Criminal Law – Road Rage – Voluntary Causing Hurt – The Supreme Court reviewed the sentencing of Navjot Singh Sidhu, who was convicted under Section 323 IPC for causing voluntary hurt leading to the death of a 65-year-old man in a road rage incident. The Court noted the physical fitness and strength of Sidhu, a former international cricketer, and the age disparity with the victim, emphasizing the foreseeable severity of the blow inflicted [Paras 24-25, 32].

Sentencing Principles – Proportionality and Deterrence – The Court highlighted the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the crime and serve as a deterrent. The initial fine of Rs. 1000 was deemed manifestly inadequate, failing to align with the principles of proportionality and societal deterrence [Paras 25-29, 38].

Victimology – Rights of Victims – Recognizing the rights of victims and their families in the sentencing process, the Court emphasized that inadequate punishment undermines public confidence in the justice system. The review application was considered within this context, affirming the victim’s right to a fair and just outcome [Paras 29-35].

Decision – Sentence Enhanced – The Supreme Court allowed the review petitions, enhancing the sentence from a mere fine to one year of rigorous imprisonment in addition to the fine. This decision underscored the necessity of appropriate punishment reflecting the gravity of the offense and serving the ends of justice [Para 40].

Land Acquisition – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – The Supreme Court examined whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, could be declared lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court noted that the period of five years had not lapsed without possession being taken or compensation being paid before the 2013 Act came into force. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings could not be deemed lapsed [Paras 1, 28].

Exclusion of Stay Period – Judicial Precedent – The Court referred to several precedents, including the judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which clarified that the period during which the acquisition process was stayed by the courts must be excluded when computing the five-year period under Section 24(2). It was held that the stay orders in various writ petitions prevented the authorities from taking possession, thus the acquisition could not be considered lapsed [Paras 17-18, 27].

Declaratory Relief – Non-Hearing of Objections – The Court highlighted that the non-hearing of objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act only affects the specific landowners who filed objections. It does not automatically nullify the entire acquisition process for other landowners who did not object. Therefore, judgments quashing notifications under Section 6 based on non-hearing of objections are judgments in personam and not in rem [Paras 6-7, 20, 26].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order, dismissing the writ petition filed by the landowners. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, considering the stay orders and the proper exclusion of the stay period [Paras 29].

Service Tax – Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency – Secondment of Employees – The Supreme Court examined whether the secondment of employees from group companies abroad to the respondent constituted a "manpower recruitment or supply agency service" under Section 65(68) read with Section 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court held that the secondment agreement, which involved transferring employees to work under the control and direction of the respondent while remaining on the payroll of the foreign group companies, did not amount to manpower recruitment or supply. The relationship was one of employment, and the foreign group companies were not engaged in the business of supplying manpower [Paras 1-3, 12, 18, 50].

Contract of Service vs. Contract for Service – The Court distinguished between contracts of service (employment) and contracts for service (independent contractors). It emphasized the importance of analyzing the terms of the secondment agreement, noting that the seconded employees worked under the respondent's control and direction, with the respondent bearing the risks and responsibilities for their work. The employees remained on the payroll of the foreign group companies solely for administrative reasons, such as continuity of social security benefits, and not for supplying manpower [Paras 20-23, 33-34, 50].

Revenue Neutrality – No Additional Tax Burden – The Court considered the respondent's argument that even if service tax were payable, it would be eligible for input tax credit, making the situation revenue-neutral. It noted that the nature of the transaction, involving reimbursement of salaries and other expenses without any markup, did not constitute consideration for a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994 [Paras 26-29, 57].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CESTAT's decision that the secondment of employees did not constitute a taxable service under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency. The Court ruled that the foreign group companies were not in the business of providing such services, and the arrangements were purely for administrative convenience, maintaining the employer-employee relationship during the secondment period [Paras 10-11, 59].

Service Law – Higher Pay-Scale – Delay and Laches – The Supreme Court examined the issue of delay and laches in the appellants' claim for higher pay-scale benefits under the Scheme of Higher Grade Scale. The Court noted that while the appellants were initially granted the higher pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-, the benefit was later withdrawn and revised to Rs. 4500-7000/- by the respondent-Corporation through an order dated 28th October 2010, citing erroneous grant of benefits and financial burden [Paras 1-6].

Continuing Cause of Action – Service Law – The Court acknowledged that in service law, a continuing cause of action arises every month when salary is paid based on a wrong computation. Thus, while claims for arrears beyond three years may be barred by limitation, the appellants are entitled to relief for the period within three years before filing the writ petitions [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Precedents – Exceptions to Delay and Laches – Referring to precedents like Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, and M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628, the Court highlighted that claims based on continuing wrongs are not entirely barred by delay. Relief can be granted for arrears within three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. However, claims affecting third-party rights or settled matters may not be entertained if delayed [Paras 10-11].

Interest on Arrears – Equitable Relief – The Court granted interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the arrears from 1st September 2017, noting that the respondent-Corporation should have uniformly applied the benefit of the higher pay-scale as interpreted by the Gujarat High Court in a similar case, avoiding unnecessary litigation [Paras 15-17].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, directing that the appellants be granted arrears in the higher pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- for three years prior to the date of filing the writ petitions, with interest at 7% per annum from 1st September 2017. The respondent-Corporation was instructed to pay the arrears and interest within four months and provide a computation sheet to the appellants. The claims for arrears beyond three years and recovery of amounts collected by the respondent-Corporation were rejected [Paras 16-17].

Medical Negligence – Deficiency in Service – The Supreme Court reviewed the case where the NCDRC had dismissed the appeal of the complainant and allowed the appeal of the doctor and the hospital, holding that no medical negligence was proved. The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence, medical records, and the report of the ethics committee of the Medical Council of India (MCI), concluded that a case of deficiency of service was made out against the doctor and the hospital for medical negligence [Paras 2, 27-29].

Facts and Procedural History – The complainant’s wife, aged 47 years, underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by Respondent 1 at Respondent 2 hospital. Post-operation, she developed complications, leading to her death. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Punjab, which was later transferred to the State Consumer Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, seeking monetary compensation. The SCDRC found Respondents 1 and 2 negligent and awarded compensation, which was challenged before the NCDRC [Paras 3-20].

MCI Findings – Negligence Established – The MCI, upon appeal by the complainants, examined the case and found Respondent 1 medically negligent, issuing a strict warning to be more careful during procedures and diligent in treating and monitoring patients. The findings of the MCI played a crucial role in the Supreme Court’s decision [Paras 19-35].

Standard of Care – Judicial Precedents – The Supreme Court referred to established judicial precedents on medical negligence, highlighting the duty of care expected from medical professionals and the standards governing such duties. It noted that the NCDRC failed to appropriately consider the evidence and the MCI report, leading to an erroneous conclusion [Paras 28-29, 36-38].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s decision and reinstated the SCDRC’s findings, holding that the complainants made out a case of medical negligence against Respondents 1 and 2. The Court awarded a total compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the SCDRC order, to be paid by Respondents 1 and 2, adjusting any amounts already paid or deposited. The appeals against Respondents 3 and 4 were rejected, as no negligence was found on their part [Paras 40-41].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Moratorium – Section 14(1)(c) of the IBC – Any action to foreclose, recover, or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor is prohibited once the CIRP is initiated and a moratorium is ordered – Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot continue during the moratorium period – Appellant Bank's continued proceedings under the SARFAESI Act after the initiation of CIRP and ordering of moratorium were held to be in violation of Section 14(1)(c) of the IBC [Paras 23-35].

Statutory Sale – Completion of Sale – The sale under the SARFAESI Act would be governed by Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – The sale is complete only when the auction purchaser makes the entire payment and the authorised officer issues a certificate of sale – The balance amount was accepted by the Appellant Bank on 8th March 2019, after the CIRP commenced on 3rd January 2019 – The sale was not complete upon receipt of part payment, and thus could not proceed during the moratorium [Paras 32-34].

Concurrent Orders – The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent orders passed by the NCLT dated 15th July 2020 and the NCLAT dated 26th March 2021, dismissing the appeal by the Indian Overseas Bank – No merit found in the appellant's contention of mala fide initiation of CIRP by the Corporate Debtor [Paras 36-38].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – No order as to costs.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Jurisdiction – National Green Tribunal (NGT) does not oust the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution – The power of judicial review remains intact and unaffected by the NGT Act – High Courts' prerogative to exercise writ jurisdiction continues [Paras 12-15].

Tribunal Location – Bench Establishment – The principle of proportionality applied – The NGT Benches need not be located in every State or at the principal seat of the High Court – Low volume of cases does not justify establishing NGT Benches in all States – Petitioners' plea for relocating NGT Bench from Bhopal to Jabalpur rejected [Paras 16-23].

Direct Appeal to Supreme Court – Constitutional Validity – Remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act upheld – Does not amount to denial of access to justice – Right to appeal is statutory and cannot be created by judicial order – No rational basis to strike down Section 22 [Paras 24-31].

Delegation of Powers – Validity – Section 3 of the NGT Act not a case of excessive delegation – Government guided by the objectives of the Act and Supreme Court directions – Petitioners' reliance on the National Tax Tribunal case misplaced – Conditions of service and tenure under the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 not within the scope of the instant proceedings [Paras 32-37].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – The National Green Tribunal's jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 22 does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 – Section 3 of the NGT Act is not excessive delegation – The seat of the NGT benches can be located as per exigencies – Petitioners to bear their own costs.

Interim Administration – Committee of Administrators (CoA) – CoA constituted to formulate the Constitution of AIFF in line with National Sports Code and Model Guidelines – CoA to ensure constitution of Executive Committee and holding of elections – CoA reconstituted with three members: Justice Anil R. Dave, Dr. S.Y. Qureshi, and Mr. Bhaskar Ganguly – CoA to take charge of AIFF's affairs, prepare electoral roll, and manage day-to-day governance – Former Executive Committee to cooperate with CoA [Paras 2-8].

Constitution Formulation and Elections – Proposed Constitution to be circulated to all parties for objections/suggestions – Objections to be submitted by 30 June 2022 – CoA to collate and present a tabulated statement of objections and suggestions by 15 July 2022 – Elections to be conducted expeditiously after finalization of the Constitution – CoA to facilitate smooth governance until elections are held [Paras 4-10].

Compensation and Expenses – CoA to propose honorarium and reimbursement of incidental expenses for its members – CoA authorized to issue directions regarding operation of accounts and payment of expenses for AIFF’s functioning [Para 11].

Decision: Application for intervention allowed – Direction for temporary arrangement to facilitate AIFF elections – Process of conducting elections to be completed expeditiously – Objections to proposed Constitution to be heard on 21 July 2022 [Paras 1, 12].

Compromise Decree – Validity – A compromise decree cannot be appealed but must be challenged before the court that issued it, proving the agreement underlying the decree is invalid – High Court erred in setting aside Lok Adalat's compromise decree without thorough reasoning or considering fraud allegations [Paras 27-29, 34].

Lok Adalat Awards – Finality and Binding Nature – Awards by Lok Adalat are deemed decrees of civil courts and are final and binding – They can only be set aside upon proving fraud or invalidity of the agreement – The High Court's casual and unreasoned order undermines the sanctity of such awards [Paras 27-28, 35-36].

Fraud Allegations – Burden of Proof – Allegations of fraud must be strictly proved to invalidate an agreement or compromise decree – In this case, the respondents failed to provide conclusive proof of fraud – High Court's decision to set aside the compromise decree was not justified [Paras 32-35].

Decision: Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Order of the Lok Adalat dated 07th July 2012, recording the compromise between the parties, restored – Appeals allowed – Parties to bear their respective costs [Paras 37-38].