National Highways Act 1956 - Section 3G - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 26 - Applicability - Land Acquisition - Determination of Compensation - Held - Provisions of Sections 26 to 28 of the 2013 LA Act are applicable for determination of compensation under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act - [Paras 8-9]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 26(1)(b) - Market Value - Average Sale Price - Methodology - Arbitrator relied on a single sale deed of a residential plot in an adjoining village to value industrial land - Held - Section 26(1)(b) read with Explanations 1 and 2 requires the Collector or Arbitrator to consider multiple sale deeds to determine an average - Statutory scheme implies multiple deeds are necessary for reliable data - Reliance on a singular deal is impermissible - Dissimilar types of land cannot be used as exemplars - [Paras 10-11]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34(2A) - Patent Illegality - Arbitral Award - Setting aside - Arbitrator ignored the mandatory directives of Section 26(1)(b) of the 2013 LA Act - Held - Completely ignoring statutory mandates for valuation and adopting a single dissimilar exemplar constitutes patent illegality appearing on the face of the award - The protection under the proviso to Section 34(2A) against setting aside awards for mere erroneous application of law cannot be extended to such cases - [Para 12]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 26(1)(a) - Market Value - Ready Reckoner Rate - Alternative Valuation - Respondent cited Government Ready Reckoner rate of Rs 2,020 per square meter - Held - Since the Arbitrator's methodology under Section 26(1)(b) was flawed - the statutory provision under Section 26(1)(a) regarding market value specified for registration of sale deeds (Ready Reckoner) should have been applied - Compensation modified accordingly - [Paras 12-13]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Arbitral award and High Court judgment modified – Compensation for 1394 square meters fixed at Rs 2,020 per square meter along with consequential statutory benefits – Parties to bear their own costs.

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Notional Income - Engineering Student - Determination of earning capacity - The deceased was a meritorious third-year Mechanical Engineering student with a diploma in Plastic Engineering and AutoCAD certification - Held - Notional income of an engineering student cannot be equated to minimum wages of an unskilled worker - Income assessed at 12000 per month for an accident occurring in the year 2000 - [Paras 23-26]

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Future Prospects - Notional Income - Denial by High Court - High Court refused future prospects on grounds that income was notional - Held - Approach is contrary to principles in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi - Denial of future prospects and personal/living expense deductions solely because income is notional is erroneous - 40 percent future prospects added as deceased was below 40 years - [Paras 14-15 and 27]

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Dependency and Multiplier - Calculation - Monthly income of 12000 plus 40 percent future prospects equals 16800 - One-half deducted for personal and living expenses as deceased was a bachelor - Monthly dependency at 8400 and annual dependency at 100800 - Multiplier of 18 applied as deceased was 22 years old - Total loss of dependency computed at 1814400 - [Paras 13 and 27]

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Conventional Heads - Non-pecuniary damages - Enhancement - Awarded compensation under conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance - Sum of 15000 awarded for loss of estate - 40000 for filial consortium - 30000 for funeral expenses considering transportation of the body - [Paras 28-29]

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Property Damage - Motorcycle - Assessment of loss - Tribunal and High Court applied high depreciation to a two-year-old vehicle - Held - Loss to be ascertained as per the surveyor report at 25670 instead of 18000 - [Paras 30-31]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to 19,25,070 with interest at 7.5 percent per annum from the date of filing till realization – Respondents held jointly and severally liable to pay within eight weeks.

Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 - Regulation 10 - Common Proceedings - Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation of the word may - Held - The word may in Regulation 10 is directory and not mandatory - Construing may as shall would remove management discretion in dynamic situations where roles of charge-sheeted employees differ - Regulation 10 is a facilitative provision and does not vest any right in a delinquent officer to insist on joint or common proceedings - Failure to hold a joint enquiry does not vitiate individual disciplinary proceedings - [Paras 15-17]

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review - Natural Justice - Reliance on unexamined witnesses - Enquiry Officer relied on statements of co-accused recorded during preliminary investigation without examining them as witnesses in the departmental enquiry - Respondent provided no opportunity to rebut such material - Held - Findings of the Enquiry Officer were vitiated for want of evidence and violation of natural justice - Scope of judicial review allows interference when findings are based on no evidence or material errors apparent on the face of the record - High Court order setting aside the punishment affirmed on merits - [Paras 9-14]

Interpretation of Statutes - Enabling Words - May vs Shall - Construction of permissive language - Held - May is not understood as must so long as the English language retains its meaning - Enabling words are construed as compulsory only when the object is to effectuate a legal right - In the context of Regulation 10 of 1976 Regulations the provision is directory - [Paras 15-16]

Decision: Civil Appeal disposed of – High Court judgment setting aside the punishment order dated 31.05.2006 affirmed on merits – View taken by High Court regarding Regulation 10 being mandatory is set aside – Appellant directed to settle the account of the Respondent within six weeks.

Income Tax Act 1961 - Sections 147 and 148 - Reassessment - Reason to Believe - Tangible Material - Validity of reopening - Held - Reopening of assessment is conditional on the existence of a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment based on tangible material - The Assessing Officer cannot review an assessment or reopen it on a mere change of opinion - In the present case - the original assessment orders for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 accepted the assessee's declaration at face value without any inquiry into the nature of receipts from the Association of Persons (AOP) - Discovery of the AOP Agreement and Director’s statement during a Survey under Section 133A provided fresh information revealing that the receipts were a share of gross revenue and not profit - This constitutes tangible material and not a change of opinion - Reopening held valid - [Paras 56-84, 106-114]

Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 148 - Validity of Reassessment - Reasons Recorded - Held - The validity of reopening must be tested solely on the basis of the reasons recorded at the time of issuing the notice under Section 148 - Documents not referred to in those reasons cannot be used to justify the reopening as it deprives the assessee of a fair opportunity to file objections - High Court erred in AY 2008-09 by relying on extraneous material (Assessment Orders of the AOP) not mentioned in the reasons recorded - However - since the recorded reasons independently established tangible material - the ultimate conclusion upholding the reopening is maintained - [Paras 85-87, 115-118]

Income Tax Act 1961 - Interpretation of Clauses - Question of Law - AOP Agreement - Share of Revenue vs Share of Profit - Held - Interpretation of a contractual clause which forms the foundation of the rights of parties is a question of law and not of fact - The Court is not bound by the interpretation adopted by the ITAT or High Court in parallel proceedings between the Revenue and the AOP - Literal reading of Clause 7 of the AOP Agreement - supported by the Director’s statement - confirms that the parties intended to share gross revenue - [Paras 93-96, 119-121]

Income Tax Act 1961 - Sections 86 and 67A - Taxability of share from AOP - Diversion of Income by Overriding Title - Held - Profit is the surplus remaining after all expenses are deducted from gross receipts - Under Clause 7 of the AOP Agreement - the assessee was entitled to 35% of gross sale proceeds upfront and insulated from all project expenses - which were burdened on the other member's 65% share - This receipt lacks the essential characteristics of profit and is a business receipt arising from the surrender of development rights - The 35% share was intercepted and diverted to the assessee by overriding title before it could assume the character of income in the hands of the AOP - Consequently - the amount is taxable in the hands of the assessee as business revenue and is not exempt under Section 86 - [Paras 97-105, 122-127]

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 19487 of 2017 (Revenue) is allowed – Civil Appeal No. 744 of 2013 (Revenue) is allowed – Civil Appeal No. 9107 of 2012 (Assessee) is dismissed – Notice for reopening of assessment for AY 2007-08 held valid – Income from AOP held taxable in the hands of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Matrimonial Law - Cruelty and Desertion - Professional autonomy of wife - Appellant a qualified dentist established her clinic in Ahmedabad while husband was posted as an Army Officer in Kargil - Family Court held that the wife's failure to reside at the husband's place of posting and opening a clinic without informing him amounted to cruelty and desertion - Held - A well-educated and professionally qualified woman cannot be expected to be confined within rigid boundaries of matrimonial obligations alone - Marriage does not eclipse her individuality nor subjugate her identity - A woman cannot be treated as a mere appendage to the household of the husband - Pursuit of professional fulfilment and responsible parenthood for a child with medical complications are legitimate choices - Characterising such conduct as cruelty or desertion reflects an archaic and regressive mindset - Findings of cruelty and desertion expunged - [Paras 3-7, 20-27, 31]

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 195 and 340 - Perjury - Prosecution in matrimonial disputes - Husband sought prosecution of wife for alleged false statements in maintenance proceedings - Held - Allegations appear instigated by personal vendetta and spiteful approach fuelled by matrimonial acrimony - Grievances stem from a hyper-technical dissection of the material on record - No justifiable reason to direct prosecution - [Paras 35-37]

Matrimonial Law - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Divorce - Parties living separately with intense acrimony and respondent-husband remarried - Appellant-wife not hopeful of reconciliation - Held - While findings of cruelty and desertion are expunged - the decree of divorce is maintained on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage - [Paras 30-32]

Decision: Civil Appeal partly allowed – Findings of cruelty and desertion expunged – Divorce decree maintained on the ground of irretrievable breakdown – SLP(Civil) No. 28451 of 2024 dismissed.

Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) and 21A - Right to Education - Medium of Instruction - Mother Tongue - Appellants sought inclusion of Rajasthani in teacher recruitment syllabus and as a medium of instruction - Held - The right to receive education in one’s mother tongue is an intrinsic facet of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) - Education must be intelligible and accessible to the learner to be meaningful - Instruction in a language unfamiliar to the child impairs foundational development and engenders alienation - [Paras 21-25 and 42-43]

Constitution of India - Article 350A - Linguistic Minorities - Obligations of the State - State of Rajasthan contended Rajasthani is not in the Eighth Schedule and speakers are not a linguistic minority - Held - The expression linguistic minority is to be understood in relation to the dominant or official language of the State - In Rajasthan where Hindi is the official language Rajasthani constitutes a minority language for Article 350A - The State has a constitutional obligation to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage - [Paras 15 and 20]

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 - Section 29(2)(f) - Curriculum and Evaluation - Medium of Instruction - Legislative intent for quality education - Held - The mandate that medium of instruction shall as far as practicable be in the child’s mother tongue is aimed at securing quality education in a substantive sense - Failure of the State to operationalise this mandate undermines statutory and policy directives - [Paras 17 and 38-39]

Administrative Law - Policy Formulation vs Constitutional Duty - State inaction regarding language recognition - Held - While the Court does not enter the arena of policy formulation it has a duty to ensure constitutional guarantees are not rendered illusory by executive inaction - The absence of Rajasthani in the Eighth Schedule is not a valid ground to deny its use for educational purposes especially when it is academically recognised at university levels - [Paras 47-51]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – State of Rajasthan directed to formulate a comprehensive policy for implementation of mother tongue-based education in Rajasthani language – State directed to take affirmative steps to introduce Rajasthani as a subject in all schools in a phased manner – Compliance affidavit to be filed by 25th September 2026.

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Principles and Guidelines - Bhajan Lal precedent - Held - High Court failed to exercise inherent power to quash proceedings when allegations even if taken at face value do not constitute any offence - [Paras 10-20]

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 405 and 406 - Criminal Breach of Trust - Entrustment - Fiduciary obligation - Billing for diagnostic test not performed - Held - payment of hospital bill does not create a fiduciary obligation regarding handling of property - foundational ingredients of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation not satisfied - [Para 11]

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 420 - Cheating - Dishonest Intention - Deception from inception - Billing error corrected by hospital - Held - billing discrepancy appears to be inadvertence rather than dishonest intention - hospital communicated decision to refund amount upon mistake being pointed out - allegation of cheating misplaced - [Para 12]

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 120B - Criminal Conspiracy - Sustainability - Foundational offences - Held - where foundational offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating are non-existent the incidental charge of criminal conspiracy is unsustainable - [Para 13]

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 504 - Intentional Insult - High Court Observation - Improper conduct by hospital staff - Held - no occasion for High Court to construe general averments and elevate them to the commission of an offence under Section 504 IPC - [Paras 14-15]

West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act 2017 - Sections 29 and 34 - Clinical Establishments - Service Grievances - Billing Practices - Held - legislative scheme establishes disputes concerning billing or supply of records are primarily deficiencies for which compensation is payable under Section 29 - criminal prosecution under Section 34 not permissible by merely mentioning the section without disclosing how criminal offence was committed - [Paras 16-19]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court order set aside – Criminal complaint in Complaint Case No C-533 of 2021 quashed – Quashing of criminal complaint to have no bearing on civil or statutory remedies.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Section 61 - Condonation of Delay - Refiling of Appeal - Mandatory requirement of certified copy - Respondent filed appeal on last day of condonable period without certified copy and without applying for one - Refiled after 150 days without curing the defect - Respondent applied for certified copy only months after refiling - Held - Filing an appeal without applying for a certified copy before the limitation period runs out means there was no filing in the eyes of law - A diligent litigant is expected to apply for the copy before the period expires to seek exclusion of time - The appeal was not merely defective but wholly incompetent - NCLAT order condoning delay set aside - [Paras 1-11]

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016 - Rules 14 and 22 - Presentation of Appeals - Curing of defects - Rule 22(2) mandates every appeal be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order - Rule 14 enabling exemption does not confer an automatic right to dispense with compliance - Filing an application for a certified copy is an indication of diligence in pursuing litigation - Held - Refiling an appeal without the certified copy or an exemption application is incurably tainted - NCLAT failed to ascertain if the appeal was instituted in accordance with norms before extending indulgence - [Paras 6-10]

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules 2016 - Rule 26 - Curing of defects - Time limit for refiling - Rule 26(2) stipulates 7 days for curing defects - Respondent refiled after 150 days - Held - Even after refiling the appeal remained defective beyond redemption as the certified copy of the NCLT order sought to be impugned was not filed - [Paras 3-6]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the NCLAT set aside – Respondent's appeal rejected as incurably tainted at the threshold.

Constitution of India - Article 145(4) - Supreme Court Rules 2013 - Order XII Rules 1 and 3 - Finality of Judgment - Dictation in Open Court versus Signed Order - Applicants sought declaration that court dictation to the Court-master was binding and the subsequent signed order was invalid - Held - The digitally signed order is the only final version of the Court's decision - Dictation to a Court-master is a rough draft or skeletal framework subject to multiple rounds of correction and refinement in chambers - Refinement of a draft prior to signing is a practical necessity due to docket explosion and does not constitute a material change requiring re-hearing - [Paras 4-9, 15, 27-29]

Practice and Procedure - Miscellaneous Applications - Maintainability - Post-disposal applications for clarification or modification - Applicants sought to rewrite the order under the garb of clarification - Held - Miscellaneous applications in disposed of matters are maintainable only for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors or in rare cases where the order is executory and impossible to implement - Registry directed not to list such applications without a specific averment on oath as required by Circular dated 03.01.2025 - Application dismissed as an abuse of process with exemplary costs - [Paras 13-19, 31]

Judicial Discretion - Power to Alter Judgment - Locus Paenitentiae - Held - A Judge has the right to change their mind and alter a draft judgment at any time until it is formally signed and delivered - Signing is not a mere formality but the act that crystallizes the decision into a full-fledged judgment - While material changes generally require re-hearing, ancillary directions like status quo or disposal of an underlying writ petition after fresh orders are passed by the State do not warrant such procedure - [Paras 10-12, 24-26, 31-32]

Decision: Miscellaneous application dismissed as not maintainable and on merits – Exemplary cost of Rs 2000 each imposed on the Applicants payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.