Juvenile Justice – Heinous Offences – Interpretation of 'heinous offences' under Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Offences with maximum sentence more than 7 years but no minimum sentence or minimum sentence less than 7 years do not qualify as 'heinous offences' – Such offences are to be treated as 'serious offences' – Offences involving juveniles must consider the intent of the Legislature and the purpose of juvenile protection [Paras 2-35].

Judicial Interpretation – Legislative Intention – Courts cannot legislate or rewrite statutes – Gaps in legislation must be addressed by the Legislature, not the judiciary – Statutes should be interpreted based on their language and legislative intent, without adding or omitting words unless absolutely necessary to avoid absurdity [Paras 22-31].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Offences with no minimum sentence or minimum sentence less than 7 years treated as 'serious offences' – Directions issued for legislative action – High Court to amend judgment to remove name of Child in Conflict with Law – Judgment to be sent to relevant authorities for addressing the issue legislatively or through an Ordinance [Paras 36-38].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Authority to Impose Penalties – Appeal against High Court's decision quashing punishment order – Regulation 5(3) of Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1976 allows the Disciplinary Authority or any higher authority to impose penalties – General Manager imposed punishment on respondent, originally initiated by Deputy General Manager – Supreme Court found Division Bench erred in holding General Manager lacked authority – Appeal allowed, order of Single Judge restored, matter remitted to Appellate Authority for reconsideration [Paras 1-14].

Misconduct – Departmental Proceedings – Respondent, a Scale I officer, suspended and charged with misconduct – Inquiry report found respondent guilty – Punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by General Manager – Division Bench quashed the order citing lack of authority, remitted to Deputy General Manager – Supreme Court clarifies General Manager's authority per Regulation 5(3) [Paras 2-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of Division Bench set aside – Order of Single Judge remitting matter to authorized Appellate Authority restored – Costs to be borne by respective parties [Paras 14-15].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 166 – Contributory Negligence – The deceased, a pillion rider on a motorcycle, was struck by a car – Tribunal awarded compensation for the accident caused by the car’s rash and negligent driving – High Court reduced the award by 10% due to alleged contributory negligence for having three persons on the motorcycle – Supreme Court holds no evidence supported contributory negligence finding – High Court’s reduction set aside [Paras 1-14].

Compensation Assessment – Employment and Income Proof – Tribunal accepted the testimony of the deceased’s employer regarding his monthly income – High Court rejected it due to lack of supporting records – Supreme Court reinstates Tribunal’s finding, noting employer’s testimony was credible and unchallenged – High Court erred in substituting minimum wage assumptions for proven income [Paras 15-18].

Multiplier Application – Age Factor – Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 based on the deceased's age – High Court applied 14, considering the claimants' age – Supreme Court clarifies multiplier should be based on deceased's age per precedents (Reshma Kumari, Munna Lal Jain) – High Court’s application of lower multiplier incorrect [Paras 19-29].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Tribunal’s award restored – Compensation to be paid as originally determined by the Tribunal without deduction for contributory negligence – No order as to costs [Para 29].

Service Law – Border Security Force Act, 1968 – Misconduct – Appellant, a BSF constable with 17 years of service, dismissed for overstaying leave – Applied for leave extension due to family emergency but rejoined late – Summary Security Force Court convicted and dismissed him – Statutory petition dismissed by Director General BSF – High Court reversed Single Judge’s order for reconsideration of punishment – Supreme Court modifies penalty to discharge enabling pension eligibility after 20 years of service [Paras 1-7].

Leave Extension – Communication and Evidence – Appellant contacted Unit Adjutant for leave extension due to niece's abduction – Adjutant acknowledged communication and advised extension – Single Judge noted appellant's oral statement corroborating circumstances – Division Bench observed belated application but didn't find explanation false – Supreme Court considers 17 years of service and peculiar facts for lenient view [Paras 3-7].

Proportionality of Punishment – Discharge vs. Dismissal – Appellant had prior penalties for unauthorized absence – Supreme Court declines reinstatement but finds dismissal disproportionate – Orders discharge with effect from completion of 20 years for pension eligibility – No back wages awarded for interim period [Paras 7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Appellant to be treated as discharged from service from date of completing 20 years for pension eligibility – No back wages between dismissal and pension eligibility date – Arrears of pension to be paid within three months [Para 7].

Consumer Law – Free Gifts – Appellant advertised a holiday voucher scheme with free gifts contingent on referrals – Respondent purchased vouchers but made no referrals – District Forum awarded free gifts (laptop, mobile, TV) and compensation – State Commission and NCDRC upheld the decision – Supreme Court examines scheme terms and finds gifts conditional on referrals – Appeal allowed, lower orders set aside [Paras 1-8].

Referral Scheme – Terms and Conditions – Appellant's scheme required referrals for free gifts – Respondent claimed entitlement without making referrals – Email communication clarified gift conditions – Supreme Court notes absurdity of awarding high-value gifts without fulfilling conditions – Orders against appellant reversed as contrary to scheme terms [Paras 2-7].

Jurisdiction and Evidence – Respondent argued email was not on record – Appellant countered it was referenced in District Forum reply – Supreme Court accepts appellant's evidence, finds no right to gifts without referrals – Appeal allowed, complaint dismissed [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – NCDRC and lower orders set aside – Respondent's complaint dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 8].

Arbitration Law – Interim Measures – Jurisdiction – Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 – Tribunal constituted under Section 3 has jurisdiction to grant interim measures under Section 17 of the A&C Act – Contractor’s remedy lies with the Tribunal – High Court’s order restraining recovery without adjudication set aside – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-22].

Statutory Arbitration – Consistency of Laws – A&C Act and Gujarat Act – No inconsistency in grant of interim relief under Section 17 of the A&C Act by the Tribunal – Gujarat Act’s provisions supplemented by Section 17 – Tribunal empowered to adjudicate disputes and grant interim measures [Paras 17-21].

Interim Injunction – Unilateral Recovery – State issued notice to recover alleged dues from other contracts – Contractor challenged notice – High Court relied on precedents to restrain unilateral recovery – Supreme Court finds Tribunal competent to decide legality and grant interim relief – High Court’s order reversed [Paras 6-22].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court’s judgments set aside – Contractor may approach Tribunal within two months – Tribunal to decide on merits without limitation bar [Para 22].

Coparcenary Property – Inheritance and Partition – Property of deceased coparcener devolves per Hindu Succession Act if there are female Class-I heirs – After the death of Moola Gounder, his property was inherited as tenants-in-common, not joint tenants – Mother's execution of release deed on behalf of minor daughter without court sanction is voidable, not void – Suit for partition filed 18 years later barred by limitation [Paras 1-19].

Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act – Natural Guardian's Powers – Mother acted as natural guardian of minor daughters in releasing their share – Document executed without court sanction is voidable under Section 8, must be challenged within three years of attaining majority – Karta cannot act as guardian in a release deed involving his interest due to conflict of interest [Paras 7, 10-17].

Judicial Precedents – Application of Hindu Succession Act – Court emphasizes property inherited by Class-I heirs is individual property, not HUF property – Reference to relevant precedents including Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, Commissioner of Wealth Tax Kanpur v. Chander Sen, and Appropriate Authority (IT Deptt) v. M. Arifulla [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Trial court judgment restored – Pending applications disposed of [Para 19].

Land Acquisition – Adverse Possession – Public Purpose – Appellant, an illiterate widow from a rural background, was divested of her property by the State in 1967 without compensation or legal sanction for the construction of a road – High Court dismissed her writ petition citing laches – Supreme Court finds continuing cause of action, orders compensation on same terms as a similar case – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-14].

Right to Property – Constitutional and Human Right – Appellant’s property taken when right to property was a fundamental right under Article 31 – Despite its conversion to a constitutional right under Article 300A, the obligation to pay compensation remains – State’s claim of adverse possession rejected as inconsistent with welfare state principles [Paras 10-11].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – Appellant’s delay in approaching the Court due to unawareness does not bar relief – Judicial discretion to condone delay exercised due to compelling circumstances – State’s inaction deemed unjust [Paras 10.7-11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – State directed to pay compensation as per Reference Court’s award in a similar case, including statutory benefits, within eight weeks – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded to appellant – High Court’s orders set aside [Para 13-14].

Compassionate Appointment – Gratuity and Scheme Applicability – Respondents sought compassionate appointment post demise of employee – Court affirms that only the scheme prevalent at the date of death applies – Scheme of 4.4.1979 applies, not subsequent schemes – Respondents opted for full gratuity; hence, compassionate appointment not available – Subsequent schemes do not apply retrospectively, nor do they provide for ex gratia payments if income exceeds benchmark – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-20].

Income Benchmark – Disqualification from Subsequent Schemes – Even under subsequent schemes, respondent's income disqualified them from benefits – Bank's call to apply under new schemes conditional on eligibility, which respondents did not meet – Non-disclosure of respondent’s employment further disentitles them [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Review – Court's Role – Courts cannot modify or extend schemes beyond their terms – Judicial review limited to ensuring adherence to existing scheme, not creating new benefits [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 20].