Contract – Public Works Contract – Delayed Payment – Interest – Contractor completed work and received principal amount belatedly – Suit filed seeking interest for delayed payment – Preliminary agreement contained Clause (5) expressly barring claim for interest or damages for belated settlement of bills – Held: Parties bound by contractual terms – Clause prohibiting claim for interest on delayed payment is valid and enforceable – Contractor not entitled to interest [Paras 3-7].

Interest Act, 1978 – Section 3(1) and 3(3) – Applicability – High Court relied on Section 3(1) to award interest but failed to consider exception under Section 3(3) – Where parties have agreed otherwise by contract, statutory grant of interest does not override express contractual bar – Interest Act operates in absence of agreement or where agreement is contrary to law – Not applicable where parties consciously waived interest [Paras 6-9].

Section 34 CPC – Scope – Section 34 concerns rate of interest pendente lite and post-decree – Does not override express contractual prohibition or Section 3(3) of Interest Act – Cannot be invoked to nullify agreed contractual stipulation barring interest [Para 10].

Government Contract – Article 12 – Kerala Water Authority is ‘State’ – Clause introduced in context of public project where commencement preceded fund availability – Contractor aware of possible delay and consciously accepted risk – No element of coercion or unconscionability established [Paras 4, 8].

Appellate Interference – High Court reduced interest from 14% to 9% but overlooked binding contractual bar – Impugned judgment set aside – Appeal by Kerala Water Authority allowed – Contractor’s appeal dismissed [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 17823/2023 (Kerala Water Authority) allowed – Impugned judgment dated 23.02.2023 set aside – Contractor not entitled to interest on delayed payment in view of Clause (5) of preliminary agreement. Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 24631/2023 (Contractor) dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.

Anticipatory Bail – Time Limitation – Restricting Protection Till Filing of Charge-Sheet – High Court granted anticipatory bail but limited it till filing of police report – Fresh application rejected after charge-sheet – Held: Once discretion exercised in favour of accused, there was no justification to restrict relief till filing of charge-sheet – Filing of charge-sheet or taking cognizance does not automatically terminate anticipatory bail – Impugned order set aside [Paras 11–15, 27–29].

Section 438 CrPC – Scope – No Bar After Filing of Charge-Sheet – Relying on Bharat Chaudhary and Ravindra Saxena – Held: No restriction under Section 438 CrPC to grant anticipatory bail even after filing of charge-sheet or taking cognizance – Protection can continue till end of trial unless special reasons recorded [Paras 16–19, 25].

Constitution Bench – Sushila Aggarwal – Duration of Anticipatory Bail – Protection ordinarily not to be limited by arbitrary timelines – Mere filing of charge-sheet cannot compel accused to surrender and seek regular bail – Risk to be managed through conditions, not expiry clauses – Limiting tenure without special reasons unsustainable [Paras 19–20, 25–26].

Personal Liberty – Arrest Not Mandatory – Section 170 CrPC – Custody Does Not Mean Compulsory Arrest – Filing of charge-sheet does not obligate police to arrest if accused cooperated – Arrest must be justified, not routine – Endorsing Siddharth v. State of U.P. [Paras 21–23].

Interim Protection – Mechanical Rejection After Charge-Sheet – High Court erred in directing surrender despite cooperation during investigation – Once investigation completed and no custodial necessity shown, rejection of anticipatory bail unsustainable [Para 24].

Addition of Graver Offences – Effect on Bail – If new cognizable and non-bailable offences of serious nature added after grant of bail, court must reconsider entitlement – Investigating agency may seek cancellation under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC – Arrest on addition of offence requires judicial order – Liberty not automatically extinguished but subject to fresh judicial scrutiny [Paras 30–34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Appellant directed to be released on anticipatory bail in event of arrest subject to conditions imposed by Investigating Officer – Appellant to furnish fresh bail bonds before Trial Court – Directions issued to circulate order to High Court of Allahabad [Paras 27–37].

Interlocutory Application – Appointment of Technical Consultant – Supreme Court appoints former Chief Statistician of India as Technical Consultant to National Task Force – Ministry of Education directed to issue appointment order and provide administrative support and remuneration.

Interlocutory Application – Appointment of Expert – National Task Force – Application filed seeking appointment of Dr. T.C.A. Anant, former Chief Statistician of India, as Technical Consultant for comprehensive and scientific analysis of survey data – Prayer also made for administrative support and remuneration through Ministry of Education – Court heard Amicus Curiae and Additional Solicitor General [Paras 1–2].

Expert Assistance – Role of Technical Consultant – Supreme Court held that expertise of former Chief Statistician of India necessary for scientific analysis of survey data by National Task Force – Dr. T.C.A. Anant appointed as Technical Consultant for said purpose [Para 3(i)].

Directions to Union Government – Ministry of Education – Ministry of Education directed to issue formal order of appointment of Dr. T.C.A. Anant at the earliest – Further directed to extend all necessary administrative support including infrastructure and data access – Appropriate remuneration/honorarium to be paid in accordance with prevalent norms [Paras 3(ii)–(iii)].

Disposal of Application – Interlocutory Application disposed of in terms of directions issued by the Court [Para 4].

Decision: Interlocutory Application allowed and disposed of – Dr. T.C.A. Anant appointed as Technical Consultant to National Task Force – Ministry of Education directed to issue appointment order and extend full administrative support and remuneration.

Land Reforms – Vesting under WBEA Act – Revenue Officer has no statutory power to review concluded vesting order – Executive directions cannot confer review jurisdiction – Review order passed after four decades held void – Company failed to prove exclusive engagement in farming under Section 6(1)(j) – High Court judgment set aside.

West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 – Vesting of Land – Finality of Determination – Vesting order dated 07.10.1971 passed after full adjudication denying benefit under Section 6(1)(j) attained finality after dismissal of writ petition in 1975, rejection of restoration in 1987 and dismissal of appeal in 2002 – Respondent-company stood divested of land and ceased to have any right, title or interest therein [Paras 9–13].

Power of Review – Quasi-Judicial Authorities – No Inherent Power – Power of review is not inherent and must be expressly conferred by statute – Revenue Officer under WBEA Act is a quasi-judicial authority and cannot exercise review in absence of specific statutory provision – Sections 53, 57, and 57A do not confer substantive power of review [Paras 31–35].

Section 57A – Investment of Civil Court Powers – Limited Scope – Conferment of “all powers of a Civil Court” under Section 57A does not include power of substantive review – Review being a core judicial function requires explicit legislative mandate – Omnibus conferment cannot be read to include review [Paras 34–35, 49].

Section 57B – Statutory Bar on Reopening Concluded Matters – Proviso to Section 57B(3) expressly prohibits Revenue Officer from reopening matters already enquired into or decided – 1971 vesting order fell squarely within statutory bar – Review proceedings directly contravened legislative command [Paras 50–52].

Separation of Powers – Independence of Judiciary – Executive Overreach – Review of concluded quasi-judicial orders by executive authorities violates doctrine of separation of powers forming part of basic structure – Executive authorities cannot sit in judgment over their own decisions – Allowing such review would erode finality and rule of law [Paras 37–39, 56–57].

Government Order – No Jurisdictional Cure – Government Order dated 26.02.2008 directing review could not confer jurisdiction where none existed – Executive instructions cannot override statutory limits – Ministerial approval does not substitute legislative conferment of power [Paras 18, 49, 91].

Scope of Review – Review Not an Appeal in Disguise – Review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record or analogous sufficient reasons – Reappreciation of evidence or policy considerations impermissible – Review order of 2008 failed all statutory tests under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC [Paras 59–63, 74–83].

Section 6(1)(j) – Retention of Land by Company – Exclusive Engagement in Farming – Company must prove exclusive engagement in agricultural farming as on 01.01.1952 – Mere ownership of agricultural land, payment of agricultural tax or inclusion of agriculture in MOA insufficient – Respondent failed to discharge burden despite repeated opportunities – 1971 vesting order legally sound [Paras 64–71, 73].

Belated Documents – No Ground for Review – Documents relied upon in 2008 review either existed earlier or were generated decades later – Failure to produce documents during original proceedings defeats claim of “discovery” – Review cannot be used to cure negligence [Paras 75–76, 71].

Delay – Review After Four Decades – Impermissible – Review initiated after nearly forty years without legally sustainable explanation – Non-distribution of land, continued possession or non-payment of compensation do not invalidate vesting – Economic expediency or employment potential irrelevant for review [Paras 83].

Doctrine of Estoppel – No Estoppel Against Statute – Promissory estoppel cannot validate an action taken without jurisdiction – Withdrawal of cases or alleged settlement cannot legitimise void review order [Paras 87].

Nullity – Order Without Jurisdiction – Order passed without jurisdiction is void ab initio – Can be challenged at any stage even without specific prayer – Tribunal competent to quash review order [Paras 88–89].

Tribunal and High Court – Error Corrected – Tribunal rightly quashed review order for lack of jurisdiction – High Court erred in restoring review by conflating executive direction with statutory power – High Court judgment unsustainable [Paras 92–93].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Calcutta High Court dated 17.05.2012 set aside – Order of Tribunal dated 31.03.2010 restored – Review order dated 07.05.2008 quashed – Vesting order dated 07.10.1971 to continue to operate in accordance with law.

Civil Suit – Perpetual Injunction – Essential Requirement of Possession – Suit filed for injunction restraining interference with possession and alternatively for recovery of possession – Held: Actual possession on the date of filing of suit is an indispensable requirement for grant of perpetual injunction – Concurrent findings that plaintiff was not in possession on the date of suit – Relief of injunction rightly refused [Paras 11–12].

Pleading and Proof – Recovery of Possession – Absence of Material Particulars – For a decree of possession, plaintiff must plead and prove entitlement, manner of entitlement, date and mode of dispossession, and illegality of defendant’s possession – Plaint completely silent on date and manner of dispossession – Held: In absence of foundational pleadings and evidence, alternative relief of recovery of possession not maintainable [Paras 11–12].

Hindu Law – Maintenance – Widow’s Right – Property Granted in Lieu of Maintenance – Absolute Ownership – Suit land found to have been given to widow by father-in-law in lieu of maintenance after death of her husband – Right to maintenance is a pre-existing right under Shastric Hindu Law – By operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, limited interest ripened into absolute ownership – High Court justified in so holding [Para 7.1].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1) – Scope – Provision of wide amplitude covering every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu, whether before or after commencement of the Act – Property possessed in lieu of maintenance squarely covered – Female Hindu becomes full owner [Para 7.1].

Pleadings – Introduction of New Case – Will Set Up in Replication – Plaintiff’s claim of succession based on alleged Will of grandfather not pleaded in original plaint – Introduced for the first time in replication – Held: Such plea cannot be entertained [Para 7.1].

First Appellate Court – Approach – Burden of Proof – First Appellate Court erroneously shifted burden on defendant and drew adverse inferences ignoring nature of suit and deficiencies in plaintiff’s pleadings – High Court rightly corrected the error [Para 13].

Precedent – Pleadings in Possession Suits – Supreme Court reiterated principles laid down in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira on necessity of detailed and specific pleadings to claim possession or right to continue in possession [Para 11].

Decision: Civil Appeal dismissed – Judgment of the High Court upheld – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence – Photocopy of Power of Attorney – Admissibility – Defendant relied on a notarised photocopy of Power of Attorney (Exh. B-2) to justify execution of registered sale deeds – Original Power of Attorney not produced – No foundational facts laid for loss or non-production of original – Mandatory requirements under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act not complied with – Held: Photocopy is no evidence in law and cannot be relied upon to prove authority to alienate immovable property [Paras 19–23].

Power of Attorney – Scope of Authority – Alleged Power to Sell – Fabrication and Interpolation – Plaintiff admitted execution of limited Power of Attorney but denied granting power to sell – Comparison of draft PoA and disputed PoA revealed interpolation of clauses relating to sale – Discrepancy in spacing and lack of cohesion in added words indicative of fabrication – Held: Defendant failed to prove that Plaintiff authorised sale of suit property [Paras 6, 8.2, 14–15].

Registration Act – Section 33 – Authentication of Power of Attorney – Sale deeds executed on strength of unregistered and unproven Power of Attorney – Presumption under Section 85 of Evidence Act unavailable in absence of proof of primary or valid secondary evidence – Held: Section 33 of Registration Act and Section 85 of Evidence Act do not apply unless document is duly proved [Paras 22–23].

Civil Procedure Code – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope and Limits – High Court reversed First Appellate Court and restored Trial Court decree – Challenge that High Court re-appreciated evidence without framing substantial question of law – Held: Where findings of First Appellate Court are based on inadmissible evidence and misreading of documents, High Court is justified in interference – Correction of perversity and reliance on “no evidence” falls within jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC [Paras 16–17, 23].

Appellate Findings – Reliance on Inadmissible Evidence – Consequences – First Appellate Court relied upon unproven photocopy of Power of Attorney and undertook comparison of disputed signatures without expert assistance – Such approach contrary to settled principles – Held: Findings based on inadmissible evidence are perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 18.1, 23].

Sale Deeds – Authority of Agent – Burden of Proof – Burden lay on defendant–agent to prove existence and extent of authority to convey title – Failure to establish valid Power of Attorney rendered sale deeds void and non-binding on principal – Held: No title passed to vendees under impugned sale deeds [Paras 14, 19, 23].

Decision: Civil Appeal dismissed – Judgment of High Court upheld – Sale deeds executed on basis of unproven Power of Attorney declared void – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Motor Accident Compensation – Just Compensation – Proof of Income – Mandatory future prospects for fixed salary employee below 40 years – “Loss of love and affection” not a separate head – Such loss subsumed within consortium – Compensation enhanced.

Motor Vehicles Act – Just Compensation – Governing Principles – Compensation under Sections 166 and 168 is not a bonanza but a fair and reasonable estimate to alleviate financial and emotional hardship of dependants – Determination involves estimation guided by settled legal principles and binding precedents – Award must balance fairness, consistency and equity [Paras 12–14].

Assessment of Income – Documentary Proof – Error by High Court – Salary certificate issued by employer (Ex. P-14) and corroborated by employer’s affidavit clearly established monthly income of deceased at Rs. 10,000/- – Insurer failed to impeach evidence – Courts cannot resort to conjecture when cogent evidence is available – Income fixed at Rs. 10,000/- per month [Paras 16].

Future Prospects – Fixed Salary Employee – Mandatory Addition – Deceased aged 37 years and employed on fixed monthly salary – As per Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, addition of 40% towards future prospects is compulsory – High Court’s failure to grant future prospects held to be manifest error of law – Binding nature of Article 141 reiterated [Paras 17–19].

Computation of Loss of Dependency – Monthly income Rs. 10,000/- – Addition of 40% towards future prospects – Deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses – Multiplier of 15 applicable – Total loss of dependency computed at Rs. 18,90,000/- [Paras 20].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Love and Affection – Not Maintainable as Separate Head – Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi overruled Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh – Compensation confined to loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses – Award of separate compensation for “loss of love and affection” impermissible [Paras 22–24, 29].

Consortium – Expanded Meaning – Spousal, Parental and Filial Consortium – Consortium is a compendious term encompassing spousal, parental and filial consortium – Emotional deprivation of love, care, affection and companionship subsumed within consortium – Principle clarified in Magma General Insurance and harmonised in Satinder Kaur [Paras 26–28].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedents – Constitution Bench decisions bind courts of lesser strength – Tribunals and High Courts must adhere to structured formula and recognised heads to maintain uniformity and certainty in awards [Paras 23, 28].

Final Award – Re-determination by Supreme Court – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,80,000/- – Interest awarded @ 9% p.a. from date of filing of claim petition till realization considering prolonged litigation of 15 years – Insurer directed to pay balance within twelve weeks [Paras 30–32].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court modified – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,80,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. – Insurer directed to deposit balance amount within stipulated period.

Constitutional Law – Advisory Committee – Transgender Rights – Modification of Earlier Order – Appointment of Members – Miscellaneous Application filed by Amicus Curiae seeking inclusion of a Senior Associate of the Centre for Law and Policy Research as a member of the Advisory Committee constituted by Supreme Court order dated 17.10.2025 – Court noted that the earlier nominated member had ceased to be associated with the Centre – However, in view of her extensive work in the field of transgender rights, Court clarified that she would continue as a member of the Advisory Committee – In addition, Court appointed another Senior Associate of the Centre to ensure effective representation and functioning of the Committee – Held: Continuity of expertise and institutional representation justified appointment of additional member – Application disposed of with directions [Paras 1–5].

Judicial Directions – Continuity in Institutional Committees – Role of Amicus Curiae – Prayer made by learned Amicus Curiae for modification of composition of Advisory Committee – Supreme Court recognised importance of sustained scholarly and advocacy contribution in sensitive constitutional matters relating to transgender rights – Court exercised inherent powers to balance individual expertise with institutional representation – Directions issued in furtherance of effective implementation of earlier judgment [Paras 1, 3–4].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application allowed – Clarification issued regarding continuation of existing member – Additional member appointed to Advisory Committee – Application disposed of.

Consumer Protection – Agricultural Seeds – Alleged Deficiency in Service – Farmers purchased groundnut seeds (TAG 37A) from appellant – Complaint of sub-standard seeds and crop failure – Investigation/Inspection Report dated 09.10.2013 revealed 8–10% mixed species and semi-development of pods – 50% pods fully developed and remaining semi-developed – Excess rainfall also noted as contributing factor – Held: No complete deficiency in service attributable solely to appellants – Findings of District Forum and NCDRC on total deficiency unsustainable – Liability modified [Paras 9–12, 15, 17; see Inspection Report extracted at pp. 4–9 ].

Evidence – Expert Committee Report – Committee comprising agricultural scientists and officials conducted physical inspection – Found normal germination, satisfactory arboreal growth, but semi-developed pods and possibility of 40–50% shortfall in yield partly due to excess rains – Conclusion of defective seeds not absolute – Natural factors contributed to loss – Courts below erred in fastening full liability ignoring contributory factors [Paras 9–12, 15; Inspection findings at pp. 7–9 ].

Compensation – Apportionment – District Forum awarded compensation per bigha; State Commission set aside; NCDRC restored District Forum’s order – Supreme Court held that interest of justice requires equitable distribution – Directed release of 50% of compensation (with accrued interest) to farmers and refund of remaining 50% to appellants – Findings on complete deficiency set aside – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 16–17 ].

Vis Major – Excess Rainfall – Report recorded frequent rains affecting yield (20–25% shortfall generally; 40–50% in TAG37A) – Loss not entirely attributable to seed quality – Natural causes relevant in determining extent of liability [Paras 12, 15 ].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – Findings of deficiency in service set aside – 50% of deposited compensation (with accrued interest) directed to be released to respondent-farmers – Remaining 50% to be refunded to appellants – Parties to bear their own costs – Pending applications disposed of.