Land Acquisition – Compensation – Enhancement – Lands acquired for Industrial Model Township – High Court granted flat 8% increase over market value – Supreme Court affirmed increase – Considered potential development due to proximity to Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway – Sale deed of 28.04.2004 not relied upon due to additional factors in valuation – Appeals partly allowed, compensation increased to Rs.47,105 per acre from Rs.43,614 per acre [Paras 1-16].

Valuation of Land – Pre- and Post-Acquisition Sale Deeds – Court rejected reliance on post-acquisition sale deeds – Sale deed dated 28.04.2004 excluded due to inclusion of constructed area and machinery in price – Pre-acquisition sale deed dated 17.08.2003 used for valuation – Methodology of cumulative increase not applicable beyond four to five years gap [Paras 9-11].

Market Value – Factors Affecting Increase – Court considered situational and developmental factors – Land being away from highway but closer to potential development due to Expressway – Following principle in ONGC case for rural and semi-urban areas [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.47,105 per acre – Appellants entitled to statutory benefits [Para 16].

Service Law – Recruitment – Qualification – Degree Holders – Interpretation of "minimum" qualifications for Junior Engineer (Electrical) – Whether degree in Electrical Engineering is considered higher than diploma and if degree holders are eligible – Supreme Court held that recruitment rules allowed for interpretation including degree holders – Amendment in 2020 clarified this inclusion retroactively – Appeals by degree holders allowed, directing HPSEB to process all applications including degree holders based on merit [Paras 1-39].

Recruitment Rules – Interpretation – Higher Qualification – Court emphasized that "minimum" qualifications include higher qualifications in the same discipline unless expressly excluded – Degree in Electrical Engineering considered presupposing diploma qualification – HPSEB directed to follow amended rules including degree holders in selection process [Paras 6-12, 18-39].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – HPSEB directed to process applications of degree holders and finalize selection based on merits [Para 39].

Income Tax – Stay Orders – Constitutional Validity – Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) – Appeal challenging the validity of the proviso which prevents extension of stay orders beyond 365 days irrespective of the assessee’s responsibility for delay – Supreme Court held that the proviso violates Article 14 of the Constitution by treating unequals equally – Proviso found to be arbitrary as it did not differentiate between delays caused by the assessee and those caused by the tribunal or revenue – The court read down the proviso to ensure that stay orders will only be vacated if the delay is attributable to the assessee [Paras 1-25].

Article 14 – Discrimination and Arbitrariness – Unequal Treatment – Court found the third proviso discriminatory as it clubbed assessees who delay proceedings with those who do not – Arbitrary provision violates right to equality by imposing same consequences regardless of fault [Paras 17-24].

Interpretation of Tax Statutes – Manifest Arbitrariness – Supreme Court reiterated that even tax legislation must not be arbitrary or discriminatory – Applied principles from past judgments to invalidate the proviso [Paras 16-25].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Third proviso to Section 254(2A) read down to exclude the words "even" and "is not" – Stay orders will vacate only if the delay is attributable to the assessee [Para 25].

Company Law – Winding Up – Non-Payment of Dues – Defence of Defective Material – Appellant claimed huge losses due to defective material supplied by respondent – No documentary evidence provided – Respondent acknowledged defects by granting credit – Company Judge and Division Bench found defence not bonafide – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-19].

Bona Fide Dispute – Requirements – If debt bona fide disputed and defence substantial, court will not wind up company – Defence must be in good faith, substantial, likely to succeed in law, and prima facie supported by facts – Concurrent findings against appellant's defence being bonafide and substantial [Paras 8-10, 20-28].

Interest on Delayed Payment – No agreement for interest – Division Bench declined to address interest, left open for further proceedings – Appellant's claim on interest not substantiated by law [Paras 5, 21-26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings by Company Judge and Division Bench upheld – No costs [Para 29].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Novation of MoU by SHA – Whether the MoU has been superseded by the SHA requires detailed consideration – Section 11 court’s jurisdiction limited to prima facie review – Arbitration clause in MoU cannot be negated without thorough analysis – Appeal allowed, parties referred to arbitration [Paras 1-9].

Scope of Section 11 – Prima Facie Review – Limited Jurisdiction – Court cannot undertake detailed review at the referral stage – Validity and existence of arbitration agreement to be primarily decided by arbitral tribunal – Referral justified when contentions on non-arbitrability are arguable [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Parties referred to arbitration by sole arbitrator, Justice Aftab Alam (Retired) – Observations made by Supreme Court only prima facie [Para 9].

Appeal against sentence higher than the minimum prescribed under the NDPS Act for possession of 1 kg heroin, addressing the adequacy o

NDPS Act – Sentence – Higher Than Minimum – Factors Considered – Accused found with 1 kg heroin, four times the commercial quantity – Minimum sentence 10 years RI – Special Court imposed 15 years RI considering the quantity involved – High Court confirmed – Supreme Court upheld, noting the discretion to consider relevant factors beyond Section 32B clauses (a) to (f) – Factors such as the accused being a carrier and first-time convict not mitigating enough to reduce sentence [Paras 1-6].

Factors for Higher Punishment – Discretion of Court – While imposing punishment higher than the minimum, courts can consider any relevant factor in addition to those listed in Section 32B – Quantity of substance significant – Public interest and societal impact crucial in NDPS cases – Societal harm from drug trafficking outweighs personal mitigating factors [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Sentence of 15 years RI and Rs. 2 lakhs fine upheld – Higher sentence justified given the substantial quantity of heroin and societal impact [Para 8].

f reasons for imposing such sentence.

Hindu Undivided Family – Presumption of Tenancy – Mere payment of rent by great grandfather or by the grandfather of the plaintiff raises no presumption that it was a joint Hindu family business. Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court whereby a writ petition filed by plaintiff was allowed holding that the tenant in the premises in question was representing a joint Hindu family and that the Karta was not competent to surrender the tenancy rights in favour of the Wakf Board and consequently the induction of the appellant as a tenant by the Wakf Board was illegal. Mere payment of rent by great grandfather or by the grandfather of the plaintiff raises no presumption that it was a joint Hindu family business [Paras 29-35].

Validity of Surrender Document – The act of surrender of tenancy was for the benefit of the Joint Hindu family. The document was validly proved and accepted by the Wakf Board. Therefore, the act of surrender of tenancy was for the benefit of the Joint Hindu family. The Court rejected the High Court's assessment that the surrender letter was unreliable [Paras 36-37].

Jurisdiction of High Court – Petition styled as one under Article 226 would not bar the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under the Act and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution. Jurisdiction of the High Court to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of determination by the Tribunal is reserved with the High Court [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of the High Court set aside – Order of the Wakf Tribunal restored – No order as to costs [Para 38].

Dowry Death – Bail Rejection – Specific allegations in FIR regarding demand for dowry and proximity of death to the demand – High Court granted bail without adequate reasons – Medical evidence did not support the claim of mental illness – Serious allegations and presumption under Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B Evidence Act – High Court not justified in granting bail [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Reasoning – Quality of Reasons – Necessity for reasoned orders in bail applications – High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning – Importance of demonstrating application of mind by the judge – Brief but quality reasons essential for credibility in judicial process [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s bail order set aside – Respondent to surrender forthwith – Observations limited to issue of bail and not to affect merits of the trial [Para 13].

Promotion Criteria – Rule 13.14(2) of Punjab Police Rules 1934 – Eligibility criteria for promotion to Inspector – Rule 13.14(2) prescribes eight years' approved service for promotion to selection grade of Sub-Inspector, with at least five years in the rank of Sub-Inspector – High Court upheld requirement as neither arbitrary nor discriminatory – Government order abolishing selection grade did not render Rule 13.14(2) redundant – Criteria for promotion to Inspector includes maintaining experience requirement for proper evaluation [Paras 1-21].

Statutory Interpretation – Conjoint Reading of Rules – Promotion from Sub-Inspector to Inspector governed by Rules 13.1, 13.14, and 13.15 – High Court and Supreme Court emphasized harmonious construction to preserve legislative intent – Promotion criteria maintained to ensure efficiency and competency in higher ranks [Paras 13-20].

Government Order – Impact on Promotion Rules – 1987 order discontinuing selection grades for Group B, C, and D employees did not nullify experience criteria in promotion rules – Experience requirements continued to be applicable for assessing eligibility for promotion to Inspector [Paras 16-19].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Promotions of private respondents to Inspector validated based on compliance with Rule 13.14(2) [Para 21].