Liability under Arms Act – Section 29 and 30: The prosecution must prove that the appellant knowingly delivered the firearm to another person not entitled to possess it under the Arms Act. In this case, there was no evidence that the appellant willingly handed over the firearm to the co-accused. The firearm was taken without the appellant's knowledge or permission from a jointly owned farmhouse [Paras 17-18]​​.

Exoneration under Section 120-B IPC: The High Court acquitted the appellant of conspiracy charges under Section 120-B IPC. Consequently, the conviction under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act, based on the same factual matrix, was found unsustainable [Para 6, 19]​​.

Principles of Criminal Liability – Knowledge and Intention: Criminal liability under Section 29(b) of the Arms Act requires evidence of the license holder's knowledge and intention in delivering the firearm. The absence of such evidence led to the appellant's acquittal. Similarly, for Section 30, the prosecution failed to establish any willful contravention of license conditions or the Arms Act by the appellant [Para 20]​​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment convicting the appellant under Sections 29 and 30 of the Arms Act. The appellant was acquitted of all charges [Para 21]​​.

Compensation for Paraplegic Child – Enhancement: The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant, recognizing the significant and lifelong impact of the injuries. The Court noted the need for continuous medical care, assistive devices, and the lifelong dependency on an attendant [Paras 1-16]​​.

Future Earnings and Prospects: For calculating the loss of future earnings, the Court considered the minimum wages applicable at the time of the accident and added 40% for future prospects. This approach aligned with principles set in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors [Para 10]​​.

Medical and Attendant Expenses: The Court awarded substantial amounts for medical expenses, future medical expenses (including the cost of assistive devices), and attendant charges, acknowledging the severe and permanent nature of the appellant's disability [Paras 11-12]​​.

Loss of Marriage Prospects and Pain and Suffering: Recognizing the non-economic impact of the injuries, the Court awarded compensation for loss of marriage prospects and for pain and suffering. The overall compensation was calculated to ensure it covered the multifaceted nature of the appellant's losses [Paras 11, 13]​​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, enhancing the total compensation to Rs. 4,993,000, inclusive of interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim application until realization. A portion of the amount was directed to be disbursed immediately, with the remainder to be invested in fixed deposits to secure the appellant’s future needs [Paras 13-16]​​.

Disciplinary Proceedings – Constitution of Inquiry Committee: The School Tribunal and High Court found the Inquiry Committee's constitution improper under Rule 36(2)(b) of the MEPS Rules, as the President of the Management was not part of the committee. However, the Supreme Court noted that the President was initially a member but was replaced due to ill health, invoking the doctrine of necessity [Paras 1-23]​​.

Doctrine of Necessity: The doctrine of necessity applies when an otherwise improper constitution of an authority or committee is rendered valid due to unavoidable circumstances. The President's replacement due to ill health fell under this doctrine, justifying the Inquiry Committee's composition [Paras 13, 23]​​.

Interpretation of Rule 36(2)(b): The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 36(2)(b) should apply to the Head who is also the Chief Executive Officer, ensuring the words "referred in sub-rule (1)" are not rendered redundant. The Full Bench of the High Court's interpretation extending this rule to all Heads, irrespective of their role as Chief Executive Officer, was incorrect [Paras 17-22]​​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court and School Tribunal's judgments. The penalty of removal from service imposed on the respondent was upheld, invoking the doctrine of necessity and proper interpretation of Rule 36(2)(b). Monetary benefits granted to the respondent due to any interim orders were not to be recovered [Para 23]​​.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Limitation Act, Section 17(1) – The appellant's suit was rejected as barred by limitation. The Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the fraud and exercised reasonable diligence. The Single Judge's decision to reject the plaint was upheld, but the differences in interpretation by the bench necessitated a referral to the Chief Justice for appropriate orders [Paras 1-26].

Plaintiff's Knowledge and Diligence – The Court emphasized that Section 17(1) does not protect those who ignore circumstances that would reveal fraud. The plaintiff's claim of ignorance was found unconvincing given the facts and documents admitted [Paras 22-23].

Rejection of Amendment Applications – Amendments sought by the plaintiff were deemed unnecessary and mala fide as the suit was already time-barred. The Court affirmed the lower court's rejection of these applications [Para 24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed; suit barred by limitation upheld; applications for amendments rejected [Paras 24-26].

Service Law – Regularization of Employees – University directed to regularize services of employees working for 15-30 years on contractual basis with consequential benefits – High Court’s direction modified to restrict actual benefits to three years prior to the filing of writ petitions – Employees entitled to notional benefits and continuity in service from the date similarly situated employees were regularized – [Paras 1-14].

Balance between Financial Burden and Employee Rights – The Supreme Court aimed to balance the financial burden on the University and the rights of employees who served for long periods – Consequential benefits on regularization limited to three years prior to filing of writ petitions – Notional benefits from the date similarly situated employees were regularized [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Orders of the High Court modified – Employees entitled to actual consequential benefits for three years prior to filing of writ petitions – Notional benefits from the date similarly situated employees were regularized – No order as to costs – [Para 5].

Income Tax – Reopening of Assessment – High Court's dismissal of writ petitions challenging reopening under Section 148 without giving reasons – Supreme Court emphasizes that courts must provide reasoned orders detailing facts, issues, submissions, applicable legal principles, and reasons for conclusions – [Paras 1-4].

Duty to Give Reasons – High Court's failure to address grounds raised in writ petitions – Supreme Court stresses the necessity of reasoned orders to prevent prejudice to parties and to ensure they understand the basis for decisions – [Paras 2.1-2.4].

Remand for Fresh Consideration – Supreme Court remands cases to High Court for fresh decision on merits with proper reasoning – Appeals allowed, High Court's orders set aside – [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders passed by the High Court set aside – Matters remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law – [Para 5].

Income Tax – Re-opening of Assessment – High Court quashes notice for re-opening assessment due to lack of tangible material – Supreme Court finds that objective material existed justifying re-opening based on search proceedings, seized documents, and statements under Section 132(4) – Assessment originally accepted under Section 143(1) without scrutiny, thus not shielding from re-assessment – [Paras 1-34].

Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) – Limited Immunity – Supreme Court clarifies that immunity under Section 192 of the Finance Act, 2016 is limited to declarant and specific proceedings, not extending blanket protection – Re-opening based on material seized from search of third parties corroborated with assessee’s data, not solely on IDS declaration – [Paras 30-34].

Duty to Provide Reasoned Orders – High Court's dismissal of writ petitions without reasoned orders criticized – Courts must detail facts, issues, submissions, legal principles, and reasons to ensure transparency and fairness – Case remanded to High Court for fresh consideration with proper reasoning – [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders set aside – Cases remanded to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law – [Para 5].

Excise Revenue – Interest on Arrears – Respondent granted license for retail sale of country liquor – Surrendered license and disputed balance fee – High Court stayed recovery of license fee – Respondent eventually paid balance without interest – Supreme Court held that interim stay does not quash the demand, but merely suspends it – Once proceedings are dismissed, interim orders end and interest on unpaid amounts must be paid – [Paras 1-27].

Restitution Principle – Stay Order Impact – Interim stay orders do not extinguish underlying obligations – Dismissal of main proceedings revives suspended liabilities – Interest on arrears of excise revenue to be paid from due date, as per statutory provisions – [Paras 18-23].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Respondent liable to pay interest on arrears of excise revenue for the period covered by the interim stay – Liberty granted to respondent to apply under one-time settlement scheme for concessions on interest dues – [Paras 26-27].

Environmental Law – Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance – Supreme Court holds that ex post facto EC should not ordinarily be granted and certainly not for the asking – However, rigid application of procedural requirements without considering the consequences of shutting down operational units contributing to the economy and providing livelihoods is impractical – Court emphasizes the need for a balanced approach – Units found complying with environmental norms can be granted ex post facto EC in exceptional cases – [Paras 54-67].

Economic and Social Impact – Court recognizes the significant economic and social impact of closing down manufacturing units employing a large workforce – Stresses the need for authorities to consider these factors while ensuring compliance with environmental regulations – Penal measures like heavy fines and environmental restoration costs suggested for deviant industries – [Paras 56-63].

Decision – Appeals allowed – NGT order set aside – Respondents directed to decide on the applications for EC within one month – Pending decision, operation of the units shall not be interfered with – [Paras 67-70].