determination – Principles for adjudging seniority – Supreme Court held that for candidates selected in one and the same selection, the placement in the order of merit can be adopted as a principle for determining seniority – Where selections are held separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of the initial date of appointment or continuous officiation is valid for determining inter se seniority of officers in the absence of any rule or guidelines to the contrary – Tribunal's and High Court’s observations on appointments from select panels after a significant delay emphasized the need for accountability in the recruitment process [Paras 18-22].

DoPT Office Memorandum – Application of Principles – The OM dated 3rd July 1986 clarifies the principles for determining seniority among direct recruits, promotees, and transferees – The principle that seniority is determined by the order of merit in the selection list applies within a single selection but not necessarily across different recruitment processes – Seniority should reflect the date of entry into service when comparing candidates from different Commands [Paras 10-13, 19].

Irregular Appointments – Judicial Review – Supreme Court disapproved of appointments made from the 1983 select panel in 1987-1988 without being challenged – Emphasized the need for institutional accountability to prevent arbitrary actions and uncalled-for litigation – However, the Court refrained from disturbing the status of individuals promoted based on revised seniority lists due to elapsed time and specific circumstances [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Appeals partially allowed – Tribunal's order for recasting seniority lists based on the initial date of appointment upheld – Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside – Seniority of specific respondents not disturbed due to unique circumstances under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 23-24].

Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958 – Applicability – Exemption for Non-Residential Clubs – The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, do not apply to non-residential clubs in view of the exemption under Section 3(j) – The term "club" includes associations of individuals with some degree of permanence and corporate identity, pursuing a common aim other than the acquisition of gain – The activities of a non-residential club catering to its members do not fall within the scope of commercial establishments as defined in the Act [Paras 9-27].

Definition and Scope – Non-Residential Club – The Court emphasized that a non-residential club is an establishment that provides services and facilities to its members, distinct from commercial entities that primarily engage in the supply of meals or refreshments for profit – The second respondent club, Bhilai Steel Plant, was found to be a genuine club offering various facilities to its members, including sports and social activities, and thus exempt under Section 3(j) of the Act [Paras 24-38].

Judicial Review – Role of Bye-Laws and Actual Functioning – The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of considering both the bye-laws and the actual functioning of an establishment to determine its nature – In this case, the bye-laws and the functioning of the club supported its classification as a non-residential club exempt from the Act’s provisions – The Court disapproved of the High Court’s interference with the Appellate Authority's findings, which were based on substantial evidence [Paras 36-40].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The judgment of the High Court was upheld, confirming the exemption of the respondent club from the application of the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, and negating the need for reinstatement or compensation for the appellants under the Act [Paras 42].

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 9A – Change in Service Conditions – Supreme Court held that transferring workmen from Dewas to Chopanki, 900 kms away, violated Section 9A read with Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Such transfers were deemed arbitrary, mala fide, and amounted to victimization – The nature of work and service conditions would change, with workmen becoming supervisors, thus depriving them of the protections under the Industrial Disputes Act [Paras 7-7.4].

Judicial Review – Article 226 vs. Article 227 – The petitions before the High Court were considered under Article 227, making the writ appeals non-maintainable – The Supreme Court emphasized the need to look at the nature of the jurisdiction invoked and the relief sought to determine the appropriate article – The substantive relief sought was quashing and setting aside the Labour Court's award, aligning with Article 227 [Paras 4.1-4.3, 7.9].

Transfer and Victimization – Adverse Impact on Workmen – The transfer orders affected workmen at the fag end of their careers, causing severe personal and professional disruption – The Court found that such transfers were intended to reduce the workforce at Dewas and constituted unfair labour practice, violating the statutory protections for workmen under the Act [Paras 5.1-5.4, 7.1-7.2].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court and Labour Court's findings – Directed the appellant to comply with the Labour Court’s award and provide consequential benefits to the workmen, including arrears of salary and retirement benefits within four weeks – Costs imposed on the appellant [Paras 8-8.1].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Quashing of Proceedings – Supreme Court observed that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction – The Court emphasized the distinction between a civil dispute and a criminal offense – The High Court erred in dismissing the petition for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings – The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings were quashed [Paras 1-48].

Penal Code – Sections 406, 419, 420 – Ingredients of Offense – The complaint alleged that the appellant sold flats beyond their share, which was a matter of civil dispute – No fraudulent or dishonest intention was evident at the inception of the transaction – The facts did not disclose the commission of any offense under Sections 406, 419, or 420 IPC – Criminal proceedings should not be used as an instrument of harassment in civil disputes [Paras 27-38].

Judicial Precedents – Abuse of Process – The Court referred to various precedents where it was held that criminal proceedings must not be used to settle civil disputes – Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice – The present case was found to fall within the categories warranting quashing of proceedings as laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] [Paras 39-47].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – FIR No. 185/2016 dated 29.03.2016 and proceedings in C.C. No. 20609 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional CMM Bengaluru quashed [Paras 48-49].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Discretionary Relief – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in denying specific performance on the grounds that it is a discretionary relief – Execution of agreement to sell, part sale consideration payment, and plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract were established – Denying specific performance would encourage dishonesty – High Court’s interpretation of Section 20 is incorrect and unsustainable [Paras 10-10.1, 12].

Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act – Readiness and Willingness – The plaintiff made necessary averments in the plaint and proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract – High Court's conclusion on non-compliance with Section 16(c) is contrary to record and law – The conduct of the plaintiff and subsequent actions were in line with the contract terms [Paras 6-6.1, 7].

Discretion under Section 20 – Judicial Exercise – Discretion must be exercised judiciously, soundly, and reasonably – Refusal of specific performance despite established facts would tilt balance unfairly in favor of the defendant, rewarding dishonest conduct – Amendment to Section 10(a) of the Act serves as a guide, emphasizing that specific performance is no longer discretionary [Para 10].

Concurrent Findings – High Court’s Error – High Court improperly interfered with concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court on readiness and willingness – Findings were based on evidence and not perverse – High Court's intervention under Section 100 CPC was unwarranted [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Trial Court’s judgment and decree for specific performance restored – Defendants directed to execute the sale deed and hand over possession within four weeks [Para 12].

Constitutional Law – Right to Equality – Ex-employees of a Mill challenged the denial of plots by State instrumentalities – High Court held treating 318 ex-employees differently from 134 others who received free plots as violative of Article 14 – Emphasized vested right in claiming equality and parity enforceable under Article 226 [Paras 1-14].

Allotment of Quarters – Discrimination – 318 ex-employees vacated quarters as per notice, while 134 stayed – Supreme Court ruled that rewarding unauthorized occupation by allotting plots to 134 ex-employees and denying the same to law-abiding 318 is discriminatory – Orders for equal treatment upheld [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Judgment of learned Single Judge directing allotment of plots to 318 ex-employees upheld – High Court's order set aside – Directed respondents to complete allotment within six months [Para 10].