Land Acquisition – Payment of Compensation – The appellant (M/s Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.) challenged the High Court’s direction to pay compensation under the Supplementary Award dated 02.05.2022 – High Court had ruled that the appellant should pay the compensation first and recover the amount from Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) later – The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on Clause 7.1 of the Scheme of Arrangement between the appellant and JAL was erroneous – The acquisition proceedings commenced before the Scheme's "Effective Date," and liabilities associated with the land remained with JAL – Held: JAL is liable for the compensation determined under the Supplementary Award [Paras 16, 20, 27, 32, 56].

Land Ownership – Liability of Payment – The subject land was acquired for a safety zone under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for JAL's cement project – The land was not transferred to Ultra-Tech Cement under the Scheme of Arrangement – Supreme Court clarified that ownership of the land and liabilities relating to the land acquisition, including compensation, remained with JAL – Hence, the appellant could not be directed to pay the compensation amount for land not transferred to it – Held: Compensation liability remains with JAL, not Ultra-Tech Cement [Paras 27, 29, 32].

Return of Acquired Land – Unutilized Land under Section 101 of the 2013 Act – JAL contended that the subject land had remained unutilized and should be returned to the original landowners – The Court rejected this contention, holding that the land was acquired as a safety zone and was being utilized for that purpose – The argument that the land was unutilized did not hold since the purpose of acquisition was being fulfilled – Held: The return of land under Section 101 is not applicable in this case [Paras 33, 36-38].

State's Role – Article 300-A of the Constitution – The Court emphasized the constitutional duty of the State to ensure fair compensation for landowners – The Himachal Pradesh government failed in ensuring timely payment of compensation, contrary to the welfare State principles under Article 300-A – The Court held that the State should have facilitated payment to the landowners rather than leaving them to seek compensation from corporate entities – Held: The State must compensate landowners and recover the amount from JAL [Paras 43-52].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Respondent Nos. 7 (State of Himachal Pradesh) and 10 (Land Acquisition Collector) directed to pay compensation to the landowners and recover it from JAL – Compensation to be paid within 15 days with interest at 9% from the date of the Supplementary Award [Paras 56-58].

Motor Accident Claims – Contributory Negligence – Reversal of Findings – The appellants, survivors, and legal heirs of passengers involved in a collision with a parked truck, contested the reduction of their compensation due to contributory negligence – The parked truck was abandoned in the middle of a highway at night, without any warning signs – Held: The deduction of 50% of compensation on the grounds of contributory negligence was unjustified – Full compensation to be awarded – The vicarious liability of the car driver could not be attributed to the passengers – Compensation reinstated to full amount [Paras 3-5, 16-42].

Vicarious Liability – Passengers Not Liable for Driver’s Negligence – The contributory negligence attributed to the driver of the car was improperly extended to the passengers and their legal heirs – This imputation of liability was inconsistent with established tort principles – Held: The passengers were not responsible for the driver's negligence and thus, their compensation should not have been reduced – Compensation to be restored to the full amount [Paras 17-20, 36-39].

Highway Safety – Parking Regulations Violated by Stationary Truck – The offending truck was abandoned in the middle of the highway at night without any illumination or warning indicators, creating a traffic hazard – The truck's driver was found in violation of various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989 – Held: The full responsibility for the accident rested on the truck's owner and driver – No contributory negligence can be imputed to the car driver under such circumstances [Paras 21-33].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Deduction of 50% of compensation on account of contributory negligence set aside – Full compensation to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal and modified by the High Court – Respondent No. 2 (Insurer of the offending truck) held jointly and severally liable with the truck's owner to indemnify the compensation – No costs [Paras 42-44].

Public Employment – Reservation Policy – Recruitment for Primary Teachers – Notification for 1423 posts of Primary Teachers was issued on 12.09.2006 – OBC reservation was introduced on 27.12.2006 after the recruitment process had commenced – High Court ruled that OBC reservation could not be applied retrospectively – Held: High Court’s judgment upheld, and a revised select list excluding OBC candidates directed to be prepared [Paras 9-11].

Constitutional Law – Equal Opportunity in Public Employment – Article 16 – OBC candidates were included in the final selection list despite no mention of OBC reservation in the recruitment notification – High Court held that such inclusion violated the principles of equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution – Held: The failure to notify OBC reservation before the recruitment process led to arbitrary and illegal selection, and the process was quashed from the stage where the error occurred [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference in Recruitment Process – Petitioners challenged the entire selection process, alleging irregularities in the written exam and viva-voce – High Court found no evidence of manipulation in the written exam or viva-voce but quashed the selection of OBC candidates due to retrospective application of reservation – Held: Interference by the Court was limited to the erroneous application of the OBC reservation [Paras 9-10].

Employment Law – Continuity of Service – Long-serving Teachers – Primary teachers appointed in 2011 continued to serve for over 13 years – Some of these teachers may lose their positions due to the revised selection list – Held: The Government is granted discretion to protect the service of long-serving teachers, even if their names do not appear in the revised list [Paras 17-18].

Decision: High Court’s judgment upheld – The revised selection list to be prepared within four weeks, excluding OBC candidates – Appointments based on the revised list to be made within four weeks of its publication – Notional appointment benefit from 09.12.2011 granted for superannuation purposes, but no arrears of salary to be paid – Government granted discretion to retain long-serving teachers not included in the revised list [Paras 17-18].

Property Law – Common Passage – Right of Access – The plaintiff-respondents claimed use of the entire common passage marked X-Y, Y-Z, and Z-Z1 in the map attached to the sale deeds – Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that only passage X-Y was designated for joint use, as per the sale deeds – The High Court, however, decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff-respondents the right to use the entire passage – Held: The sale deed of the plaintiff-respondents only granted a right of use over the passage X-Y, and there was no stipulation that they could use the passage Y-Z and Z-Z1 in portion B owned by the defendants-appellants – High Court’s interpretation was incorrect – The Trial Court's judgment restored [Paras 1, 10, 20-24].

Interpretation of Sale Deeds – No Right over Defendants' Portion – The sale deed executed in favor of the plaintiff-respondents only stipulated the right to a 15 feet wide common passage (X-Y) for access to the defendants-appellants' back portion (B) – The defendants-appellants’ sale deed did not mandate leaving any passage for the plaintiff-respondents' use – Held: The High Court erred in granting the plaintiff-respondents’ claim over the Y-Z and Z-Z1 passages in portion B, which exclusively belongs to the defendants [Paras 14-16, 22].

Literal Interpretation of Contracts – No Ambiguity – The language in both sale deeds is clear, and there is no ambiguity requiring inference beyond the literal meaning – Courts should give effect to the express terms of a contract where the wording is unambiguous – Held: The plaintiff-respondents' right to a common passage is limited to X-Y, and no further access is permissible through portion B [Paras 18, 22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s judgment restored, dismissing the plaintiff-respondents' suit – No order as to costs [Paras 24-25].

Labour Law – Kalelkar Award – Holidays on 2nd and 4th Saturdays – Overtime Compensation – The respondent-employees, who were employed in the Public Works Department, claimed entitlement to public holidays, including holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays, and overtime pay for work performed on those days as per the Kalelkar Award – The Industrial Court allowed their complaint, granting the said benefits, which was affirmed by the High Court – Held: The Kalelkar Award explicitly provides for such benefits to all employees except daily-wage workers, and the respondents, being temporary employees, are entitled to these holidays and compensations – The appellants’ reliance on the Government Circular dated 27th May 1996 to deny these entitlements was misplaced – Appeal dismissed, and Industrial Court’s decision upheld [Paras 20-25].

Unfair Labour Practices – Denial of Holiday Benefits – Section 28, Maharashtra Act – The appellants-employer engaged in unfair labour practices by denying the respondent-employees their rightful entitlements under the Kalelkar Award – The Industrial Court held that the respondents were entitled to public holidays and overtime compensation for work performed on 2nd and 4th Saturdays – Held: The Industrial Court's order was justified, and the High Court rightly upheld it [Paras 8-9, 14-16].

Interpretation of Government Circular – Applicability of Benefits – The appellants relied on a Government Circular dated 27th May 1996 to argue that the respondents were ineligible for public holidays and overtime compensation – Held: The Circular did not apply to the respondents, who were on the Converted Temporary Establishment under the Kalelkar Award, which clearly granted them such benefits – The Circular was limited to cases disposed of or pending before the Industrial Court at Bombay and did not override the Kalelkar Award [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of the Industrial Court and High Court affirmed – Appellants directed to comply with the order within eight weeks – No order as to costs [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Appellants (Accused Nos. 3 and 5) convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of Madhavrao Krishnaji Gabare – High Court sustained their conviction under Sections 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 148 IPC – Appellants challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court – Court found discrepancies and contradictions in the sole testimony of PW-1 (widow of the deceased), the key prosecution witness – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants acquitted [Paras 1, 6, 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Sole Eye-Witness – PW-1 (widow of the deceased) was the only credible witness, as other alleged eye-witnesses (PW-4, PW-5, and PW-8) were disbelieved by the High Court – PW-1's testimony was riddled with inconsistencies between her initial complaint and deposition in court – She added details regarding the involvement of the accused, raising reasonable doubt about the certainty of her identification of the attackers during a power cut at the time of the incident – No other evidence substantiating her claim of moonlight visibility was presented – Court found her testimony unreliable for conviction [Paras 5, 7-10, 12].

Circumstantial Evidence – Power Cut and Visibility – Incident occurred during a power cut, with no corroboration regarding the availability of sufficient moonlight for proper identification of the accused – Court found that the identification of the assailants in such circumstances lacked clarity – Further, PW-1’s claim that the assault occurred for two hours was implausible, raising doubts about the prosecution’s version – Lack of clarity on weapon attribution further weakened the case [Paras 7, 8, 11].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 148 IPC and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged, and any fines paid to be refunded [Paras 13].

Criminal Law – Acquittal Reversed by High Court – Conviction Set Aside by Supreme Court – Appellants convicted by the High Court under Sections 302, 148, and 120B read with Section 149 IPC for conspiring to murder the deceased, Babureddy, and attacking him with deadly weapons – Trial Court had acquitted the appellants, finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reversal of acquittal was not justified – Trial Court’s reasoning based on contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence was cogent – Appellants' conviction set aside, acquittal restored [Paras 3, 14-16].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions in Eyewitness Accounts – Key prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) provided contradictory versions of the events, including who accompanied the deceased to the hospital and when the police recorded the Spot Mahazar – Delayed recording of statements of key witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) further cast doubt on their credibility – Trial Court’s reliance on these contradictions was valid – Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to address these discrepancies sufficiently before reversing acquittal [Paras 6-10, 14-15].

Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Parameters for Reversing Acquittal – Supreme Court emphasized the principle that appellate courts must be cautious while overturning acquittals, as there is a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused – High Court failed to provide clear findings to overturn the Trial Court’s detailed judgment – Held: High Court’s interference was unjustified without addressing key contradictions and offering firm reasons for discarding Trial Court findings [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 120B IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds and sureties discharged [Paras 16].

Armed Forces – Prosecution of Army Personnel – Protection Under AFSP Act – Section 6 of AFSP Act – Proceedings Stayed – The petitioners sought to quash FIRs filed against their husbands, who are Army personnel, without obtaining the mandatory prior sanction from the Central Government as required under Section 6 of the AFSP Act, 1958 – The Court found that the FIRs and proceedings could not continue without such sanction – Held: The proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs shall remain closed in the absence of sanction from the Central Government, with liberty for the proceedings to continue if sanction is later granted [Paras 2, 3, 4, 6].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 6 of AFSP Act – Requirement of Prior Sanction – It was submitted that sanction for prosecution of the Army personnel was declined by the competent authority – The Court emphasized that prosecution or legal proceedings against Army personnel for actions taken under the AFSP Act require prior sanction from the Central Government – Held: The proceedings cannot continue without the Central Government's sanction [Para 6].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned FIRs against the Army personnel due to the absence of prior sanction from the Central Government as required under Section 6 of the AFSP Act – It was clarified that if the sanction is granted at any later stage, the proceedings can resume in accordance with the law [Para 6].

Public Examination – Denial of Handkerchief – Re-Examination Denied – The petitioner, suffering from Hyperhidrosis, was not permitted to take a handkerchief into the NEET-2024 examination hall, allegedly affecting his performance. The High Court found that the petitioner was allotted the full examination time, and the denial of the handkerchief would not have materially affected his performance, as he could have wiped his sweat on his clothes. Held: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no merit in the Special Leave Petition and emphasizing the need for circumspection in individual grievances regarding public examinations, which can delay finalization of results and affect larger public interest [Paras 4, 7]​.

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – No merit found in the claim for re-examination due to the non-availability of a handkerchief during the examination [Paras 7, 8]​.