Civil Procedure – Compromise Decree – Bar to Separate Suit – The appellants challenged the validity of a compromise decree passed in a partition suit, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the challenge to the compromise decree must be brought before the same court that recorded the compromise, as per Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that a separate suit challenging the compromise decree is not maintainable under Rule 3A [Paras 1-56].

Reunion in Joint Family – Partition and Subsequent Conduct – The appellants contended that the joint family continued to function as such even after the partition deed dated 07.11.1960. The court considered the concept of reunion in Hindu law, stating that the intention of the parties and subsequent conduct are crucial in determining whether a joint family continues after partition. However, it was noted that the registered partition deed could not be ignored, and any claim of reunion must be strictly proved [Paras 73-80].

Residential Property – Tatabad House – The appellants claimed a share in the residential property at Tatabad, which was allegedly purchased from joint family funds but not included in the compromise decree. The court noted that this property was not part of the original suit and compromise, thus allowing the consideration of the appellants' claim for a share in this property [Paras 57-70].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – The appeals were partly allowed. The Supreme Court affirmed the bar on a separate suit challenging the compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC but allowed the consideration of the appellants' claim regarding the Tatabad house property. The matter was remanded for consideration of the appellants' share in the residential property [Paras 76-80].

Criminal Law – Traffic Accident – Conviction and Sentence – The appellant, a bus driver, was convicted under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC for causing an accident that resulted in injuries to the driver of another vehicle. The trial court sentenced him to six months of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 337 IPC. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence, substituting the imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000 each under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, and maintaining the fine under Section 337 IPC [Paras 1-12].

Mitigating Factors – Passage of Time – The Supreme Court took into account the passage of 26 years since the incident and the fact that the appellant was on bail throughout the period. Given these circumstances, the court deemed it appropriate to substitute the imprisonment with a fine, emphasizing the harshness of sending the appellant to jail after such a long time [Paras 10-11].

Precedents Cited – The court referred to similar cases where the imprisonment sentence was converted to a fine due to the significant passage of time and the appellant’s continued bail status, including A.P. Raju v. State of Orissa (1995 Supp. (2) SCC 385) and Prakash Chandra Agnihotri v. State of M.P. (1990 Supp. SCC 764) [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction affirmed, but sentence of six months imprisonment under Sections 279 and 338 IPC substituted by a fine of Rs. 1,000 each. The fine of Rs. 500 under Section 337 IPC is maintained. The total fine of Rs. 2,000 to be deposited within one month in the trial court. Failure to pay will result in default imprisonment. The judgments of the lower courts are modified accordingly [Paras 11-12].

Real Estate – Amrapali La Residentia Project – The Supreme Court addressed multiple applications related to the delays and financial mismanagement in the Amrapali La Residentia project. The Court found significant issues with the project management, leading to delays and financial discrepancies. The Court directed that the construction and development of the project would not be handed over to the NBCC as requested by the association and applicants. Instead, La Residentia Developers Private Limited was allowed to continue with the project, subject to stringent financial and administrative controls [Paras 1-56].

Project Management – Continuation under Existing Developer – The Court concluded that unlike other stalled projects of the Amrapali Group, the development of La Residentia had progressed significantly. Hence, it was more practical to allow the current developer to complete the project under court supervision. This decision was based on the comparative cost analysis which indicated that involving NBCC would result in a significant cost escalation [Paras 18-19].

Financial Controls – Court Receiver's Oversight – To ensure accountability, the Court mandated that all transactions related to the 632 flats (equivalent to 19.75% share) must be overseen by a Court Receiver. The Receiver was tasked with certifying the fairness of prices, managing the funds in a separate account, and ensuring that the costs of construction were duly reimbursed to the developers. Any surplus from the sale of these flats was to be credited to the general account for the benefit of the flat buyers of the Amrapali Group of Companies [Paras 20-24].

Decision – Applications Partly Allowed – The Supreme Court partly allowed the applications by rejecting the request to hand over the project to NBCC but ensuring that the financial interests of the flat buyers were protected through a court-supervised mechanism. The injunction on the sale of the 632 flats was modified to facilitate their sale under strict oversight [Paras 25-27].

Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Dignity – Article 21 – The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live with human dignity, which encompasses the right to food and basic necessities. The Court directed both Central and State governments to ensure food security for migrant workers and unorganized labourers, stressing the constitutional obligation to provide at least bare necessities to all citizens [Paras 1-56].

Migrant Workers – Registration and Welfare Schemes – The Court directed the Central Government to develop a portal for the registration of unorganized labourers and migrant workers in consultation with the National Informatics Centre (NIC). The process of registration under the National Database for Unorganized Workers (NDUW Project) was to commence by July 31, 2021, and be completed by December 31, 2021. The Court underscored the need for cooperation between States, Union Territories, and contractors to facilitate this process and ensure that welfare schemes reach the intended beneficiaries [Paras 57-70].

Food Distribution – The Court instructed the Department of Food and Public Distribution to allocate and distribute foodgrains as per the States' demand for disbursement to migrant workers. States were directed to implement schemes for the distribution of dry ration to migrant workers and to continue these schemes until the COVID-19 pandemic persists. The "One Nation One Ration Card" scheme was to be implemented by all States by July 31, 2021, to ensure portability of ration cards for migrant workers [Paras 71-80].

Statutory Obligations – The Court mandated the registration of all establishments and licensing of contractors under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, ensuring compliance with statutory duties. This includes the provision of necessary amenities and the maintenance of proper records of migrant workers by the contractors [Paras 81-100].

Community Kitchens – States and Union Territories were directed to run community kitchens at prominent places to provide meals to migrant labourers who lack the means to procure food, with such kitchens to operate at least until the pandemic continues [Paras 101-110].

Decision – Writ Petitions Disposed Of – The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petitions with directions to ensure the welfare and rights of migrant workers and unorganized labourers, emphasizing the constitutional mandate to provide basic necessities and the statutory duty to protect these workers [Paras 111-120].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Revival of Void Acts – The Supreme Court upheld the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation Amendment and Validation) Act 2019, stating that the legislature can revive an act declared void due to repugnancy by removing the basis of invalidity and making substantive changes, provided it does not overrule the court judgment directly [Paras 25-29].

Repugnancy – Article 254 of the Constitution – The Court emphasized that Article 254(2) allows a State law repugnant to a Central law to prevail in the State if it has received Presidential assent. The 2019 Act, having received such assent, complies with this provision and thus prevails over the 2013 Act in Tamil Nadu [Paras 34-39].

Separation of Powers – The Court reiterated that the legislature cannot overrule a judicial decision directly but can render it ineffective by curing the defects pointed out by the court through valid legislation. The 2019 Act was held to be a valid legislative measure that addresses the defects highlighted by the High Court [Paras 36-40].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation Amendment and Validation) Act 2019. The Act was found to be within the legislative competence of the State and in compliance with the constitutional provisions under Article 254(2) [Paras 45-49].

Arbitration – Applicability of Limitation Act – The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006. This is in line with Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which extends the Limitation Act to arbitrations as it applies to court proceedings [Paras 18-19].

Arbitration – Maintainability of Counterclaim – The Court also held that counterclaims are maintainable in arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006. The Act is a beneficial legislation intended to protect micro, small, and medium enterprises, and excluding counterclaims would undermine its purpose. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provisions, including those allowing counterclaims, are applicable to such proceedings [Paras 19-24].

Registration Requirement – The Court clarified that to seek benefits under the MSMED Act, the supplier must be registered as an enterprise under the Act at the time of entering the contract and supplying goods or services. Registration obtained after entering the contract does not apply retrospectively [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed and Partly Dismissed – The appeals were partly allowed, affirming the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the maintainability of counterclaims under the MSMED Act, 2006. However, the Court dismissed the appeals of appellants who were not registered under the MSMED Act at the time of entering the contract, thus not entitled to its benefits [Paras 28].

Penal Code – Section 364A – Essential Ingredients – The Supreme Court held that for a conviction under Section 364A IPC, the prosecution must prove: (i) kidnapping or abduction, (ii) a threat to cause death or hurt, or conduct giving rise to a reasonable apprehension that the person may be put to death or hurt, or causing hurt or death, (iii) to compel the government, any foreign state, or any person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom [Paras 1-12, 33].

Conviction – Section 364A Set Aside – The Court found that the evidence did not establish a threat to cause death or hurt, nor did it show conduct giving rise to reasonable apprehension of death or hurt. Consequently, the conviction under Section 364A IPC was set aside. However, the Court upheld the conviction for kidnapping under Section 363 IPC and sentenced the appellant to seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000 [Paras 35-44].

Legal Principles – Interpretation of Conjunctions – The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting conjunctions like "and" and "or" correctly in statutory provisions, highlighting that all conditions connected by "and" must be met for a conviction under Section 364A IPC [Paras 13-16].

Precedents Cited – The Court referred to several precedents, including:

Anil alias Raju Namdev Patil vs. Administration of Daman & Diu Daman and Another (2006) 13 SCC 36

Arvind Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra (2020) SCC Online SC 400

Malleshi vs. State of Karnataka (2004) 8 SCC 95

Netra Pal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2001 Cri LJ 1669 (Del)]

Suman Sood alias Kamaljeet Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan (2007) 5 SCC 634

Vikram Singh alias Vicky and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 502

Vishwanath Gupta Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 11 SCC 633 [Paras 22-32].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The appeal was partly allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 364A IPC but upheld the conviction under Section 363 IPC, sentencing the appellant to seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000 [Paras 44-45].

Service Law – Promotion – Reservation for PwD – The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether an employee appointed on compassionate grounds, who later became eligible for promotion under the PwD category, can avail reservation in promotion. The Court held that the source of recruitment should not affect the entitlement to reservation in promotion for PwD. The mandate of Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act requires reservation in promotions for identified posts, irrespective of the initial mode of appointment [Paras 1-31].

Legislative Intent – The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the 1995 Act is to ensure equal opportunities and career progression for PwD. Section 47 of the Act mandates non-discrimination in promotion and ensures that employees acquiring disabilities are not denied promotional opportunities [Paras 13-18].

Precedents – The Court referred to previous judgments, including Rajeev Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India (2016) and Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka (2020), which upheld the principle that reservation in promotion applies to PwD. The Court also noted that identification of posts under Section 32 should not be used to delay or deny reservations mandated under Section 33 [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision granting reservation in promotion to the respondent. The Court directed the State of Kerala to implement reservation in promotion for PwD in all identified posts within three months, ensuring compliance with the mandate of the 1995 Act [Paras 29-31].

Customs Law – Absolute Confiscation – Import of Goods in Violation of Notifications – The Supreme Court addressed the issue of absolute confiscation of goods imported in violation of government notifications and trade notices under the FTDR Act. The Court held that the goods imported beyond permissible quantities and without a license are 'prohibited goods' and liable to absolute confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The contention that the goods were of 'restricted' category was rejected [Paras 1-56].

Discretion in Confiscation – The Court criticized the Adjudicating Authority for failing to consider the option of absolute confiscation and proceeding as if it had to provide an option for payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation. The Court emphasized that the discretion under Section 125(1) must be exercised consciously and cautiously, and in this case, the goods were correctly deemed liable for absolute confiscation by the Appellate Authority [Paras 57-70].

Legality of High Court's Mandamus – The High Court had issued directions for the release of goods based on the Adjudicating Authority’s orders, which were under appeal. The Supreme Court found this to be improper as it preempted the statutory appellate process and undermined the authority of the customs officials [Paras 71-80].

Equitable Relief – Despite finding the imports to be illegal, the Supreme Court considered the hardship faced by the importers due to prolonged litigation and the perishable nature of the goods. The Court allowed for the possibility of re-export of the goods on payment of redemption fine and subject to fulfilling other statutory requirements [Paras 81-100].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order directing the release of the goods but permitted the importers to re-export the goods on payment of redemption fine and compliance with other statutory obligations. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration of the penalty and other conditions [Paras 101-110].