Service Law – Retirement Age – Applicability of State Notification – Appellant denied benefit of enhanced retirement age from 60 to 65 years under West Bengal Government’s Notification dated 24.02.2021 on ground that 10-year teaching experience was not in a State-aided institution within West Bengal – University and State contended that ‘any State-aided University or College’ in Notification must be interpreted per amended definitions under West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 – Supreme Court held such interpretation arbitrary and discriminatory – Held: No justification to restrict past teaching experience to within West Bengal when candidate had served 14 years post-selection based on Assam experience – Artificial classification violative of Article 14 [Paras 2-3, 5-6, 8, 14, 19-21, 24]

Statutory Interpretation – Contextual Meaning – Word ‘any’ in Notification – Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held ‘any’ must be confined to universities under West Bengal Act per statutory definitions – Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing contextual interpretation – Held: Notification intended only to distinguish State-aided from private institutions, not to exclude teaching experience outside the State – Use of ‘any’ inclusive in nature – Context, object, and purpose must guide interpretation of subordinate legislation [Paras 16-18, 26-27]

Equality and Non-discrimination – Parochial Executive Action – Exclusion of candidates with teaching experience outside West Bengal held discriminatory and contrary to constitutional principles – Court emphasized that fraternity and unity are undermined by such parochial policies – Cited precedents on artificial classifications lacking rational nexus [Paras 3.1, 19-24]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment dated 13.12.2023 set aside – Notification dated 28.06.2023 rejecting retirement age extension quashed – Appellant entitled to benefit of 24.02.2021 Notification – Costs of Rs. 50,000 awarded [Paras 28-29]

Arbitration Law  – Statutory Forum vs Contractual Clause – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Statutory Tribunal Upheld – The appellant, a private tollway company, initiated arbitration under Clause 44.3.1 of a Concession Agreement invoking the 1996 Act and ICADR Rules, after withdrawing a reference before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal without liberty – The High Court quashed the arbitral proceedings, holding the dispute fell exclusively within the statutory regime of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Supreme Court upheld this view, holding that the contract was a ‘works contract’, the claims were ascertained, and the 1983 Act provided an overriding statutory mechanism barring recourse to arbitration under the 1996 Act – The Court allowed the appellant to seek revival of the earlier withdrawn petition before the Tribunal [Paras 1–3, 11–18].

Maintainability of Writ – Challenge by State Entity Against Private Party – Writ Held Maintainable – The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of the writ petition filed by MPRDC under Article 226 challenging arbitration proceedings initiated by a private company – Held: Since the dispute involved the public function of road development and the legality of invoking arbitration despite a statutory dispute resolution mechanism, the writ involved a public law element and was maintainable [Paras 8-8.4].

Works Contract – Applicability of Statutory Arbitration Tribunal – Arbitration Clause in Concession Agreement Held Inoperative – The appellant sought arbitration under the 1996 Act as per Clause 44.3.1 of the Concession Agreement – Held: The Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of works contracts involving the State – Private arbitration proceedings are non est in law [Paras 9–11.10].

Quantified Claims – Tribunal Jurisdiction Valid – Claims Held Ascertained – The appellant argued its claims were not “ascertained” and hence outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Held: The claims totaling Rs. 280.1566 crores were clearly quantified and therefore fall within the ambit of “dispute” under Section 2(1)(d) of the 1983 Act, even post-amendment [Paras 11.2–11.3].

Doctrine of Election – Parallel Proceedings Not Permissible – Appellant Estopped – The appellant initially approached the statutory Tribunal, later withdrew without liberty, and initiated private arbitration – Held: This conduct violates the doctrine of election and amounts to forum shopping; Clause 44.3.1 cannot override the 1983 Act [Paras 12–13.1].

Limitation and Estoppel – Withdrawal Without Liberty Bars Re-agitation – The appellant withdrew its petition without permission under Rule 53(2), attracting the bar under Rule 53(3)(b) – Held: The appellant is precluded from raising the same claims before any forum including ICADR – However, Court permitted recall of the withdrawal order for justice [Paras 17–17.1].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Arbitration Under 1996 Act Quashed – Madhya Pradesh Tribunal Retains Exclusive Jurisdiction – The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order quashing arbitration initiated under the 1996 Act – Directed the appellant to apply for revival of Reference Petition No. 61 of 2018 before the Tribunal, to be considered and decided within four months [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Appeal Against Acquittal – Sections 302 & 449 IPC – Dying Declaration Found Unreliable – The State challenged the High Court’s reversal of the trial court’s conviction for murder and house trespass – The trial court had disbelieved the prosecution’s key eyewitness and convicted on the basis of dying declaration – High Court found serious doubts about the victim’s ability to give a coherent statement due to 100% burns, absence of measurable pulse or blood pressure, and feeble, unclear speech – Presence of relatives influencing the statement, discrepancies in timing, and suppression of earlier report further weakened prosecution – Held: Supreme Court upheld acquittal as findings were not perverse, contradictions were material, and alternative views were possible; no ground to interfere in acquittal [Paras 9-22].

Motor Accident Claim – Contributory Negligence – Rule 231 of the Road Regulation Rules, 1989 – Liability Reapportioned – The appellant, an engineering student, suffered amputation of his leg following a motor accident caused by sudden braking of a car, followed by a bus running him over – The Tribunal fixed 20% negligence on the appellant and 80% on the bus driver – The High Court revised it to 30% each on the appellant and bus driver, and 40% on the car driver – The Supreme Court re-evaluated and held the appellant 20% negligent, car driver 50%, and bus driver 30% negligent – Reasoning included failure to maintain distance by appellant and absence of precautionary measures by car driver [Paras 5-6].

Quantum of Compensation – Notional Income Assessment – Engineering Student – Future Prospects Considered – Relying on prior precedents including Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh – Supreme Court increased appellant’s notional income to Rs. 20,000/- per month with 40% future prospects and applied multiplier of 18 – Total loss of income calculated as Rs. 60,48,000/- [Paras 7-9].

Attendant Charges – Disability and Future Needs – Tribunal Award Upheld – High Court’s reduction from Rs. 18 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs was reversed – Supreme Court held that lifelong assistance was justified due to 100% functional disability from leg amputation – Rs. 18 lakhs restored [Para 10].

Loss of Marital Prospects – Inadequacy of Compensation – Increased – Tribunal’s and High Court’s award of Rs. 2.5 lakhs enhanced to Rs. 5 lakhs, considering severity and long-term impact of disability on personal life of the appellant [Para 11].

Decision – Compensation Recalculated – Held: Total compensation awarded at Rs. 1,14,24,066/- minus 20% contributory negligence, amounting to Rs. 91,39,253/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim – Liability apportioned between insurance companies of car and bus according to respective drivers’ fault – Amount payable within four weeks [Para 12].

Cricket Ban - Section 15(4)(s) of the Bye-laws of the Kerala Cricket Association - Cricket Administration – Ombudsman Proceedings – Non-Impleadment of District Associations – Proceedings Revived – The appellant, a former Ranji player, filed an application before the Ombudsman seeking implementation of model bye-laws across district units – The application was dismissed for failure to implead District Cricket Associations (DCAs) despite prior orders – The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman proceedings were non-transparent, and the obligation to implead DCAs was not apparent due to contradictory prior directions – Held: Ombudsman’s order and High Court judgments set aside – Original application to be reheard [Paras 4–13].

Natural Justice – Virtual Hearing Irregularities – Denial of Records – Ombudsman’s Role – Appellant submitted that hearing links were unstable and he was denied access to records – Ombudsman rejected request citing persona designata status – Supreme Court found denial unjustified and procedural fairness lacking – Reiterated need for transparency and access to relevant orders [Paras 8–11].

Administrative Blacklisting – Life Ban by Association – Without Fair Hearing – KCA imposed a life ban following the High Court’s dismissal of the writ appeal – Supreme Court quashed the blacklisting order, terming it excessive and unmerited, especially in light of procedural lapses before the Ombudsman – Directed reinstatement of appellant’s rights as member of Thiruvananthapuram District Cricket Association [Paras 7, 13].

Final Relief – Ombudsman’s Order and High Court Judgments Set Aside – Application Restored – The impugned orders dated 3rd October 2020 (Ombudsman), 27th January 2021 and 21st June 2021 (High Court) were quashed – Original Application No. 10 of 2019 revived with direction to Ombudsman to decide it afresh within three months after hearing all concerned parties [Para 13].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Section 7 IBC Application – Limitation – Rejection of Section 7 application by NCLT and NCLAT on ground of limitation challenged before Supreme Court – Appellant contended that Balance Sheet of FY 2019-20 signed on 12.08.2020 constituted valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act – Supreme Court held that the Balance Sheet, viewed in context of previous financial statements and cash flow details, constituted a valid acknowledgment of debt – Limitation extended till 11.08.2023 and further excluded from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 under Para 5(I) of Supreme Court’s order dated 10.01.2022 – Hence, Section 7 application filed on 15.01.2024 held to be within limitation [Paras 1, 4-6, 11-12, 21, 38-41, 44-46]

Acknowledgment of Debt – Balance Sheet Entry – Respondent contended that absence of appellant’s name in Balance Sheet meant no valid acknowledgment – Supreme Court rejected this, holding that the general tenor, consistency of figures across years, and appended cash flow statement established subsisting liability and jural relationship – Emphasized liberal construction and surrounding circumstances as per Khan Bahadur Shapoor and Bishal Jaiswal rulings – Reiterated that explicit naming of creditor not mandatory under statutory formats [Paras 23-29, 32-33, 35-36, 38-41]

Limitation Extension – Covid-19 Orders – Applicability of Para 5(I) vs. 5(III) of Supreme Court’s 10.01.2022 order – Held: Since acknowledgment under Section 18 occurred on 12.08.2020 (within limitation), Para 5(I) applied – Entire period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded – Fresh limitation period available till 28.02.2025 – Section 7 application filed on 15.01.2024 well within time – Para 5(III) inapplicable as limitation had not expired during the excluded period [Paras 44-46]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of NCLAT (25.03.2025) and NCLT (16.05.2024) set aside – Matter remitted to adjudicating authority for consideration on merits – Section 7 IBC application to be treated as filed within limitation – No order as to costs [Para 47]

Land Acquisition – Non-consideration of Highest Sale Exemplar – Compensation Enhanced - The appellants, farmers whose land was acquired in the 1990s for industrial development, challenged the High Court’s refusal to enhance compensation – The Supreme Court found that both the Reference Court and High Court erroneously overlooked the highest exemplar sale deed dated 31/03/1990 showing Rs. 72,900/- per Acre – Held: The highest bona fide sale must be considered when determining compensation, and averaging cannot be used when sale prices show wide variation [Paras 21-22, 27-29, 48-49].

Market Value – Bona Fide Transactions – Section 51A of LA Act – Certified Sale Deeds Acceptable - Court reaffirmed that under Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, certified copies of sale deeds are admissible and carry presumptive value – The Respondents failed to produce rebuttal evidence – Thus, the highest exemplar sale deed must be accepted as reliable and bona fide [Paras 20, 43-44].

Deduction for Large Area – Reasonable 20% Deduction Allowed – Compensation Adjusted - While accepting the highest sale exemplar, the Court allowed a 20% deduction as the exemplar pertained to small urban plots, whereas acquired land was larger in area – Compensation revised from Rs. 32,000/- to Rs. 58,320/- per Acre accordingly [Paras 50-51].

Method of Valuation – Averaging Not Permissible Where Price Range is Wide – Principle Reiterated - Where prices vary significantly across sale exemplars, averaging is legally impermissible – Only where variation is marginal, can averaging be used – The Court emphasized that deviation from this rule without reason is legally unsustainable [Paras 31-33, 45-48].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Judgment dated 21/04/2022 of the High Court and the Reference Court’s award dated 07/06/2007 set aside – Compensation enhanced from Rs. 32,000/- to Rs. 58,320/- per Acre – Appellants entitled to all statutory benefits including solatium and interest under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Para 51].

Quashing of FIR – Abuse of Process – Prior Administrative Enquiry – Proceedings Quashed - The appellants, including two national-level badminton players and their parents and coach, sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated on allegations of birth certificate falsification for sports selection – FIR was based on a private complaint relying on a 1996 GPF nomination form – Supreme Court held that the allegations lacked material evidence and the birth records were previously verified and accepted by competent authorities like SAI and CVC – The Court found the proceedings to be malicious and based on personal vendetta [Paras 2-4, 17-20].

Criminal Intent – Lack of Prima Facie Evidence – No Dishonest Inducement – FIR Quashed - The Court held that essential ingredients of Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC were not satisfied – No proof of forgery, fabrication, or wrongful gain was presented – The alleged document (GPF form) was unauthenticated and irrelevant to the players themselves – There was no demonstration of wrongful loss or criminal intent by any appellant [Paras 18, 22].

Role of Sports and Vigilance Authorities – CVC and SAI Findings – Cannot Be Ignored - The matter had been closed after detailed scrutiny by SAI, CVC, and BAI – Medical assessments confirmed biological age – Reopening of the closed case without new evidence undermines credibility of statutory oversight – The complaint was found to be speculative and intended to malign [Paras 9-10, 21].

Delay and Personal Grudge – Malafide Intent – Vindictive Complaint - The Court noted the complainant acted after personal disappointment regarding his daughter’s admission to the badminton academy – Complaint filed years after closure by statutory bodies – Complaint was viewed as a tool for harassment rather than pursuit of justice [Paras 19, 23].

Quashing Power – Exceptional Case Warranting Interference – Criminal Proceedings Quashed - Reiterating principles from Bhajan Lal and Pepsi Foods cases, the Court quashed the FIR and proceedings under inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice – Held: Continuation of proceedings would amount to harassment and abuse of judicial process [Paras 20, 23-24].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – FIR No. 194/2022 dated 01.12.2022 registered at High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru, and all consequential proceedings including P.C.R. No. 14448/2022 quashed – High Court’s judgment dated 19.02.2025 in W.P. Nos. 26156/2022, 25699/2022, and 26136/2022 set aside – No order as to costs [Para 24].

Employment Law - Employees’ Compensation – Section 3 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 51E, 51C, 2(8), 46, and 53 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act - Commute-Related Death – Deemed Employment Injury – Deceased watchman met with a fatal accident while riding to work at 3 a.m. – High Court held that the accident did not occur during employment – Supreme Court reversed, applying the doctrine of notional extension and holding that the accident had sufficient nexus with employment – Held: Compensation under EC Act justified [Paras 1–3, 56–57].

Interpretation – Section 51E of ESI Act – Deemed Injury While Commuting – Retrospective and Clarificatory – Supreme Court held that Section 51E introduced in 2010 is declaratory, removes prior ambiguities, and applies retrospectively – Its interpretation also applicable to similar phraseology under EC Act – Commuting accidents deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment where nexus is established [Paras 15–31].

Statutory Interpretation – Statutes in Pari Materia – Harmonized Construction – EC Act and ESI Act are both social welfare legislations aiming at employee protection – Supreme Court harmonized interpretation of “arising out of and in the course of employment” across both statutes – Applied beneficial and liberal interpretation to extend coverage [Paras 32–55].

Notional Extension – Judicial Recognition – Doctrinal Basis – Citing precedents, Court reaffirmed notional extension of employment to areas and times adjacent to workplace and duty schedule – Clarified that travel for work at odd hours as in case of night shift duties can fall within course of employment [Paras 30–33, 36].

Final Relief – Compensation Reinstated – Judgment of High Court set aside – Commissioner’s order awarding Rs. 3,26,140/- with interest restored – No costs awarded – Held: Family of deceased employee entitled to full compensation under EC Act [Paras 56–57].