Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – Compensation – The appellants challenged the High Court's decision declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation – Supreme Court noted that the High Court relied on the Pune Municipal Corporation case, which was later overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal – The Constitution Bench clarified that compensation tendered but refused by landowners or those seeking higher compensation cannot claim lapse under Section 24(2) – The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount as per Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act [Paras 3.1-4].

Legal Interpretation – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – The word "or" in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation is to be read as "nor" or "and" – Deemed lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid for five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act – The Court emphasized that non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of acquisition proceedings [Paras 365-366 of Indore Development Authority case].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed – The matter regarding encroachments on the land is to be addressed by the appropriate court – No cost orders [Paras 4].

Land Acquisition – Market Value and Development Charges – The appeals pertain to the acquisition of land for the rehabilitation of displaced persons from villages submerged due to the Sardar Sarovar Dam – The Reference Court and High Court assessed the market value based on exemplars of smaller plots and applied deductions for development charges – Supreme Court held that market value determination should consider all relevant facts and principles, and deductions should reflect the specific circumstances and development needs of the land – Matter remitted to the High Court for fresh determination of compensation [Paras 22-37].

Market Value – Exemplars and Comparables – The Court emphasized using comparable sales of land in the vicinity and adjustments for positive and negative factors to determine the market value – The High Court's reliance on the market value determined in a separate case without establishing similarity between the lands was deemed erroneous [Paras 22-28].

Development Charges – Deduction Principles – The Court reiterated that deductions for development charges depend on the specific circumstances of the land, including the extent of existing infrastructure and the necessity for additional development – A blanket application of deductions without analyzing the evidence is inappropriate [Paras 29-37].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgments and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of compensation and development charges in accordance with established principles and evidence on record – The High Court was directed to reassess the market value and appropriate deductions for development afresh [Paras 38-39].

Income Tax – Capital Gains – Revaluation of Assets – The respondent, a partnership firm, revalued its assets and credited the revalued amount to the partners' capital accounts – The Assessing Officer (AO) considered this a transfer of capital assets and made additions towards short-term capital gains under Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act – Supreme Court held that the revalued amount credited to the partners' accounts constitutes a transfer and falls within the scope of "otherwise" as mentioned in Section 45(4) – The Court emphasized that the revaluation and subsequent credit to the capital accounts effectively distribute the assets' value among partners, attracting capital gains tax [Paras 1-7].

Section 45(4) Interpretation – The Court noted that the insertion of Section 45(4) by the Finance Act, 1987, aimed to plug loopholes that allowed firms to avoid capital gains tax through revaluation and distribution of assets – The term "otherwise" in Section 45(4) includes revaluation scenarios, ensuring that such transactions are subject to capital gains tax [Paras 7.2-7.5].

Judicial Precedents – Differentiation – The Court distinguished the current case from earlier precedents, specifically the case of Hind Construction Ltd., by highlighting the amendment and specific inclusion of "otherwise" in Section 45(4) post the Finance Act, 1987 – The Bombay High Court's interpretation in A.N. Naik Associates, which supported the Revenue's position, was affirmed [Paras 7.6-7.7].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and ITAT that had favored the assessee – The AO's order making additions for short-term capital gains under Section 45(4) was restored – No cost orders [Paras 8].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Disciplinary Action – The appellants, comprising college authorities, were charged under Section 306 IPC following the suicide of a student after disciplinary actions were taken against him for alleged misconduct – Supreme Court examined whether the actions of the appellants constituted abetment of suicide – It was held that there was no evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding as required under Section 107 IPC to sustain charges of abetment of suicide – The Court emphasized the need for a positive act of instigation or intentional aiding, which was absent in this case [Paras 1-18].

Legal Interpretation – Definition of Abetment – Reiterated that mere disciplinary action without any mens rea or direct act inciting the deceased to commit suicide does not amount to abetment – Referred to precedents underscoring that the intention to provoke, incite, or encourage the act of suicide is crucial for establishing abetment [Paras 14-17].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the charges framed by the trial court and the High Court’s order sustaining the same – The appellants were discharged from the charges under Section 306 IPC in respect of FIR No.62 of 2008 – No cost orders [Paras 20-21].

Municipal Taxation – General Tax Exemption – Appellant sought exemption from general tax for properties used for public worship or charitable purposes under Section 132(1)(b) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Supreme Court held that exemption under Section 132(1)(b) applies only when tax is computed based on annual rateable value under Sections 129-133, not when computed under the carpet area method as per Section 141AA – Provisions from Section 141AA to 141F form a complete code for carpet area-based taxation – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-6, 10-12, 18-21].

Property Tax – Carpet Area Method – The tax levied based on the carpet area method under Section 141AA includes provisions specific to this method and does not incorporate exemptions applicable under the rateable value method – The Court upheld the High Court’s interpretation that the exemptions under Section 132(1)(b) do not apply when the tax is calculated using the carpet area method [Paras 2-5].

Legislative Scheme – Uniformity and Clarity – Emphasized the need for a uniform and clear legislative framework to avoid litigation and ensure simplicity in tax administration – The classification and computation methods for property tax should be distinct and mutually exclusive to maintain clarity and avoid overlap [Paras 13-15, 19].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s judgments, denying the applicability of Section 132(1)(b) exemption to properties taxed under Section 141AA's carpet area method – No cost orders [Paras 21].

Service Law – Dismissal for Gross Negligence – CISF Constable – The respondent, a CISF Constable, was dismissed from service for gross negligence and dereliction of duty, resulting in the theft of 800 kgs of copper wires from the site where he was on duty – The High Court converted the punishment to compulsory retirement, and the Division Bench directed reinstatement with full back wages while asking for a fresh order of punishment – Supreme Court held that the High Court and the Division Bench erred in interfering with the Disciplinary Authority's findings and substituting their own punishment – The respondent’s history of multiple punishments for various delinquencies over 13 years justified the dismissal – Appeal allowed [Paras 23-30].

Judicial Review – Limitations – The Court reiterated that judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to checking procedural fairness, adherence to natural justice, and statutory regulations – Courts should not reappreciate evidence or substitute their own findings unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate – The findings of the Disciplinary Authority were based on substantial evidence, and the punishment was appropriate [Paras 15-19, 28].

Past Conduct and Proportionality – The respondent's past conduct, including multiple punishments for delinquencies, was relevant in determining the appropriate penalty – The Court found the dismissal from service commensurate with the misconduct and upheld the Disciplinary Authority's decision [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and restored the Disciplinary Authority’s order of dismissal – Respondent’s appeal dismissed – No cost orders [Paras 30-31].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Novation – The High Court dismissed the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the appellant for the appointment of an arbitrator, on the grounds that the Share Purchase Agreement was novated by a subsequent Tripartite Agreement – Supreme Court held that issues of novation and the validity of the arbitration agreement should be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, not at the referral stage – High Court's judgment set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 17-19].

Referral to Arbitration – Judicial Intervention – The Court reiterated that judicial intervention at the referral stage is limited to prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement – Substantive issues, such as whether a contract has been novated, should be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal – The referral court can interfere only when it is manifest that the claims are ex facie time-barred and dead or there is no subsisting dispute [Paras 14-17].

Legal Precedents – The Court referred to several precedents, including National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, and Damodar Valley Corporation v. K.K. Kar, to emphasize the limited scope of judicial review at the referral stage and the principle that arbitration clauses survive unless the contract is rendered non est [Paras 14-18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and appointed Hon. Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute – All contentions of both parties left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 20-23].

Electricity Law – Tariff Determination – Intra-State Transmission – The appeal involves the interpretation of Sections 62 and 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003, concerning the determination of tariffs for intra-state transmission systems – Supreme Court held that the Electricity Act, 2003, provides the States with flexibility to regulate intra-state transmission systems, with the power to determine and regulate tariff resting with the Appropriate State Commissions – Sections 62 and 63 of the Act stipulate different modalities for tariff determination, with Section 63 applying post-bidding process and mandating adoption of tariff if the process is transparent and in accordance with guidelines – The Appropriate Commission cannot override tariff determined through bidding by using powers under Section 62 unless the process was non-transparent or did not follow prescribed guidelines [Paras 20-35].

Legal Interpretation – Non-Obstante Clause – The non-obstante clause in Section 63 cannot be interpreted to mean that Section 63 would take precedence over Section 62 at the stage of choosing the modality to determine tariff – Criteria or guidelines for determining the modality of tariff determination must be notified by the Appropriate State Commission either through regulations under Section 181 or guidelines under Section 61 of the Act [Paras 36-45].

Judicial Review – Transparency in Bidding Process – The Court emphasized the importance of transparency in the bidding process and adherence to the procedural and substantive guidelines issued by the Central Government – The decision-making process of the Appropriate Commission must ensure fairness and adherence to statutory provisions to maintain public trust and regulatory compliance [Paras 46-55].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the orders of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), which dismissed the appeal challenging the grant of a transmission licence to Adani Electricity Mumbai Infra Limited (AEMIL) under Sections 14 and 15 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and approved the tariff determined through the bidding process – The tariff was found to be determined transparently and in accordance with the guidelines [Paras 56-60].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Land acquired for Nehru Zoological Park extension – Initial compensation of Rs. 6 per sq. yard enhanced by Reference Court to Rs. 250 per sq. yard – Mediation led to agreement on Rs. 350 per sq. yard – High Court reduced compensation to Rs. 100 per sq. yard – Supreme Court restored Reference Court’s award of Rs. 250 per sq. yard, citing proximity to developed areas and lack of rebuttal by the Revenue Department [Paras 2-15].

Development Charges – Non-applicability – Land acquired 40 years ago – Supreme Court ruled landowners cannot be compelled to pay development charges for already developed area – Development charges plea by Revenue Department dismissed [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeals by landowners allowed – Appeals by Revenue Department dismissed – Supreme Court restored Reference Court’s award – Compensation to be calculated and paid within two months [Para 15].