Civil Appeal – Land Acquisition – Consent Terms – Limitation – Appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings where the High Court allowed the First Appeals, setting aside the award and remanding the matter to the Reference Court to decide the question of limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Appellant-trust aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed in First Appeal Nos. 1447 of 2006 and 1490 of 2006 by the High Court. [Para 1-2]

Consent Terms – Interpretation – Parties arrived at consent terms to determine the market value of the lands as on 17.12.1994. High Court disposed of the Writ Petition giving directions in terms of the consent terms. Respondent-Committee raised the issue of limitation before the Reference Court, taking undue advantage of ambiguity in the consent terms. Doctrine of harmonious construction applied to interpret the document as a whole. [Para 7-8]

Limitation – Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act – Issue of limitation raised by the respondent-Committee found to be not tenable and highly unreasonable. Reference Court's findings that the Reference was filed within the period of limitation as per the High Court's order were well-reasoned. High Court's interference with the findings was erroneous. [Para 6, 9]

Decision – Impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court set aside. Both the appeals allowed. [Para 10]

Arbitration – Road Construction Contract – Award Set Aside by High Court – Appeal by Contractor – Challenge to the common judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, which set aside an award in favor of the appellant concerning a road construction contract [Para 1-7].

Limitation – Claim Crystallization – The court observed that the claim crystallized upon the issuance of the final bill, and the claim before the civil court for the appointment of the arbitrator was within the period of limitation [Para 18-19].

Contractual Period – Delay in Submission of Claim – The court rejected the argument that the claims were not within the contracted period, considering the inordinate delay and extensions of time by mutual consent [Para 19].

Award of Damages – Water Releases in Canal – The court found no error in the award of damages for disruption in work due to water releases in the canal, and the tribunal consciously refused to grant damages for certain periods [Para 20-22].

Arbitrator – Sole Judge of Facts – Emphasis on the arbitrator as the sole judge of facts; interference with the award should be avoided unless an error of law is shown [Para 23-24].

Decision – Award Restored – The court set aside the impugned judgment and the judgment of the trial court, restoring the award. The respondents were directed to ensure full payment in terms of the award to the appellant within eight weeks. The appeals were allowed, and the appellant was entitled to costs throughout [Para 25].

Arbitration – Award – Challenge to Award – Appellant challenged judgment setting aside award concerning road construction contract – Issues related to legal misconduct of arbitrator, time-barred claim, pursuit of claims after original contractor's death, and contractual preclusion – Trial court and High Court held award vitiated by legal misconduct and time-barred claim – Appellant argued against findings [Para 1-14].

Damages – Award of Damages – Arbitrators consciously eschewed grant of compensation for loss of profit – Charges claimed based on evidence – Sum awarded on various heads fully supported by evidence – Award of interest at 12% per annum found neither implausible nor illegal [Para 22].

Arbitration – Role of Courts – Emphasis on arbitrator as sole judge of facts – Interference with award to be avoided unless error of law shown – Scope of jurisdiction under Section 30/33 of the Act limited to discerning “error apparent on the face of the award” – Intense appellate review by trial courts and High Court found impermissible in law [Para 23-24].

Decision – Award Restored – Impugned judgment and judgment of trial court set aside – Award restored – Respondents directed to ensure full payment in terms of award within eight weeks – Appeals allowed, appellant entitled to costs throughout [Para 25].

Land Acquisition – Lands sought to be acquired by the respondent for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act – Consent terms arrived at between parties for determining market value and handing over possession – Issue of limitation raised by the respondent [Para 2-3].

Consent Terms – Parties arrived at consent terms to determine the market value of lands as on a specific date – Appellant to hand over possession and be paid the amount determined under the Award under Section 11 of the Act – Application to be made to the Collector seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act – High Court disposed of the Writ Petition giving directions in terms of the consent terms [Para 5-6].

Issue of Limitation – Respondent raised the issue of limitation before the Reference Court – Held, not tenable and highly unreasonable and improper – Consent terms and High Court's directions made the issue of limitation under Section 18 of the Act insignificant – Respondent's plea smacked of ulterior motive [Para 6-7].

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction – Consent terms to be read as a whole – Any ambiguity to be interpreted in a manner consistent with other clauses and the intent of the parties – Reference Court's findings on limitation upheld – High Court's interference set aside [Para 8-9].

Decision – High Court's judgments and orders set aside as erroneous – Appeals allowed [Para 10].

Service Matter - Civil Appeal – Police Recruitment – Suppression of Material Information 

The State of West Bengal appealed against a High Court judgment directing the appointment of the respondent as a constable. The appellant argued that the respondent suppressed information about a pending criminal case. The Supreme Court confirmed the findings of the Tribunal and the High Court that there was no suppression of material information. [Para 1-2, 15]

Verification Roll – Ambiguity in Information Sought 

The Court found the verification roll to be vague as it did not specifically ask about pending criminal cases. The respondent had answered "No" to a question about being "arrested, detained, or convicted," which the Court deemed appropriate given the phrasing of the question. [Para 10-11]

Criminal Case – Acquittal and Nature of Offence 

The respondent was acquitted in a criminal case that did not involve heinous or serious offences or moral turpitude. The Court considered this acquittal in its judgment. [Para 8-9]

Legal Precedents – Application of Avtar Singh Case 

The Court applied the guidelines from "Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471" for dealing with suppression of information and the effect of conviction/acquittal on employment. [Para 13-14]

Decision – Modification of High Court's Order and Direction for Appointment 

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order and directed the appellant to consider the respondent's case for appointment as a constable within four weeks. The respondent would only be entitled to notional benefits, not salary and back wages until the date of his appointment. [Para 15-16]

Land Acquisition - Compensation - Determination of Market Value - Deduction for Development - Applicability of principles for determining compensation for acquired land - Proper method for calculating deduction - Consideration of sale exemplars - Standard deduction for development charges - Incremental value based on exemplars - Belting system in valuation - Uniform market value determination. [Para 9, 12-18]

Land Acquisition - Multiple Civil Appeals arising from a common judgment and decree issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana - Appeals related to enhanced compensation claims by landowners covered by Sec. 4(1) Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1893 - Appeals based on the potential of acquired land and its location near industrial complexes and highways - Issue of determining appropriate compensation. [Para 2]

High Court's Approach - High Court determined market value for acquired land at Rs. 1,21,33,320 per acre - High Court relied on sale exemplars and considered potential development of the area - Deduction of 60% on sale consideration rejected as unreasonable - However, High Court's determination lacked proper reasoning and specific deduction percentage. [Para 12]

Principles for Determining Compensation - Land values in a developing area near industrial complexes and highways - Factors like location, potential development, and neighborhood considered - Deduction for development charges as per precedents - Deduction ranges from 20% to 75% based on various factors, including land use, location, infrastructure, and nature of development. [Para 9, 12]

Deduction for Development - Application of principles from earlier cases - Deduction for development charges essential for determining market value - Deduction percentage varies based on factors like land use, location, and infrastructure - Deduction factors vary for different types of layouts - Deduction depends on the nature of the acquired land and its development potential. [Para 12]

Sale Exemplars and Incremental Value - Sale exemplars as evidence for market value - Exemplars to reflect similar size, location, and neighborhood - Incremental value should consider applicable deduction for development charges - Proper comparison of exemplars necessary for accurate valuation. [Para 13]

Standard Deduction and Uniform Valuation - Applying standard deduction of 1/3 for development charges - Consideration of CLU certificate for land use - Developed nature of land under acquisition - Application of belting system rejected in favor of uniform valuation - Proper reasoning and deduction percentage essential for accurate market value determination. [Para 16-17]

Appeals allowed in part - Market value determined at Rs. 1,49,14,975 per acre for acquired lands with standard statutory benefits - High Court's determination lacked proper reasoning for deduction and valuation - Uniform valuation applied based on CLU certificate and developed nature of the land. [Para 18]

Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Appellant and respondent married for 12 years with a 12-year-old daughter – Living separately for over a decade – Previous attempts at reconciliation failed – High Court dismissed divorce petition – Appeal to Supreme Court – Court finds irretrievable breakdown of marriage due to continued bitterness, dead emotions, and long separation – Grant of decree of divorce justified – Appellant directed to deposit Rs.20,00,000/- for the daughter’s education – Maintenance amount and visitation rights granted – Mediation Centre to decide visitation terms – Decree of divorce granted. [Para 2-8]

Writ Petition (Criminal) – Revival of Withdrawn Petition – Differentiated Issues – Petitioner initially approached Delhi High Court with a writ petition – High Court passed interim orders, including medical evaluation – Petitioner later withdrew the petition based on a Supreme Court decision in another case – High Court’s order noting withdrawal – Supreme Court decided to address present petition separately due to distinct issues raised – Petitioner’s concerns related to detention procedure and medical facilities – Supreme Court set aside High Court’s order, revived the writ petition before Delhi High Court – Directed provision of necessary medical treatment based on medical advice – Registrar (Judicial) instructed to forward order to High Court – Pending application disposed of. [Para 1-13]

Company Law – Preferential Payments – Interpretation of Sections 529A and 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 – Application of Customs Act to government dues – Examination of conflict between Companies Act and Customs Act – Priority of government dues vis-à-vis other creditors – Determination of whether customs dues constitute preferential payments – Analysis of relevant statutory provisions and precedents – Resolution of legal issues arising from conflicting laws – Consideration of principles governing preferential payments. [Paras 1-10]

Statutory Interpretation – Meaning of "due and payable" – Interaction between Customs Act and Companies Act – Analysis of statutory language – Examination of relevant provisions of both Acts – Discussion of case law and principles of interpretation – Determination of the timing and nature of customs dues – Examination of creation of first charge on government dues under Customs Act – Interaction of Section 142A of the Customs Act with Section 529A of the Companies Act – Resolution of conflict between the two statutes. [Paras 11-26]

Company Liquidation – Application of Section 178 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Protection of tax dues during company liquidation – Interpretation of relevant provision – Exclusion of specified amount from distribution pool – Comparison with provisions of Companies Act – Examination of case law on similar provisions – Effect of Section 178 on priority of payments. [Paras 27-28]

Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Company Application allowed – Sale proceeds to be distributed in accordance with Sections 529A and 530 of the Companies Act – Customs Act's Section 142A not applicable to overriding preferential creditors – No costs awarded. [Para 28]