Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act – Repeal Act – Possession of surplus land – High Court set aside proceedings on ground of non-payment of compensation – Supreme Court finds High Court erred in not considering possession status – Payment of compensation and possession are distinct – Remands case for detailed consideration of possession status [Paras 4.3-4.7].

Repeal Act – Section 3 and 4 – High Court misinterpreted provisions – Proceedings do not abate if possession taken before Repeal Act – High Court failed to consider if possession was taken by the State – Repeal Act’s applicability hinges on possession status, not compensation [Paras 4.1-4.4].

Procedure – Maintainability of subsequent writ petition – Previous writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution – Restoration application dismissed – Fresh writ petition permissible as per High Court's observation – High Court to consider this in remanded proceedings [Para 5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Case remanded for fresh consideration on possession and maintainability – High Court requested to expedite decision within six months – Costs of Rs. 50,000 imposed on respondents [Paras 5-8].

Land Acquisition – Urgency Clause – Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act – Challenge to the invocation of urgency clause and dispensing with the hearing under Section 5A – Supreme Court holds that bare assertions by the State are insufficient – Existence of exceptional circumstances justifying urgency must be proven – High Court’s dismissal of writ petition set aside – Case remanded for reconsideration of urgency and adherence to procedural safeguards [Paras 22-24, 37-38].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Facts specifically within the knowledge of the State must be laid before the court – State must provide relevant material justifying invocation of Section 17(4) [Para 23].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Compulsory acquisition requires compliance with statutory safeguards – Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act guarantees a right to be heard – Dispensation with this right requires strict scrutiny and adherence to statutory requirements [Para 22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Case remanded to reconsider the validity of invoking Section 17(4) and adherence to Section 5A – Costs imposed on respondents [Para 38].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Compensation – High Court determined compensation at Rs. 7100 per acre based on a sale deed from 1980 – Appellants sought compensation of Rs. 15,402 per acre as per a Reference Court’s judgment in a similar case for land in the same village – Supreme Court holds that compensation should be consistent with the Reference Court’s earlier determination – Time gap between notifications (May and December 1981) deemed insignificant – Compensation of Rs. 15,402 per acre awarded [Paras 2-8].

Previous Judgments – Consistency in Compensation – Reference Court’s determination of Rs. 15,402 per acre in another case attained finality and was accepted by the State – Supreme Court finds no significant changes between the two notifications – High Court’s lower determination inconsistent with established compensation [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment modified – Compensation of Rs. 15,402 per acre awarded to appellants with all statutory benefits – Subject to payment of deficient court fees, if any – No order as to costs [Para 8].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Residuary Jurisdiction – Section 60(5)(c) of IBC – NCLT's jurisdiction does not extend to disputes arising dehors the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor – Contractual disputes unrelated to insolvency cannot be adjudicated under Section 60(5)(c) – Termination of contract by TCS based on material breaches, not insolvency – NCLT and NCLAT orders set aside [Paras 22-27, 29-31].

Contractual Termination – Grounds – Termination notice by TCS citing multiple breaches of contract by SK Wheels – No direct relation to insolvency process – NCLT's interim stay on termination notice reversed as it exceeded jurisdiction [Paras 25-27, 30-31].

Specific Relief Act – Section 14 – Determinable contracts – Intervention by NCLT cannot convert determinable contracts into non-terminable ones – Valid termination of contract must be respected unless it leads to the corporate death of the debtor [Para 23].

Decision – Appeal allowed – NCLAT judgment set aside – NCLT's interim stay order quashed – Contract termination upheld – Proceedings against TCS dismissed for lack of jurisdiction – No costs [Paras 30-32].

Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Compensatory Time – Appellant diagnosed with Dysgraphia entitled to compensatory time under Guidelines for Written Examinations – Examination center failed to provide additional hour – Supreme Court holds National Testing Agency (NTA) responsible for ensuring compliance with guidelines – High Court’s judgment set aside – Case remanded for reconsideration of appropriate remedy to rectify the injustice caused [Paras 1-20, 22-31, 33-44, 57-60].

Examination Guidelines – Compliance – NTA must ensure examination centers are aware and comply with guidelines for persons with disabilities – Lack of awareness and training at examination centers led to wrongful denial of compensatory time – NTA directed to issue clear and unambiguous guidelines for future examinations [Paras 31-32, 57(iii)-(vi)].

Reasonable Accommodation – Inclusive Education – RPwD Act mandates reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities – Right to inclusive education includes necessary adjustments in examination conditions – Denial of compensatory time violates the appellant’s right to inclusive education and reasonable accommodation [Paras 34-44].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – NTA directed to reconsider appropriate remedy for appellant within one week – NTA to issue clear guidelines and ensure training for examination centers – No costs ordered [Paras 57-60].

Criminal Procedure – Recalling Judgment – Section 362 CrPC – High Court lacks jurisdiction to recall its own order after it is passed – Only correction of clerical or arithmetical errors allowed under Section 362 – High Court's suo moto recall of the order quashing the FIR was without jurisdiction – Original order quashing FIR restored [Paras 2-5].

Jurisdiction – Suo Moto Recall – Court's power limited to corrections – Recall of detailed reasoned order not permissible under Section 362 – High Court's recall order set aside [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order dated 28.04.2021 recalling its earlier order quashing the FIR is set aside – Original order dated 20.04.2021 quashing the FIR is restored – No costs ordered [Para 5].

Transfer of Property – Sale Deed – Joint Possession – Appellant claimed that the sale deeds executed by his brother Sudarshan Kumar under a power of attorney were void as no consideration was paid – Supreme Court holds that the sale of immovable property without consideration is void under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act – Sale deeds to Sudarshan Kumar’s wife and minor sons held void – Appellant entitled to joint possession of suit properties [Paras 12-18].

Evidence – Payment of Consideration – No evidence was adduced by Sudarshan Kumar regarding the payment of consideration by his wife and minor sons – High Court’s finding that amounts were not out of reach is without basis – Validity of sale deeds questioned due to lack of consideration and earning capacity of purchasers [Paras 14-16].

Legal Effect – Void Transactions – Transactions without consideration do not confer any right, title, or interest – Sale deeds executed under power of attorney without payment of price held as sham transactions – No necessity to specifically claim a declaration as regards void documents in the plaint [Para 16].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – District Court’s decree restored – Appellant entitled to joint possession of the suit properties with respondents – No order as to costs [Paras 18-19].

Penal Code – Private Defence – Sections 96 to 102 – A plea of private defence need not be set up in a particular manner and can be applied to others if the evidence shows a preponderance of probabilities – The concept of acting in excess must be assessed based on the continuous apprehension of danger – Use of weapons significant in context – Courts must be cautious and apply the principle of sifting the chaff from the grain when evidence is inseparable and impacts credibility [Paras 46-47, 48-49].

Penal Code – Common Object – Section 149 – Mere presence in an assembly does not constitute an offense unless it becomes unlawful with a common object – Prosecution must prove the assembly had a common unlawful object and the offense was committed in prosecution of that object – Courts should be cautious due to the deeming fiction under Section 149 IPC requiring higher onus on prosecution [Paras 50-51].

Evidence – Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus – The principle of rejecting entire testimony due to falsehood does not strictly apply – Courts should sift credible evidence unless discrepancies are inseparable and material – Discrepancies impacting witness credibility can lead to rejecting their testimony [Paras 48-49].

Evidence – Motive – While motive may lose significance with adequate eyewitness evidence, it is crucial when the plea of private defence is raised – Avoidance of unimpeachable evidence regarding motive can seriously impact the prosecution's case [Paras 51-52].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Case remanded for fresh consideration on possession and maintainability – Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt – Plea of private defence accepted as possible and plausible – Appeals by de facto complainant dismissed – No costs ordered [Paras 60-61].

Arbitration – Modification of Award – Appellant contested the modification of the original award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The Supreme Court held that the original award did not contain any arithmetical or clerical errors and was made considering the claims as presented – Modification beyond scope of Section 33 – Both City Civil Court and High Court erred in upholding the modified award – Appeal allowed, original award restored [Paras 1-13].

Jurisdiction – Scope of Section 33 – The arbitrator’s power to modify an award is limited to correcting arithmetical or clerical errors – Any substantial change in the award exceeds the ambit of Section 33 – The modified award introducing new claim values is unsustainable [Paras 8-12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Original award dated 04.12.2010 reinstated – Modified award dated 14.01.2011 quashed – No order as to costs [Para 13].