Land Acquisition – Compensation – Jammu and Kashmir State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 – Acquisition proceedings initiated under the State Act of 1990 – High Court directed compensation as per the Act, 2013 – Supreme Court held Act, 2013 not applicable to State Act of 1990 – Compensation to be determined under the State Act of 1990 – High Court's order set aside [Paras 5-6].

General Clauses Act – Section 6 – Saving of rights, liabilities, and obligations under repealed laws – Order 2019 issued post-Act 2013 – Rights and liabilities under State Act of 1990 continue under General Clauses Act – No application of Section 24(1)(a) of Act, 2013 to State Act of 1990 [Para 5.3].

Order of Status Quo – Impact on Award Declaration – Award not declared due to High Court's stay order – High Court's reliance on non-declaration of award for compensation under Act, 2013, erroneous – Period of stay to be excluded in determining applicability of Act, 2013 [Para 5.4].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment directing compensation under Act, 2013 quashed – Matter remanded to High Court to decide writ petitions on other grounds challenging land acquisition proceedings under State Act of 1990 – Applicability of Act, 2013 concluded and not to be reopened [Para 7].

Land Acquisition – Public Purpose – Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Land acquisition for private companies – Acquisition upheld when for public purpose and in furtherance of Act's objectives – Regulations permit land allotment to single company for industrial development with State Government's consultation – Acquisition for MSPL and AISL upheld as consistent with statutory requirements [Paras 28-41].

Environmental Clearance – Acquisition Validity – Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Environmental clearance obtained subsequently validates acquisition – Absence of clearance at acquisition time not fatal when eventual clearance granted – Clearance from MOEF and KSPCB considered [Paras 25-33].

Procedural Compliance – Notification Validity – Simultaneous issue of notifications under Sections 1(3), 3(1), and 28(1) of 1966 Act upheld – Procedure under Section 28, including objection consideration, complied – No evidence of undue haste or non-application of mind [Paras 33-35].

Single Company Acquisition – Public Purpose – Acquisition for a single company's industrial project valid under 1966 Act – Board empowered to allot land to individual companies with State Government approval – Allotment to MSPL and AISL in furtherance of industrial development objectives [Paras 37-41].

Judicial Review – High Court Overreach – Division Bench’s inclusion of value judgments on policy views criticized – High Court’s quashing of notifications overturned – Emphasis on statutory interpretation and procedural adherence [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's quashing of acquisition notifications reversed – Acquisition proceedings for MSPL and AISL validated – Environmental and procedural compliance confirmed [Para 24-44].

Criminal Law – Issuance of Process – Section 204 CrPC – Requirement for reasoned order – Magistrate must provide reasons for concluding prima facie case against accused – Issuance of process is not an empty formality – Order of Magistrate set aside for lack of reasons [Paras 28-30].

Vicarious Liability – Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Specific Averments Required – Directors' liability for company's offence requires specific averments of their role in conduct of business – Merely being a director insufficient for prosecution – Detailed role and responsibility must be specified in complaint – Complaint against directors lacking such details quashed [Paras 13-24].

Procedural Compliance – Drug Manufacturing – Compliance with Rule 76 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules – Active direction and supervision by approved competent technical staff – Directors not responsible for day-to-day supervision unless specified – Letters from technical staff confirming compliance [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and CJM's orders quashed – Complaint against appellants dismissed for lack of specific averments and procedural irregularity – Complaint to proceed against other accused as per law [Paras 31-32].

Service Law – Seniority Determination – Officiating Period Exclusion – Seniority calculation must exclude period spent in a promotional post on officiating basis unless specified otherwise in rules – Officiating service cannot count towards length of service in a particular post for seniority purposes – Appellants' seniority claim based on officiating service rejected [Paras 12-14].

Nagaland SCERT Service Rules, 2003 – Eligibility Criteria – Five years continuous service in feeder grade required for promotion – Appellants failed to meet eligibility criterion of continuous service in feeder grade as per 2003 Rules – Regularization of service after 2003 Rules' operationalization must comply with rule stipulations [Paras 13-15].

Judicial Review – DPC Recommendations – Limited judicial interference with Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommendations unless exceptional circumstances – Previous High Court remand for fresh DPC consideration complied with – Fresh DPC recommendation favoring appellants overturned due to non-compliance with eligibility criteria [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Seniority of appellants cannot be computed including officiating period – Respondent No. 4's seniority maintained as per valid regularization date – Authorities to re-compute seniority based on this judgment [Paras 16-18].

Contempt of Court – Deliberate Disobedience – Allegation of willful disobedience of the Supreme Court's order directing absorption of employees in Telangana Power Utilities – Non-compliance by Telangana Power Utilities with the Concluding Final Report submitted by One Man Committee [Paras 1-9].

Compliance with Court Orders – Absorption of Employees – TS Genco, TS Transco, TSSPDCL, and TSNPDCL directed to absorb petitioners as per the list approved by the One Man Committee – Orders issued to pay salary and service benefits to petitioners from the date they were relieved by Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities [Para 9].

Judicial Review – Finality of One Man Committee Report – Allocation list prepared by the One Man Committee held binding on all parties – Telangana Power Utilities' repeated objections and non-compliance deemed as contempt of court [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Contempt petition allowed – Telangana Power Utilities held guilty of contempt for non-compliance – Additional opportunity given to comply with the court's previous directions within two weeks – Further orders on sentence to be decided based on compliance [Para 9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Sections 56 and 138 – Part-payment and Endorsement – Offence under Section 138 requires the cheque to represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of maturity or presentation – Part-payment made before maturity must be endorsed on the cheque as per Section 56 – Unendorsed cheque presented for encashment, if dishonoured, does not attract Section 138 as it does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment [Paras 30-54].

Debt and Liability – Interpretation of Debt – Legally enforceable debt must exist at the time of encashment for Section 138 to apply – Part-payment after issuance but before encashment alters the enforceable debt – Omnibus demand notice without acknowledging part-payment invalid under Section 138 [Paras 9-24].

Notice Requirement – Proviso to Section 138 – Demand for "said amount of money" in notice must represent cheque amount after considering part-payments – Omnibus notice demanding full cheque amount despite part-payment invalid – Compliance with procedural stipulations essential for Section 138 offence [Paras 21-25].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's acquittal upheld – Cheque did not represent legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment due to part-payment – Demand notice invalid for not acknowledging part-payment [Paras 31-32].

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Appointment and Reappointment – High Court's power to issue writ of quo warranto when an appointment is made contrary to statutory provisions – State government's reappointment of Vice-Chancellor without authority held invalid – Chancellor retains power of appointment and reappointment under Section 8 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 – State government's invocation of Section 60 to reappoint Vice-Chancellor as removal of difficulty measure invalid [Paras 1-11, 28-51].

Statutory Interpretation – Calcutta University Act, 1979 – Sections 8 and 60 – Appointment of Vice-Chancellor – Statutory scheme of appointment and reappointment under Section 8 – Chancellor's authority to appoint and reappoint Vice-Chancellor – Section 60's "removal of difficulty" clause cannot override specific provisions of Section 8 – Deletion of "subject to the provisions of this section" in amended Section 8(2)(a) does not transfer reappointment power to State government [Paras 14-41].

University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations – Compliance – UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 – Appointment of Vice-Chancellor to be made by Chancellor as per UGC Regulations – State government's appointment contrary to UGC Regulations invalid – UGC Regulations have statutory force and prevail over conflicting State legislation [Paras 51-56].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Reappointment of Vice-Chancellor by State government invalid – Chancellor retains authority to appoint and reappoint Vice-Chancellor – Compliance with UGC Regulations required [Paras 57-58].

Prevention of Corruption – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 8(1)(f) of Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Sanction must be granted within three months, extendable by one more month for legal consultation – Non-compliance with this period does not automatically lead to quashing of proceedings – The sanctioning authority is accountable for the delay and subject to judicial review and administrative action by the Central Vigilance Commission [Paras 28-39].

Judicial Review – Accountability – Delay in Sanction – Delay in granting sanction for prosecution requires accountability of the sanctioning authority – Affected parties can seek appropriate remedies, including judicial directions for action on the sanction request – Central Vigilance Commission to enquire and take corrective action in case of delay [Paras 33-37].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – No evidence of non-application of mind by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) – Delay in granting sanction not raised at trial or High Court level, thus not examined in detail by Supreme Court – Appellant permitted to seek appropriate remedies based on principles laid down [Paras 40-41].

Criminal Law – Section 294(b) IPC – Obscene Acts and Songs – The offense under Section 294(b) IPC requires the utterance of obscene words to the annoyance of others – Mere abusive, humiliating, or defamatory words do not constitute an offense under Section 294(b) IPC – Absence of words involving lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings means the offense is not attracted [Paras 7-10].

Criminal Law – Section 341 IPC – Wrongful Restraint – To constitute wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC, there must be obstruction preventing a person from proceeding in a direction to which they had a right to proceed – The obstruction must be voluntary, and the obstructor must intend or know that their actions would cause obstruction – The complaint failed to disclose necessary ingredients to constitute wrongful restraint [Paras 11-12].

Judicial Process – Issuance of Process – Judicial Functions – Taking cognizance and issuing process are judicial functions requiring a judicious approach – Issuance of process must be preceded by an application of judicial mind to determine if there are grounds for proceeding against the accused – Vague and general allegations without material particulars do not justify issuing process [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order set aside – Criminal proceedings in STS No. 566 of 2018 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Tamil Nadu, quashed [Para 15].