Contempt of Court – Civil and Criminal Contempt – The Supreme Court held that Perry Kansagra committed egregious acts of contempt by willfully disobeying the Court's orders, falsely representing facts before a foreign court, and obstructing the administration of justice. These actions constituted both civil and criminal contempt. The Court emphasized that its power to punish for contempt is not confined to the procedures under the Contempt of Courts Act but is inherent under Article 129 of the Constitution. The contemnor's actions lowered the authority of the Court and interfered with judicial proceedings, necessitating stringent punishment [Paras 1-18].

Punishment for Contempt – Consecutive Sentences – The contemnor was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment for civil contempt and an additional six months for criminal contempt, with the sentences to run consecutively. Additionally, a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed, to be paid within four weeks, failing which further imprisonment would ensue. The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to secure the contemnor's presence for serving the sentence and ordered compliance reports to be filed [Paras 20-23].

Decision: The contemnor is sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment for civil contempt and six months of simple imprisonment for criminal contempt, with sentences to run consecutively. A fine of Rs. 25 lakhs is imposed, to be paid within four weeks, with further imprisonment in default of payment. The Ministry of Home Affairs is directed to ensure the contemnor's presence for serving the sentence. The matter is listed for further orders on December 15, 2022 [Paras 20-24].

Civil Procedure – Abatement of Suit – Substitution of Legal Representatives – The Supreme Court held that the suit filed by the appellant's father did not abate upon his death, despite no immediate substitution of legal representatives in the suit itself. The Court emphasized that the substitution made in the appeal against an interlocutory order should enure for the benefit of the entire suit, thus allowing the legal representative to continue the proceedings. The High Court's finding that the suit abated due to non-substitution within the prescribed time was incorrect [Paras 1-13].

Temporary Injunction – Appeal and Continuation of Suit – The Court clarified that an appeal against an interlocutory order, such as one refusing a temporary injunction, is a continuation of the suit. Therefore, the legal representative brought on record during the appeal can continue the suit. The High Court erred in holding that the suit was extinguished due to the death of the sole plaintiff without substitution in the suit itself [Paras 9-12].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The High Court's order is set aside, and the suit is directed to be proceeded with. The Court ordered the consolidation of Original (Declaratory) Suit No. 3 of 2014 and Original (Injunction) Suit No. 39 of 2014 for a comprehensive adjudication. The consolidated suits are to be disposed of expeditiously within eight months [Paras 13].

Land Acquisition – Compensation and Rehabilitation – The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of delayed compensation and rehabilitation for landowners, predominantly tribal communities, whose lands were acquired for coal mining by Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited (MCL). The Court highlighted the prolonged struggle of the landowners for fair compensation and proper rehabilitation, spanning over two decades. It affirmed the necessity of adhering to the guidelines provided under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, and ensuring fair compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, especially for pending claims [Paras 1-12].

Determination of Compensation – Cut-off Date – The Court upheld the Commission's approach of fixing the cut-off date for determining compensation based on the date of survey notice (September 2010) rather than the date of acquisition notification, to prevent undue prejudice to landowners. It emphasized the importance of adopting a uniform cut-off date for determining compensation to avoid delays and ensure consistency across affected villages [Paras 13-18].

Applicability of R&R Act, 2013 – The Court held that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, particularly the First Schedule, apply to acquisitions made under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, post the notification dated 28.08.2015. Therefore, compensation for the villages where the reports were not approved prior to this date must be re-determined as per the 2013 Act, ensuring fair and enhanced compensation for the landowners [Paras 19-34].

Rehabilitation Policy – Applicability of State Policies – The Court clarified that the State Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2006, as amended in 2013, should apply for determining benefits for displaced families. It stressed that major sons/grandsons and major unmarried daughters/granddaughters/sisters must be considered as separate families for rehabilitation benefits, ensuring comprehensive support for all affected individuals [Paras 35-43].

Decision: The appeals are partly allowed. The reports and recommendations of the Claims Commission are accepted with modifications. The compensation for the four villages, where the reports were not approved before 28.08.2015, is to be re-determined under the First Schedule of the R&R Act, 2013. The State's Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2006 (as amended in 2013), will govern the benefits for displaced families. The Commission is directed to ensure compliance with these guidelines and report back to the Court [Paras 44-45].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – High Court declared acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation – High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation case – Supreme Court observed that the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation was overruled by the Indore Development Authority case – Held that possession of land taken by the Delhi Development Authority negates the lapse of proceedings – Compensation determination under the 2013 Act applicable only when the award was not made as of 1-1-2014 – Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside [Paras 1-5].

Indore Development Authority Case – Clarification of Law – The Supreme Court in the Indore Development Authority case clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) – Emphasized that non-payment of compensation does not result in lapse if possession has been taken – Explained that deposit of compensation in court is not required to avoid lapse [Paras 3-4].

Right to Fair Compensation – Applicability – Section 24(1)(a) and Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act discussed – Compensation under the 2013 Act applicable if the award was not made as on the date of commencement of the Act – Proceedings to continue under the 1894 Act if the award was made within five years prior, excluding periods covered by interim orders [Paras 3-4].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court judgment quashed – Acquisition proceedings not lapsed – Original writ petition dismissed [Paras 4-5].

Criminal Law – POCSO Act – Non-reporting of Sexual Assault – Respondent, a medical practitioner, accused of failing to report sexual assault on minor tribal girls despite knowledge – High Court quashed FIR and chargesheet – Supreme Court emphasized that non-reporting of such crimes is serious and often shields offenders – Quashing of FIR and chargesheet at threshold without allowing evidence to be examined was held as miscarriage of justice [Paras 1-26].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Statements – Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in evidence – Limited use for purposes under Sections 145 and 157 of the Evidence Act – High Court erred in relying on these statements to quash proceedings – Statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also have limited use – Supreme Court reaffirmed inadmissibility of such statements for deciding quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 18-24].

Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be sparing and cautious – Quashing appropriate only when FIR and materials do not disclose any cognizable offence – Supreme Court held High Court's exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this case was improper and resulted in miscarriage of justice [Paras 7-25].

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – Legal Obligation to Report – Under Section 19(1) of POCSO Act, individuals with knowledge of offence must report to authorities – Failure to do so punishable under Section 21 – Supreme Court stressed the importance of reporting to achieve the objectives of the Act [Paras 10-12, 15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court judgment quashed – FIR and chargesheet against respondent reinstated – Proceedings to continue as per law [Paras 25-26].

Service Tax – Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency – Appellant engaged FSE for the appearance of tennis player VA in the Chennai Open Tennis Tournament – Service tax demand raised under 'manpower recruitment or supply agency' – Supreme Court held that the definition under Section 65(68) does not require an employer-employee relationship between the agency and the person whose services are supplied – Agreement with FSE falls within the ambit of manpower recruitment or supply agency – Appeal on this ground dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Service Tax – Programme Producer – Agreements with Zee Telefilms and Trans World International for licensing and sale of telecast rights – Tribunal's reliance on BCCI case erroneous – Production of programmes and sale of telecast rights do not fall under the definition of 'programme producer' – Supreme Court reversed Tribunal's decision on this aspect [Paras 17-21].

Extended Period of Limitation – Invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty – Tribunal acknowledged the matter involved interpretation of statutory provisions – Supreme Court held that extended period not applicable, and penalty unwarranted – First show cause notice confined to normal period of limitation [Paras 22-25].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – Tribunal's decision on manpower recruitment upheld – Decision on programme producer services reversed – Extended period of limitation not applicable – Penalty set aside [Paras 26-27].

Service Benefits – Pensionary Benefits – Appeal against the grant of pensionary benefits to Commission Vendors/Bearers in Northern Railway – High Court directed counting 50% of their service before absorption for pensionary benefits – Union of India contended that such benefits should not be granted as Commission Vendors/Bearers do not have the same status as casual laborers – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision on the grounds of parity with other zones/divisions – Held, Commission Vendors/Bearers working in Northern Railway entitled to the same benefits as those in Western, Eastern, Southern, and South-Eastern Railways – Denial of similar benefits would amount to discrimination and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 1-12].

Parity in Treatment – Commission Vendors/Bearers in different zones/divisions – Supreme Court emphasized that employees working under the same employer (Railway Board) in different zones/divisions must be treated similarly – Differentiation in benefits between zones/divisions violates equality principles under Articles 14 and 16 – Commission Vendors/Bearers entitled to similar benefits as their counterparts in other zones/divisions [Paras 7-8].

Financial Implications – Argument of financial burden rejected – Supreme Court held that pensionary benefits once granted to similarly situated employees in other zones cannot be denied on financial grounds – Financial implications cannot justify discrimination among employees of the same employer [Para 9].

Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Previous decisions by High Courts and Tribunals on similar issues attaining finality – Supreme Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis to dismiss appeals, reinforcing the consistency in legal rulings – Benefit of counting 50% service for pensionary purposes affirmed [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Commission Vendors/Bearers in Northern Railway entitled to count 50% of their service prior to absorption for pensionary benefits – No costs [Paras 11-12].

Defamation – Criminal Law – Appeal against summoning order and complaint quashing – A news article titled "Mission Misconduct" published in INDIA TODAY magazine led to defamation complaints – The article reported allegations of sexual misconduct, corruption, and sale of passports by Indian officials – The complainant, a senior officer, sought action against the Editor-in-Chief, author, and public servants – Supreme Court held that the Editor-in-Chief cannot be held liable without specific allegations against him – The public servants' actions were protected as they reported in their official capacity – The author of the article to be tried on facts to determine if the act was justified – Appeals allowed for Editor-in-Chief and public servants, appeal by author rejected [Paras 1-26].

Presumption – Editor vs. Editor-in-Chief – Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 applies presumption to editors but not to Editor-in-Chief – Supreme Court clarifies that Chief Editors can be proceeded against if specific allegations are made – In absence of specific allegations, no presumption against Chief Editors – Case reinforced by lack of presumption for Editor-in-Chief [Paras 17, 22-23].

Exceptions to Defamation – Section 499 IPC – Benefit of exceptions to defamation can be considered at the stage of application under Section 482 CrPC – Accurate and good faith reporting of public conduct of public servants protected – Reporting made to a superior officer alleging misconduct protected under Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – Summoning order and complaint against Editor-in-Chief (A-1) and public servants (A-3, A-4, A-8) quashed – Appeal by author of the article (A-2) rejected – Author to face trial on facts [Paras 26].

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act – Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Dispute resolution – Independent arbitration agreements and statutory rights under MSMED Act – Appeals challenging the jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council under MSMED Act despite the existence of independent arbitration agreements between the parties – Supreme Court held that the MSMED Act, being a special statute, would have precedence over the Arbitration Act – Facilitation Council has jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator even if conciliation proceedings were initiated under the MSMED Act – Provisions of the Arbitration Act apply to the proceedings conducted by the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act [Paras 1-35].

MSMED Act – Overriding Effect – Chapter V of the MSMED Act would override provisions of the Arbitration Act – No party to a dispute regarding any amount due under Section 17 of the MSMED Act precluded from making a reference to the Facilitation Council due to an independent arbitration agreement – Facilitation Council entitled to act as arbitrator despite the bar contained in Section 80 of the Arbitration Act – Proceedings before the Facilitation Council/institute/centre acting as an arbitrator governed by the Arbitration Act – Facilitation Council competent to rule on its own jurisdiction [Paras 34-35].

Supplier Definition – A party not a 'supplier' under Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act on the date of contract cannot seek benefits under the Act – Subsequent registration has prospective effect and applies to the supply of goods and services after registration [Para 33].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgments set aside where they conflicted with the overriding effect of the MSMED Act – Facilitation Council’s jurisdiction to proceed with disputes upheld – Proceedings to be continued under the Arbitration Act post conciliation failure – Applications for setting aside awards to be filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 34-35].