Civil Law - Mining Royalty - Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957 - Section 9 - Enhancement of royalty rate - Respondent was successful bidder in e-auction for iron ore lots in July 2014 - Tender conditions stipulated royalty at 10 percent plus additional deposit for future variance - Central Government amended Second Schedule of MMDR Act on 01-09-2014 increasing royalty to 15 percent - Respondent removed mineral after the amendment - Monitoring Committee deducted 5 percent difference from security deposit - High Court quashed the deduction holding royalty was frozen at time of bid - Supreme Court reversed the decision holding that royalty is a statutory impost linked to removal or dispatch of mineral - Held - Contractual provisions must give way to statutory amendments - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-14].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957 - Section 9 - Definition of dispatch - Court examined Section 9 and 9-Judge Bench decision in Mineral Area Development Authority case - Stated that royalty becomes payable upon removal or consumption of mineral from leased area - Interpretation of the word applicable in auction terms means the rate prevalent at time of removal - Held - Liability for enhanced royalty cannot be escaped if movement occurs after statutory amendment - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court of Karnataka quashed – The appellant is entitled to the enhanced royalty of 15 percent.

Criminal Law - Right to Travel Abroad - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Appeal against High Court judgment permitting Respondent No. 2 to travel to USA for medical treatment pending trial for offences under Sections 120-B and 306 IPC - Respondent No. 2 a US citizen had previously left India in 2017 after suspension of Look Out Circular and returned in 2025 leading to arrest - Magistrate ordered release of passport but required court permission for foreign travel - Sessions Court reversed this directing passport deposit due to prolonged pendency - High Court restored Magistrate order and granted permission to travel to USA citing medical exigencies and previous appearances - Supreme Court found High Court order unsustainable noting that medical facilities in India are comparable to those abroad - Court highlighted the proactive role of the accused in delaying trial through successive petitions and evading process - Held - Impugned order of High Court and Sessions Judge order set aside - Magistrate order dated 07/05/2025 restored - Respondent No. 2 shall not fly out of the country without express permission of the Sessions Court - [Paras 1-17].

Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Article 21 - Personal Liberty vs Societal Interest - Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of Article 21 but is subject to reasonable restrictions - A balance must be struck between individual liberty of the accused and the right of the complainant to a speedy trial along with larger societal interest in effective administration of justice - Accused contended that travel restrictions infringed Article 21 - Court observed that no right is absolute - Held - The High Court was indulgent towards the respondent instead of exercising judicial restraint given that the trial remained at committal stage for nearly ten years - [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – High Court and Sessions Court orders set aside – Magistrate order for passport release restored with a restriction on foreign travel without Sessions Court permission – Committal process to be expedited.

Civil Law - Minority and Guardianship - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 - Section 8 - Permission for alienation of minor property - Appellant mother acting as the natural guardian of her minor son sought court permission to enter into a development agreement for land inherited by the minor - the District Judge and the High Court rejected the application on the grounds that the necessity for development was not specifically described and the future utilization of the property was not clearly better than the present - Supreme Court observed that the minor held an undivided share in 0.13 acres of undeveloped land which yielded no immediate utility - the development agreement offered a 1/3rd share in a residential flat and Rs 1000000 cash - Court held that a structured arrangement resulting in tangible enforceable assets like a residence and liquid cash for education or health is superior to owning a passive potentially vulnerable interest in undeveloped land - Held - High Court and District Court orders set aside - permission granted subject to conditions - [Paras 1-18].

Civil Law - Doctrine of Parens Patriae - Guardians and Wards Act 1890 - Sections 7 and 17 - Judicial Oversight - the requirement of judicial permission for alienating minor property is an exercise of the parens patriae jurisdiction where the State through Courts assumes responsibility for those incapable of safeguarding their own interests - Court must act welfare-centrically and independently rather than merely enforcing parental or proprietary rights - Held - the best interest of the child is not a passive consideration but a vigorous principle requiring foresight and meticulous scrutiny of whether a transaction is for an evident advantage - [Paras 9-14].

Civil Law - Natural Guardian Powers - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 - Section 8 - Statutory Restraints - Section 8(1) grants managerial powers to natural guardians while Section 8(2) imposes a absolute restriction on the alienation of immovable property without prior court approval - Section 8(3) renders unauthorized transactions voidable at the instance of the minor - the requirement for permission is an ex ante protective measure rooted in the welfare of the minor - Held - the Court must reconcile the minor stake in the property with the rights of adult co-owners to engage in economically beneficial transactions - [Paras 7-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Appellant granted permission to realise the Development Agreement - monetary consideration to be kept in a nationalized bank until the minor attains majority - any changes to the agreement require prior court approval - co-owners must seek permission before selling shares prior to the minor reaching majority.

Constitutional Law - Equality and Non-discrimination - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 15 - Appellant married daughter denied compassionate allotment of fair price shop license following mother’s death - Application rejected by Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner on ground that G.O. No. 6 of 2019 and 2016 Order exclude married daughters from the definition of family - High Court dismissed writ petition citing binding precedents in Smt. Kusumlata and Saida Begum but granted certificate under Article 134-A - Supreme Court held that exclusion based solely on marital status lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object of providing immediate financial relief to deceased dealer's family - Held - exclusion of married daughters is founded on gender-based stereotypes and is constitutionally unsustainable - appeal allowed - [Paras 1-23].

Writ Law - Compassionate Appointment - Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016 - Clause 2(p) - Purpose of dependent quota is to mitigate immediate hardship of deceased dealer's family - State contended that married daughters do not satisfy local residence requirement - Court held that residence is an independent eligibility criterion under Paragraph IV(5) of the G.O. to be determined on facts - Blanket exclusion on speculative assumptions of non-residence is overbroad - Held - dependency is a question of fact which cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone - [Paras 18-22].

Civil Law - Purposive Construction - Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016 - Clause 2(p) - Interpretation of the words unmarried legally separated and widowed daughters - Literal interpretation produced result incompatible with constitutional guarantees - Principle of purposive construction applied to include married daughters within the expression daughters - Categories mentioned in Clause 2(p) share common characteristic of being united by functional criteria of dependency - Held - the expression daughter must be read to include married daughters provided they establish dependency and satisfy other eligibility conditions including local residence - [Paras 24-27].

Constitutional Law - Judicial Precedent - Overruling of contrary views - Allahabad High Court decisions in Smt. Kusumlata and Saida Begum - These decisions held that married daughters were not entitled to compassionate appointment as dealers - Supreme Court found these views inconsistent with the principle that marital status cannot be a valid ground for denying welfare benefits - Held - decisions in Saida Begum and Smt. Kusumlata do not lay down the correct law and stand overruled - [Para 27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court and revenue authorities quashed – Competent authority directed to issue necessary allotment order in favour of the appellant within four weeks.

Criminal Law - Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 37 - Mandatory Twin Conditions - State of Punjab challenged High Court order granting bail to respondent arrayed in FIR involving 1.465 kg heroin - Respondent allegedly directed co-accused to collect and supply drugs while being lodged in Central Jail Goindwal Sahib - High Court granted bail primarily on grounds of custody period and trial delay while observing antecedents alone cannot bar bail - Supreme Court noted respondent had 3 antecedents of similar nature - Held - Recording a finding under Section 37 NDPS Act is a sine qua non for granting bail in commercial quantity cases - High Court failed to consider the mandatory twin conditions - Satisfaction must be reached that there are reasonable grounds for believing accused is not guilty and not likely to commit offence on bail - Impugned order set aside - [Paras 1-24].

Criminal Law - Prolonged Incarceration - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Personal Liberty vs Statutory Restrictions - Respondent in custody for 1 year 7 months - Trial involving 24 witnesses with 2 examined - Respondent argued trial unlikely to conclude soon - Supreme Court observed that what constitutes prolonged incarceration is not uniformly expounded - Noted that respondent faces potential 20-year sentence - Held - Incarceration of 1 year 7 months is not an unreasonably long time warranting interference under Article 21 given the gravity of the offence and statutory bars - Interest of justice and national sovereignty prevail over personal liberty when a war is waged against the nation via drug supply - [Paras 11-22].

Evidence Law - Disclosure Statement - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 29 - Criminal Conspiracy - Respondent arrayed based on disclosure by co-accused Gurjit Singh and Sukhwinder Singh - Allegations of operating drug network using illegal mobile phones from inside jail - Held - Involvement in drug trafficking in an organized manner makes a prima facie case against dispensing with mandatory requirements of Section 37 - [Paras 5-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 15.10.2025 granting bail is set aside – Respondent directed to remain in custody.

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34(3) - Limitation for setting aside award - Starting point for computation - Appellant NHAI sought to challenge an arbitral award regarding land acquisition compensation - Both parties filed applications under Section 33 for correction or additional award - Arbitrator dismissed these applications on 04.07.2022 and NHAI received the order on 15.09.2022 - NHAI filed Section 34 applications on 07.11.2022 - High Court held Section 33 application was not maintainable as it sought substantive modification rather than clerical corrections and refused the benefit of extended limitation under Section 34(3) - Supreme Court analysed the statutory scheme and held that Section 34(3) does not distinguish between Section 33 applications that are ultimately allowed or dismissed - The provision does not restrict the benefit only to maintainable applications - Jurisdiction was formally invoked and proceedings were entertained - Held - Once jurisdiction under Section 33 is formally invoked and entertained the limitation for filing an application under Section 34 commences only from the date on which such request is disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal - [Paras 1-21].

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 33 - Pendency of proceedings - Impact on Section 34 filings - Respondent argued that only a maintainable application under Section 33 could defer the commencement of limitation under Section 34(3) - Court held that the merits of the Section 33 application are not determinative for the purposes of Section 34(3) - Parties cannot be compelled to institute Section 34 proceedings as a matter of abundant caution while Section 33 proceedings are pending - Such a requirement would result in multiplicity of proceedings and procedural uncertainty - Abuse of process through sham or frivolous Section 33 applications can be checked by courts through exemplary and punitive costs - Held - Limitation under Section 34(3) is reckoned from the date of disposal of the Section 33 application even if the application is dismissed or found not to warrant correction - [Paras 13-18].

Civil Law - Arbitration - Precedents - Distinction of State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani Construction Co. - High Court relied on the said decision to deny exclusion of time - Supreme Court distinguished the case noting it involved a mere letter seeking review rather than a formal application under Section 33 - In the present case formal applications were filed by both parties within the statutory period and were entertained by the Tribunal - Held - Reliance on Damani Construction Co. was misplaced as the facts were on an entirely different footing - [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge condoning delay restored – Section 34 applications to be decided on merits.

Civil Law - Mental Cruelty - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Denial of sexual intimacy - Parties both doctors married in 2007 but cohabited for only two to three months during a matrimonial period of eighteen years - Respondent-husband alleged that Appellant-wife would lock herself in a separate room and refuse establishment of sexual relations - Family Court dismissed the divorce petition citing failure to prove cruelty - High Court reversed the decision holding that denial of conjugal rights constitutes mental cruelty - Supreme Court affirmed the High Court finding - Held - persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty as it undermines the bedrock of marriage and inflicts severe emotional distress - Such conduct falls within the meaning of law for grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA - [Paras 18-20].

Civil Law - Dissolution of Marriage - Constitution of India - Article 142 - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Parties living separately for over fifteen years with no child from the wedlock - Multiple mediation attempts failed to reconcile the parties - Appellant-wife claimed willingness to resume cohabitation but continued her professional employment in a different state without genuine efforts to bridge the distance - Court found the marriage to be a legal fiction and emotionally dead - Held - where a marriage has broken down irretrievably and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified the Court can exercise powers under Article 142 to do complete justice - Prolonged separation coupled with absence of reconciliation efforts results in mental cruelty for both parties - Marriage dissolved in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India - [Paras 24-37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of divorce passed by the High Court affirmed – Marriage dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Service Law - Pensionary Benefits - Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme 1991 - Rule 10(1-B) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 - Entitlement of temporary status casual labourers to pension in absence of formal regularisation - Appellants were Night Guards in the Department of Posts conferred with temporary status and subsequently treated at par with temporary Group D employees for various benefits - They retired after continuous service spanning several decades but were denied pensionary benefits by the Respondents on the ground that formal regularisation was a mandatory prerequisite - High Court of Patna set aside the Tribunal orders which had granted relief - holding that the claims were barred by delay and laches and that absence of regularisation was fatal - Supreme Court observed that the 1991 Scheme and 1992 circular functionally assimilated temporary status employees with temporary government servants for benefits - Held - High Court judgments set aside - temporary status casual labourers who complete three years of service in that capacity are entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 10(1-B) of the 1965 Rules upon attaining qualifying service of ten years even in the absence of a formal regularisation order - [Paras 1-86].

Writ Law - Right to Pension - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 300A - Pension as a vested property right - Respondents argued that denial was justified based on financial burden and the original mode of engagement of the appellants - Supreme Court reiterated the concept of the State as a model employer and noted that pension is not a bounty or a matter of grace - Held - Pension is a hard-earned benefit in the nature of property protected under Article 300A of the Constitution and cannot be denied on the plea of financial burden or administrative inaction - [Paras 39-41, 74].

Civil Law - Delay and Laches - Limitation Act 1963 - Continuing cause of action - High Court rejected the claims citing significant delay in approaching the judicial forum - Supreme Court applied the settled principle that pension constitutes a recurring and continuing cause of action - Held - A claim for pension cannot be defeated solely on the ground of delay - however the claim for arrears must be balanced with principles of limitation - arrears confined to three years and two months preceding the filing of the respective Original Applications - [Paras 18, 81-82].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgments set aside – Respondents directed to compute and release pensionary and retiral benefits within three months – Default to attract interest at 6 percent per annum.

Civil Law - Succession - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Sections 8 and 10 - Inheritance of separate property - Property of deceased Dajiba was separate property - Heirs included widow and four daughters from a previous marriage - Widow sold part of the property claiming status as Karta for the legal necessity of a daughter's marriage - Daughters filed suit for partition and separate possession - Civil Court decreed the suit rejecting the Karta claim - First Appellate Court reversed the decree holding legal necessity was established - High Court in Second Appeal restored the Civil Court's decree - Supreme Court observed that property devolving under Section 8 is taken by heirs in individual capacity and not as Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family - Heirs succeed as tenants-in-common with definite and separate shares - Held - Upon Dajiba's death the widow and four daughters became tenants-in-common with 1/5th share each - Widow had no authority to act as Karta to sell shares of other heirs - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-9].

Civil Law - Mode of Succession - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Section 19 - Joint Tenancy and Tenancy-in-Common - Distinction between survivorship in joint tenancy and identifiable shares in tenancy-in-common - Section 19(b) provides that two or more heirs succeeding together to the property of an intestate shall take as tenants-in-common - Joint tenancy is generally unknown to Hindu law except in coparcenary between members of an undivided family - Property inherited under Section 8 does not automatically assume the character of coparcenary property - Held - The heirs succeed per capita and not per stirpes and their shares are notionally separate even if physical possession remains joint - [Paras 5-7].

Civil Law - Karta and Legal Necessity - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Sections 8, 19 and 30 - Alienation of inherited property - Widow claimed right to sell property as Karta for family necessity - Supreme Court held that the question of Karta-ship does not arise merely because property came from a paternal ancestor when succession is governed by Section 8 - Interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary is deemed capable of being disposed of by him and heirs take individual statutory inheritance - Held - Since each heir held a separate 1/5th share the widow could only deal with the 1/5th share that vested in her - No question of legal necessity could justify alienating the distinct shares of the daughters - [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of the High Court affirmed – No order as to costs.