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].

Contract Law – Interpretation – Recovery of Demurrages – Clause XII (a) of the contract between FCI and transport contractors – Whether demurrages imposed by Railways can be recovered from contractors as "charges" – High Court held demurrages not recoverable as "charges" – Supreme Court affirmed, interpreting "charges" within the contractual context, excluding demurrages due to non-inclusion of loading and unloading duties in the contract [Paras 16-26].

Contractual Terms – Contextual Interpretation – Importance of interpreting terms in the context of the entire contract and the intention of the parties – Reference to similar contracts (2010 and 2018) where loading and unloading duties were included, thus justifying demurrages – Distinction in present contract with no such duties, leading to exclusion of demurrages from "charges" [Paras 27-32].

Decision: Appeals by FCI dismissed – Appeals by contractors allowed – High Court decisions upheld – FCI may pursue other remedies if available under the law [Paras 34-36].

Contract Law – Escalation Claims – Rights and duties of parties to a contract subsist or perish in terms of the contract – Contractual clause disallowing future claims for escalation unless specified conditions are met – Conditions were satisfied, thus Contractor entitled to claim escalation – Officers administering the contract have no discretion to deny escalation once contractual conditions are met [Paras 18-25].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction of High Court – High Court's power of revision under Section 19 of the Adhiniyam – High Court did not find errors of jurisdiction, acts of misconduct, or events of invalidity in the arbitral proceedings – Decision of High Court upheld [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision – Arbitral award for escalation claim stands [Para 28].

Income Tax – Deduction under Section 80-IB – Eligibility – Assessee manufacturing polyurethane foam used as car seats – Claimed deduction under Section 80-IB – Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and High Court denied deduction, classifying product as polyurethane foam under Eleventh Schedule – Tribunal's favorable ruling for assessee overturned – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision, confirming foam as final product [Paras 6-10].

Classification – Polyurethane Foam vs. Car Seats – Manufacturing process examined – No further process by assessee to convert foam into car seats – Polyurethane foam used as ingredient by assembly operators – Final product not car seats but polyurethane foam in various sizes/designs – Compliance with Eleventh Schedule confirmed [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision upheld – Assessee not entitled to Section 80-IB deduction as product falls under Eleventh Schedule – No costs [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Liability of Directors – High Court quashed proceedings against the director of a company under Section 138 NI Act due to the company not being made an accused and lack of averments in the complaint stating the director was responsible for the conduct of the business – Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing the necessity of company being arraigned as an accused and specific averments regarding directors' responsibility in the complaint – Reliance placed on previous judgments establishing these principles [Paras 12-32].

Vicarious Liability – Section 141 NI Act – Vicarious liability of a director arises only if the company is prosecuted and there are specific averments in the complaint that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business – Mere description as a director insufficient – Compliance with Section 141 is mandatory [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment quashing proceedings upheld [Para 33].

SARFAESI Act – Bar on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Suit for recovery of damages/compensation – Plaintiff claimed damages for receiving less area than paid for – Suit not barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act as it did not challenge the sale/sale certificate but sought compensation for less area received – High Court erred in holding suit barred by Section 34 [Paras 5.2, 6].

Contractual Obligation – Bank's Duty – Plaintiff paid for 54 cents but received only 39.60 cents – Bank aware of discrepancy but still issued sale certificate for 54 cents – Bank failed to disclose material defect in property – Conduct and fairness in contractual obligations emphasized [Paras 5.3, 5.4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashed – Trial Court's judgment and decree restored – Bank to pay decretal amount with interest within 8 weeks – Costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid by the Bank to the original plaintiff [Para 6].

Land Acquisition – Delay – Condonation and Compensation Enhancement – High Court condoned 22-year delay and enhanced compensation to Rs. 149 per sq. yard – Supreme Court upheld the compensation but exempted NOIDA from liability for statutory benefits and interest during the delayed period – Delayed statutory benefits would impose a financial burden and increase project costs against public interest [Paras 5-6].

Statutory Benefits – Financial Burden on Public Body – NOIDA should not bear statutory benefits and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the delay between Reference Court's award and filing of appeals – Liability includes interest at 15% per annum, solatium, and price rise [Para 5.3].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation of Rs. 149 per sq. yard upheld – NOIDA exempted from statutory benefits and interest for the period between Reference Court's award and filing of appeals [Para 6].

Legitimate Expectation – Gender Discrimination – Women officers in the Indian Air Force who were inducted as SSCOs between 1993 and 1998 – Appellants were not considered for PC despite initial policy assurances – Appeals challenged the exclusion from PC and sought pensionary benefits [Paras 1-33].

Policy Implementation – Supreme Court examined the policy implementation following the judgment in Secretary Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Others – Emphasized the doctrine of legitimate expectation and directed consideration of pensionary benefits for eligible officers [Paras 19-33].

Pensionary Benefits – Directive to grant one-time pensionary benefits to women SSCOs who were not considered for PC – Evaluation based on HRP dated November 19, 2010 – No arrears of salary, but arrears of pension from the date of completing twenty years of service [Paras 34-36].

Decision – Civil Appeals Disposed – Held – Women SSCOs eligible for pensionary benefits on completion of minimum qualifying service – Evaluated under HRP dated November 19, 2010 – Sympathetic consideration for officers scoring QRs between 6.29 and 6.41 [Para 34-36].

Advocates Act – Constitutional Validity of AOR Rules – Petitioner challenged Order IV Rule 1(b), Rule 5, and Rule 7(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Contended these rules were discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – Claimed the exclusive right given to AORs contravened Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 [Paras 1-4].

Supreme Court Rules – Authority under Article 145 – Supreme Court affirmed its authority under Article 145 to regulate persons practicing before it – Cited Section 52 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which saves the Supreme Court's power to make such rules – Held the AOR system was within the Court's rule-making authority and did not violate constitutional provisions [Paras 5-10].

Judicial Review – Reasonableness of Legislation – Emphasized the limited scope of judicial review concerning subordinate legislation – Court’s role not to question the wisdom of rules unless afflicted with arbitrariness or unreasonableness – Found no merit in the petitioner’s claims of unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the AOR requirements [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the AOR rules under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Found no violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 [Para 11].