Municipal Law – Demolition of Building – Appeal against demolition order under Section 322 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 – Building demolished within three days of notice – High Court held demolition lacked statutory notice period – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s finding but modified compensation amount – Notice served on 6.1.1995; demolition on 9.1.1995 – Court emphasized statutory tenants' rights under the Rent Act cannot override public safety measures under the Municipal Corporations Act [Paras 1-10, 34-44]​​.

Double Protection under Rent Act and TP Act – Applicability – Statutory tenants under Rent Act cannot claim double protection under Transfer of Property Act – Tenants must seek remedies within the framework of the Rent Act, not under the general provisions of the TP Act – Court held statutory tenant’s rights arise solely under the Rent Act [Paras 24-32]​​.

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court order set aside – Both suits dismissed – Appellant ordered to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for demolition without adequate notice – Compensation payable to legal heirs of deceased plaintiff within two months [Paras 43-44]​​.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Appellant convicted under Section 306 IPC and Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act for allegedly causing his wife's suicide – Incident involved both the appellant and his wife consuming pesticide, with the appellant surviving – Supreme Court held mere harassment without any active role or positive action proximate to the time of occurrence insufficient for conviction under Section 306 IPC – Emphasized the requirement of instigation or facilitative action leading to the suicide – Conviction and sentence by lower courts set aside [Paras 1-10]​​.

Application of Section 113-A Evidence Act – Not applicable – Marriage duration of 25 years excluded presumption of abetment under Section 113-A [Para 8]​​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 306 IPC and Section 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act quashed – Appellant's bail bonds discharged [Para 11]​​.

Insolvency Law – Limitation for Appeals – Appellant sought to file an appeal beyond the 45-day period allowed under Section 61(2) of the IB Code – NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding it lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 15 days – Supreme Court upheld NCLAT's decision, emphasizing the strict statutory limits on condoning delay in insolvency proceedings [Paras 1-13]​​.

Article 142 of the Constitution – Application in Insolvency Cases – Appellant argued for delay condonation under Article 142 due to substantial public interest and fraud allegations – Supreme Court held Article 142 cannot be used to circumvent explicit statutory limitations – Highlighted the principle that law prevails over equitable considerations when statutory provisions are clear [Paras 5.1-5.4, 6.5, 7-11]​​ .

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed NCLAT's decision not to condone the delay – Reinforced the binding nature of statutory limitations in insolvency cases [Para 13]​​ .

Compassionate Appointment – Eligibility of Divorced Daughter – Appeal against High Court's decision directing consideration of respondent’s application for compassionate appointment – Respondent’s mother, a government employee, died while respondent was married – Respondent obtained divorce after mother’s death and applied for compassionate appointment – Supreme Court held that, under Rule 3 of the 1996 Rules, only an "unmarried daughter" or "widowed daughter" at the time of the deceased’s death is eligible – Divorce obtained after death does not change eligibility – High Court’s direction quashed [Paras 1-9]​​.

Interpretation of Rules – Norms for Compassionate Appointment – Court emphasized adherence to specific eligibility criteria laid down in Rules 2 and 3 of the 1996 Rules – "Divorced daughter" not included in the definition of dependent under these rules – Compassionate appointment norms prevailing at the time of the deceased’s death are applicable [Para 8.1]​​.

Marriage Status at Time of Death – Importance in Determining Dependency – Supreme Court noted respondent was married at the time of the deceased’s death, thus not qualifying as a dependent "unmarried daughter" or "widowed daughter" – Subsequent divorce did not retroactively change status [Para 8.3]​​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and order set aside – Writ Petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 9]​​.

Land Acquisition – Compensation Determination – Appeals against High Court’s judgment reducing compensation for acquired land from Rs. 112,000 per acre to Rs. 88,400 per acre – Notification under Section 4 issued on 06.06.1988 for acquiring land for a spinning mill – Reference Court considered sale deed dated 24.05.1979 and added 12% annual increase with a 25% cut, determining compensation at Rs. 112,000 per acre – High Court reduced cut to 15% and recalculated compensation – Supreme Court upheld High Court's determination, emphasizing the caution needed when relying on old sale deeds and justified applying a 10% annual increase due to regional instability and militancy [Paras 1-7]​​.

Cumulative vs. Flat Rate Increase – Court emphasized cumulative rate increase should generally be applied when determining compensation based on past transactions, but noted exceptions due to local circumstances such as prolonged regional instability affecting land prices [Para 6.3]​​.

Deduction for Development – Supreme Court upheld 15% deduction for development charges due to the agricultural nature of the land and its location, deeming it appropriate given the size and intended industrial use of the acquired land [Para 6.5]​​.

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment – Compensation determined at Rs. 88,400 per acre upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 7]​​.

Administrative Law – Jurisdiction – Appeal against High Court of Uttarakhand’s dismissal of writ petition challenging Labour Court's award – Respondent's termination deemed illegal by Labour Court with reinstatement and back wages ordered – Writ petition originally filed in High Court of Allahabad – Post-creation of State of Uttarakhand, jurisdiction transferred to Uttarakhand High Court – Allahabad High Court allowed withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to file fresh writ in Uttarakhand High Court – Uttarakhand High Court dismissed fresh writ on grounds of jurisdiction and laches – Supreme Court held Allahabad High Court's order permitting withdrawal and refiling in appropriate jurisdiction was valid – High Court of Uttarakhand directed to hear the case on merits [Paras 1-5]​​.

Jurisdiction and Transfer of Cases – Judicial Orders vs. Administrative Orders – Supreme Court noted judicial propriety demands respect for orders of Coordinate Benches – Observed that judicial orders permitting transfer or refiling of cases should be respected unless explicitly challenged and set aside – Emphasized administrative orders for transfer of cases under Section 35 are distinct from judicial orders addressing procedural aspects [Paras 3.1-3.3, 4]​​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of Uttarakhand High Court set aside – Writ petition restored for hearing on merits – Directed High Court of Uttarakhand to expedite hearing and disposal within six months [Paras 5]​​.

Family Law – Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty – Appeal against High Court’s order setting aside the decree of divorce and allowing the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights – Marriage remained unconsummated and parties lived separately since the wedding day – Wife repeatedly filed cases against the husband, including criminal complaints and RTI queries aimed at his professional downfall – Supreme Court held repeated legal actions amounted to mental cruelty – Marriage irretrievably broken down – Decree of divorce passed on grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage [Paras 1-20]​​.

Judicial Precedent and Article 142 – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage due to irretrievable breakdown – Recognized that while irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, the court has exercised such power in the past to do complete justice between the parties [Paras 5-11, 21]​​.

Decision – Appeals allowed – Decree of divorce granted – Marriage between the appellant and respondent dissolved – Supreme Court directed that each party bear their own costs [Paras 21-23]​​.

Criminal Law – Summoning of Additional Accused – Appeal against the order summoning the appellant under Section 319 CrPC – FIR lodged by the second respondent alleged that the deceased, her husband, was murdered by the appellant, his employer – Police investigation led to chargesheet against three persons – During trial, the second respondent testified implicating the appellant – Prosecution filed an application under Section 319 CrPC based on her deposition – Sessions Judge invoked Section 319 CrPC and summoned the appellant – High Court upheld the order – Supreme Court held that the power under Section 319 CrPC is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence is present – Directed Sessions Judge to reconsider the matter in light of the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) and Labhuji Amratji Thakor v. State of Gujarat (2019) [Paras 1-12]​​.

Discretionary and Extraordinary Power – Application of Section 319 CrPC – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for strong and cogent evidence before exercising the power under Section 319 CrPC – Power should not be used in a casual or cavalier manner – The evidence must be more than prima facie but short of that required for conviction [Paras 105-106 of Hardeep Singh case]​​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and order summoning the appellant set aside – Sessions Judge directed to reconsider the application under Section 319 CrPC in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court – Directed to call the case on September 30, 2021, and pass appropriate orders thereafter [Paras 9-12]​​.

Taxation Law – Refund of Unutilised Input Tax Credit – Challenge to Section 54(3) – Appellant contested the constitutional validity of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, which restricts refund to unutilised ITC on inputs in cases of inverted duty structure – Gujarat High Court held the exclusion of input services from refund as ultra vires – Madras High Court upheld the exclusion as valid – Supreme Court held that refund is a statutory right and restricted to the specific conditions laid down in the statute – Held that Parliament has the legislative competence to confine refund only to ITC accumulated on inputs, excluding input services – Upheld the validity of Section 54(3) [Paras 1-10, 93-101]​​.

Legislative Discretion – Policy and Classification – Court emphasized that the classification under Section 54(3) is valid and within legislative competence – Judicial intervention not warranted in policy decisions involving economic and fiscal measures unless classification is palpably arbitrary – Highlighted legislative discretion in framing tax policies and provisions for refunds [Paras 11-25, 94-108]​​.

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, affirming that refunds for inverted duty structure are limited to unutilised ITC on inputs, excluding input services – Clarified that any alteration to this structure would require legislative amendment rather than judicial interpretation [Paras 102-108]​​.