Compensation Claim – Survival of Claim – The claim for personal injuries abates with the death of the injured if unrelated to the accident. However, the legal representatives can pursue claims for loss of the estate, which includes medical expenses, loss of income, and future prospects that would have accrued to the estate but for the accident. [Paras 9-20]

Loss of Estate – Inclusion in Compensation – The loss of estate encompasses medical expenses, treatment costs, diet, attendant charges, doctor's fees, and loss of income due to disability. These components form part of the estate and are recoverable by the legal representatives. [Paras 10-20]

Multiplier Application – The application of a multiplier is appropriate to determine the compensation for loss of income and future prospects, even if the injured dies from unrelated causes. The compensation must reflect the potential earnings and savings lost due to the accident. [Paras 18-19]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The compensation for personal injuries (pain and suffering) is disallowed. The reassessed total compensation for the loss of estate, including medical expenses and attendant charges, is Rs. 2,842,175, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. The appellant is directed to pay the respondent within four weeks. [Paras 21-23]

Redemption of Mortgage – Limitation and Nature of Document – The Court examined whether the document dated 22.2.1969 was a conditional sale or a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The suit for redemption can be filed within 30 years from the date fixed for redemption. [Paras 1, 23]

Conditional Sale vs. Mortgage by Conditional Sale – The Court held that the intention of the parties and the terms of the document indicated a mortgage rather than a sale, as the document stipulated that the land would be reconveyed to the plaintiff upon repayment of the loan amount. This relationship of debtor and creditor was essential to determine the nature of the transaction. [Paras 4-12]

Improvements and Mortgagee's Rights – The Court clarified that any improvements made by the mortgagee on the mortgaged property do not bar the right of redemption by the mortgagor. The mortgagee is entitled to enjoy the usufruct of the property, which compensates for any improvements made. [Paras 22]

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court dismissing the suit for redemption are set aside. The suit is decreed, and the plaintiff is granted the right to pay or deposit the mortgage amount within three months from the receipt of the order. [Paras 24]

Quashing of FIR – Inherent Powers of High Court – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC without considering the investigation materials and statements collected. The High Court is not to delve into the merits of the case or conduct a trial while exercising its inherent powers. [Paras 9.1-9.3]

Serious Triable Allegations – The Court emphasized that when serious triable issues and allegations emerge during the investigation, these are to be addressed at the trial. The High Court overlooked critical aspects that arose during the investigation, thereby unjustly quashing the criminal proceedings. [Paras 10-11]

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings – The Court noted that ongoing civil proceedings do not preclude criminal prosecution if allegations constitute a criminal offence. The existence of a civil dispute does not negate the applicability of criminal law. [Para 11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – The High Court's order quashing the criminal proceedings is set aside. The trial is to proceed in accordance with the law, and the trial court is to decide the case based on evidence without being influenced by any observations made by the Supreme Court in this order. [Paras 12-13]

Payment of Gratuity – Effective Date of Amendment – The appellants challenged the date of commencement of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010, which was set as 24.5.2010, asserting it should be effective from 1.1.2007. The Court upheld the executive's decision to fix the commencement date, noting that the benefit of higher gratuity is a one-time payment available only after the commencement of the Amending Act. [Paras 1-2, 17]

Retrospective Application – The Court held that the amendment to the Gratuity Act does not have retrospective effect. The gratuity amount exempt from tax is limited to the amount specified under the Gratuity Act as amended from the effective date, i.e., 24.5.2010, and not earlier. [Paras 13-14, 17]

Tax Liability on Gratuity – The appellants were not entitled to tax exemption on the enhanced gratuity received before the commencement date of the Amending Act, as per the specific language of Section 10(10)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. [Paras 13, 17]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The High Court's order was upheld, and the date of commencement fixed by the Executive was deemed valid. The appellants are not entitled to exemption from tax on the enhanced gratuity paid prior to 24.5.2010. [Para 18]

Recognition of Educational Institutions – The Supreme Court addressed the issue of delay in the grant of recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for conducting B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. courses. It was found that NCTE and its Regional Committees granted recognition for the Academic Year 2022-2023 after satisfying all requirements, but unjustifiably denied recognition for the Academic Year 2021-2022. [Paras 3-11]

Rationale for Recognition – The Court held that once NCTE and its Regional Committees found the colleges compliant with all infrastructural and instructional requirements, there was no rational basis for not granting recognition for the earlier academic year. The delay in granting recognition was attributable to NCTE and its Regional Committees, not the petitioners. [Paras 30-34]

Extension of Timelines – Referring to the timeline set in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2013) 2 SCC 617, the Court extended the deadline for granting recognition to the Academic Year 2021-2022, allowing the petitioners to admit students for that year. [Paras 34-35]

Decision: Petitions allowed – The Court extended the cut-off date fixed in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya and directed NCTE and its Regional Committees to issue formal orders for recognition within three days. The State and other authorities were directed to grant affiliation and requisite permissions within 15 days, enabling the petitioners to admit students for the Academic Year 2021-2022. [Paras 35-36]

Income Tax – Deduction of Interest Converted to Debentures – The issue was whether the issuance of debentures in lieu of interest accrued and payable constitutes "actual payment" under Section 43B. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, but the CIT(A) and ITAT allowed it, holding that the issuance of debentures amounted to actual payment. [Paras 3-6]

Explanation 3C – Retrospective Application – Explanation 3C, inserted by the Finance Act 2006 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1989, clarifies that interest converted into a loan or borrowing is not deemed to be actually paid. The High Court applied this explanation, leading to the disallowance of the deduction. [Paras 8-10]

Object of Section 43B – The section aims to ensure actual payment of certain liabilities before allowing deductions, thereby preventing tax evasion through accounting manipulations. Explanation 3C was introduced to curb the misuse of Section 43B by clarifying that mere conversion of interest into a loan does not constitute actual payment. [Paras 16-18]

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court held that the facts of the case demonstrated actual payment of interest through the issuance of debentures under a rehabilitation plan, which was accepted by the financial institution. Explanation 3C was deemed inapplicable as there was no misuse of Section 43B. The judgment of the ITAT was restored, and the High Court's decision was set aside. [Paras 20-31]

Criminalisation in Politics – Obligation to Disclose Criminal Antecedents – Addressing the growing criminalisation in the Indian political system, the Supreme Court emphasized that maintaining the purity of the political system necessitates excluding individuals with criminal records from law-making roles. The Court questioned whether it could enforce such standards through directions lacking statutory foundation [Paras 1-5].

Contempt of Court – Non-compliance with Directions – Eight political parties were found guilty of contempt for failing to disclose criminal antecedents of their candidates as directed by the Court. The Court imposed fines and issued directions to ensure future compliance [Paras 6-14].

Right to Information – Voter's Right to Know – The Court reiterated the importance of voters' right to information regarding the criminal records of candidates. It mandated that political parties publish such information prominently on their websites and directed the Election Commission to develop a mobile application and conduct awareness campaigns [Paras 15-22].

Election Law – Role of Election Commission – The Court clarified the Election Commission's role in ensuring compliance with its orders and emphasized the need for prompt action against non-compliant political parties. It directed the creation of a dedicated cell within the Election Commission to monitor compliance [Paras 23-30].

Decision – Contempt Petition Allowed – Held – Political parties directed to pay fines for contempt of court. Detailed directions issued to ensure compliance with orders on the disclosure of criminal antecedents. The Election Commission instructed to monitor and report non-compliance to the Court [Paras 31-36].

Civil Procedure – Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Court held that the provisions under the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 do not bar the civil court from entertaining a suit seeking declaration of an existing right to use a drain. The High Court erred in invoking Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC to reject the plaint on the grounds of jurisdiction [Paras 1-19].

Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act – Sections 246, 247, 248 – Rights over Drains – The Act empowers the Commissioner to compel the owner of a drain to permit use by others but does not provide an express or implied bar on the civil court from entertaining suits relating to the declaration of existing rights over drains [Paras 12-16].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Section 9 of CPC – Bar of jurisdiction under GMC Act – The Court reiterated that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except where expressly or impliedly barred. The provisions in GMC Act regarding drains do not constitute such a bar [Paras 7-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The order of the High Court rejecting the plaint was set aside, and the suit was restored for consideration on merits. The appellant’s right to seek declaratory relief for the use of a drain is within the jurisdiction of the civil court [Paras 20-22].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Resolution Plan Approval – Jurisdiction of Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities – Court held that the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as long as the resolution plan meets the requirements under Section 30(2) of the IBC – Emphasized that the authorities have no equity-based jurisdiction to alter business decisions made by the CoC [Paras 1-44].

Resolution Plan – Commercial Wisdom of CoC – Court reiterated that the commercial decisions of the CoC, made by the requisite majority, are not justiciable and cannot be questioned by the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority – The role of these authorities is limited to ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements of the IBC [Paras 22-31].

Fair and Equitable Treatment – Operational and Financial Creditors – Discussed the distinction between operational and financial creditors – Highlighted that equitable treatment under the IBC pertains to creditors within the same class and does not imply equal treatment between different classes of creditors – Operational creditors’ rights are protected under Section 30(2)(b) and their payment must meet the statutory norms [Paras 28-38].

Approval Process – Role of Adjudicating Authority – Clarified that the Adjudicating Authority's role is to verify compliance with Section 30(2) and not to review the merits of the CoC’s commercial decisions – Once the statutory requirements are met, the resolution plan should be approved without delving into its business merits [Paras 26-29].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – The resolution plan approved by the CoC, meeting the statutory requirements, must be upheld – Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities do not possess jurisdiction to interfere with CoC’s commercial decisions – Appeal dismissed and decisions of lower authorities affirmed [Paras 42-43].