Land Acquisition – Adverse Possession – Public Purpose – Appellant, an illiterate widow from a rural background, was divested of her property by the State in 1967 without compensation or legal sanction for the construction of a road – High Court dismissed her writ petition citing laches – Supreme Court finds continuing cause of action, orders compensation on same terms as a similar case – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-14].

Right to Property – Constitutional and Human Right – Appellant’s property taken when right to property was a fundamental right under Article 31 – Despite its conversion to a constitutional right under Article 300A, the obligation to pay compensation remains – State’s claim of adverse possession rejected as inconsistent with welfare state principles [Paras 10-11].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – Appellant’s delay in approaching the Court due to unawareness does not bar relief – Judicial discretion to condone delay exercised due to compelling circumstances – State’s inaction deemed unjust [Paras 10.7-11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – State directed to pay compensation as per Reference Court’s award in a similar case, including statutory benefits, within eight weeks – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded to appellant – High Court’s orders set aside [Para 13-14].

Arbitration Law – Interim Measures – Jurisdiction – Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 – Tribunal constituted under Section 3 has jurisdiction to grant interim measures under Section 17 of the A&C Act – Contractor’s remedy lies with the Tribunal – High Court’s order restraining recovery without adjudication set aside – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-22].

Statutory Arbitration – Consistency of Laws – A&C Act and Gujarat Act – No inconsistency in grant of interim relief under Section 17 of the A&C Act by the Tribunal – Gujarat Act’s provisions supplemented by Section 17 – Tribunal empowered to adjudicate disputes and grant interim measures [Paras 17-21].

Interim Injunction – Unilateral Recovery – State issued notice to recover alleged dues from other contracts – Contractor challenged notice – High Court relied on precedents to restrain unilateral recovery – Supreme Court finds Tribunal competent to decide legality and grant interim relief – High Court’s order reversed [Paras 6-22].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court’s judgments set aside – Contractor may approach Tribunal within two months – Tribunal to decide on merits without limitation bar [Para 22].

Consumer Law – Free Gifts – Appellant advertised a holiday voucher scheme with free gifts contingent on referrals – Respondent purchased vouchers but made no referrals – District Forum awarded free gifts (laptop, mobile, TV) and compensation – State Commission and NCDRC upheld the decision – Supreme Court examines scheme terms and finds gifts conditional on referrals – Appeal allowed, lower orders set aside [Paras 1-8].

Referral Scheme – Terms and Conditions – Appellant's scheme required referrals for free gifts – Respondent claimed entitlement without making referrals – Email communication clarified gift conditions – Supreme Court notes absurdity of awarding high-value gifts without fulfilling conditions – Orders against appellant reversed as contrary to scheme terms [Paras 2-7].

Jurisdiction and Evidence – Respondent argued email was not on record – Appellant countered it was referenced in District Forum reply – Supreme Court accepts appellant's evidence, finds no right to gifts without referrals – Appeal allowed, complaint dismissed [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – NCDRC and lower orders set aside – Respondent's complaint dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 8].

Service Law – Border Security Force Act, 1968 – Misconduct – Appellant, a BSF constable with 17 years of service, dismissed for overstaying leave – Applied for leave extension due to family emergency but rejoined late – Summary Security Force Court convicted and dismissed him – Statutory petition dismissed by Director General BSF – High Court reversed Single Judge’s order for reconsideration of punishment – Supreme Court modifies penalty to discharge enabling pension eligibility after 20 years of service [Paras 1-7].

Leave Extension – Communication and Evidence – Appellant contacted Unit Adjutant for leave extension due to niece's abduction – Adjutant acknowledged communication and advised extension – Single Judge noted appellant's oral statement corroborating circumstances – Division Bench observed belated application but didn't find explanation false – Supreme Court considers 17 years of service and peculiar facts for lenient view [Paras 3-7].

Proportionality of Punishment – Discharge vs. Dismissal – Appellant had prior penalties for unauthorized absence – Supreme Court declines reinstatement but finds dismissal disproportionate – Orders discharge with effect from completion of 20 years for pension eligibility – No back wages awarded for interim period [Paras 7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Appellant to be treated as discharged from service from date of completing 20 years for pension eligibility – No back wages between dismissal and pension eligibility date – Arrears of pension to be paid within three months [Para 7].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 166 – Contributory Negligence – The deceased, a pillion rider on a motorcycle, was struck by a car – Tribunal awarded compensation for the accident caused by the car’s rash and negligent driving – High Court reduced the award by 10% due to alleged contributory negligence for having three persons on the motorcycle – Supreme Court holds no evidence supported contributory negligence finding – High Court’s reduction set aside [Paras 1-14].

Compensation Assessment – Employment and Income Proof – Tribunal accepted the testimony of the deceased’s employer regarding his monthly income – High Court rejected it due to lack of supporting records – Supreme Court reinstates Tribunal’s finding, noting employer’s testimony was credible and unchallenged – High Court erred in substituting minimum wage assumptions for proven income [Paras 15-18].

Multiplier Application – Age Factor – Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 based on the deceased's age – High Court applied 14, considering the claimants' age – Supreme Court clarifies multiplier should be based on deceased's age per precedents (Reshma Kumari, Munna Lal Jain) – High Court’s application of lower multiplier incorrect [Paras 19-29].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Tribunal’s award restored – Compensation to be paid as originally determined by the Tribunal without deduction for contributory negligence – No order as to costs [Para 29].

Landlord-Tenant Law – Sub-letting and Arrears of Rent – Appellant (landlady) filed eviction suit against tenant (respondent) on grounds of sub-letting and arrears of rent – Rent Controller dismissed suit, but Appellate Authority decreed eviction – High Court quashed eviction decree – Supreme Court examines evidence and finds clear case of sub-letting – High Court’s order set aside, eviction decree restored [Paras 1-10].

Sub-letting – Definition and Proof – Sub-letting involves parting with possession and granting exclusive possession to third party without landlord’s consent – Landlord must prove prima facie case of sub-letting – Once established, burden shifts to tenant to rebut – In this case, evidence showed exclusive possession and control by sub-tenant [Paras 8-9].

Eviction Petition – Maintainability – Appellant as power of attorney holder of property owner filed eviction petition – Respondents challenged appellant’s status as landlady – Supreme Court held eviction petition maintainable under Section 2(6) of the Act – Appellant deemed landlord due to execution of rental agreement and receipt of rent [Para 6.1].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Judgment and decree of Rent Control Appellate Authority restored – Respondents ordered to vacate premises within three months on filing usual undertaking and payment of arrears of rent within four weeks [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Corruption – Appellant, a former Director of Mines and Geology in Karnataka, sought discharge from charges of conspiracy and corruption – High Court set aside Magistrate's order granting discharge – Supreme Court examines evidence and legal principles under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. – Held that sufficient material existed to frame charges – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-30].

Legal Principles for Discharge – Section 227 of Cr.P.C. – Court outlines principles for discharge applications – Emphasizes that at the stage of framing charges, probative value of material is not to be weighed – Court must proceed on assumption that materials are true – If two views are possible, and one gives rise to grave suspicion, charges should be framed [Paras 14-15].

Evidence and Findings – Allegations against appellant include conspiracy with other accused to issue Mineral Dispatch Permits (MDPs) illegally – Prosecution evidence included statements of officials and documents – High Court found sufficient material to raise grave suspicion – Supreme Court agrees, noting that appellant's defense cannot be considered at discharge stage [Paras 16-30].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court's order setting aside Magistrate's discharge order upheld – Charges to be framed against appellant based on material evidence – Observations made are for the purpose of deciding the discharge application and do not affect the trial's merits [Para 30].

Telecom Law – Spectrum Charges – Union of India challenged TDSAT’s order directing refund of excess amount encashed from bank guarantees provided by RCL for deferred spectrum charges – Supreme Court examines NIA 2013 and NIA 2015 terms – Holds that refund of unadjusted amount was justified – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-12].

Bank Guarantees – Encashment and Refund – RCL failed to pay deferred spectrum charges – Union encashed bank guarantees for Rs. 908.91 crores against liability of Rs. 774.25 crores – RCL furnished fresh guarantees for Rs. 774.25 crores – Excess encashment of Rs. 134.66 crores sought to be refunded – TDSAT directed refund of Rs. 104.34 crores – Supreme Court upheld the decision [Paras 3-11].

Financial Stress and Relief – Telecom sector facing financial difficulties – Union revisited and modified payment terms for deferred spectrum charges – RCL’s financial stress and restructuring cited – Supreme Court finds Union’s refusal to refund excess amount unreasonable – Orders refund as directed by TDSAT [Paras 2, 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upholds TDSAT’s order directing Union of India to refund Rs. 104.34 crores to RCL for excess amount encashed from bank guarantees – No costs [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appellants convicted for causing death of Sher Singh by setting him on fire – Trial Court and High Court relied on two dying declarations made by the deceased – Supreme Court examines the reliability and validity of the dying declarations – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-30].

Dying Declarations – Reliability and Evidentiary Value – Deceased made two dying declarations implicating the appellants – First to a doctor at the hospital, second to a police officer – Supreme Court finds both declarations consistent and reliable – No evidence of tutoring or fabrication – Medical evidence supports the mental fitness of the deceased at the time of making the declarations [Paras 8-18].

Motive – Absence of Proven Motive – Prosecution failed to establish a specific motive for the crime – Supreme Court holds that lack of motive does not invalidate the dying declarations or the prosecution case – Conviction based on dying declarations stands even without proof of motive [Paras 12.6, 16.3].

Contradictions and Inconsistencies – Defence raised contradictions in evidence, particularly regarding self-immolation theory and absence of direct evidence – Supreme Court rejects these contentions, finding the prosecution’s evidence consistent and credible – Dying declarations considered truthful and voluntary [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Appellants’ contentions rejected – No interference with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court [Paras 17-19].