Motor Accident Compensation – Permanent Disability – Minor Victim – Multiplier Method – 14-year-old appellant sustained 77.1% permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident – High Court applied multiplier of 15, monthly income of ₹3,620 with 40% future prospects – Supreme Court affirmed multiplier and income but enhanced compensation under multiple heads – Held: Total compensation enhanced to ₹15,13,337/- from ₹7,48,883/- [Paras 3.3, 5.1, 5.4]

Assessment of Disability – Future Prospects – Court upheld High Court’s finding accepting 77.1% disability based on unopposed medical board certificate – Future prospects added at 40% in line with Pranay Sethi principles – Loss of future earning capacity assessed by applying disability percentage to enhanced notional income [Paras 3.2, 5.1]

Special Heads of Compensation – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Medical Expenses – Applying Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Sona (Minor), and other precedents, Supreme Court awarded ₹3,00,000 each towards pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects – Also granted ₹40,000 for special diet and transport, ₹50,000 for future medical expenses, ₹40,000 for attendant charges – Held: Expenses beyond actual medical bills are permissible considering hospital stay and future treatment [Paras 5.2–5.3]

Tabular Summary of Compensation:

Loss of Future Earnings (with 77.1% disability): ₹7,03,337/-

Pain and Suffering: ₹3,00,000/-

Loss of Amenities: ₹80,000/-

Loss of Marriage Prospects: ₹3,00,000/-

Attendant Charges: ₹40,000/-

Special Diet and Transport: ₹40,000/-

Future Medical Expenses: ₹50,000/-

Total: ₹15,13,337/-

Interest and Directions – Additional Compensation – Supreme Court held appellant entitled to additional compensation of ₹7,64,454/- (i.e., over and above ₹5,75,883/- awarded by High Court) with 8% interest from date of application till realisation – Insurance company directed to deposit amount in appellant’s bank account within 8 weeks and file proof before Tribunal [Para 6–6.1]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹15,13,337/- with 8% interest – Additional ₹7,64,454/- to be paid by insurer within 8 weeks – Proof of payment to be submitted before Tribunal.

Service Tax – Real Estate Agent – Meaning and Scope – Agreements entered into by the respondent with Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) for procurement, documentation, and facilitation of land transfer at a fixed average rate per acre – No separate consideration or commission for services – Profit/loss entirely contingent on difference between land purchase cost and fixed average price – Held: Transactions were outright sales of immovable property, not services – Respondent not a 'real estate agent' under Section 65(88) nor a 'real estate consultant' under Section 65(89) – Not liable for service tax [Paras 31–45]

Interpretation of MoUs – No Principal-Agent Relationship – Respondent assumed independent commercial risk, negotiated with landowners, and did not act on behalf of SICCL – MoUs did not specify commission, consultancy, or service fee – Held: MoUs created no fiduciary agency – Transactions were between principals [Paras 40–41]

Service – Exclusion under Section 65B(44)(a)(i) – Transfer of title in immovable property – Held: Such transactions excluded from the definition of 'service' under the Finance Act, 1994 – Respondent’s activities covered by this exclusion – No taxable service rendered [Paras 42–44]

Extended Limitation – Section 73(1) Proviso – Wilful Suppression – Held: No deliberate suppression or fraud established – All transactions conducted via banking channels and recorded in books – Respondent under bona fide belief that no service tax was payable – Invocation of extended limitation unjustified – Show cause notice time-barred [Paras 46–53]

Tribunal’s Order – Legally Correct – Tribunal rightly set aside demand and penalties – Commissioner erred in treating sale of land as taxable service – No interference warranted [Paras 45, 54–55]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Demand and penalties quashed – Tribunal’s order upheld – Respondent held not liable for service tax – Extended limitation under Section 73(1) inapplicable.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Maintainability of Appeal – Commercial Suit filed without Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of CCA 2015 – Trial Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: Rejection of plaint amounts to a 'decree' under Section 2(2) CPC – Such decree is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – High Court erred in holding appeal to be non-maintainable [Paras 5, 9, 13-15, 20-21]

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1A) – Interpretation – Main provision permits appeals against judgments and orders of Commercial Court – Proviso restricts appeals only for interlocutory orders listed in Order XLIII CPC – Held: Rejection of plaint is not an interlocutory order and not covered by the proviso – Hence appeal lies under the main provision [Paras 16-17]

Distinction from Precedent – Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works – Distinguished – In that case, rejection of application under Order VII Rule 10 or 11(d) was challenged – Court clarified only allowed orders under Rule 10 are appealable under Order XLIII – But rejection of plaint (not application) constitutes a decree, hence distinguishable and appealable [Paras 18-19]

Right to Remedy – Plaintiff whose plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be left remediless – Filing of a fresh suit not an appropriate alternative – Appeal is the proper remedy [Para 20]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Appeal before High Court held to be maintainable – Restored for decision on merits – No order as to costs.

Arbitration – Public Policy – Patent Illegality – Arbitral Award Set Aside – Arbitrator awarded reimbursement for second regular meals and welcome drinks to caterers despite express contract and circulars stating otherwise – Supreme Court held that this amounted to rewriting the contract – Held: Arbitrator failed to consider binding policy decisions of Railway Board which governed the MLA and exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 28(3) of the Act – Award found to be patently illegal and in conflict with public policy of India – Set aside under Section 34(2A) and 34(2)(b)(ii) [Paras 62–72].

Contract – Government Policy – Supremacy of Railway Board Circulars – No Unilateral Deviation Permissible – Circulars dated 23.10.2013 and 06.08.2014 formed basis of contract and fixed rates for meals and services – Clause 21.1 of Master Licence Agreement gave precedence to Railway policy over other contractual provisions – Held: No deviation permissible from binding Railway Board circulars – Arbitrator’s contrary interpretation was unjustified [Paras 56–60, 68–69].

Arbitration – Scope of Interference under Sections 34 and 37 – Limits of Judicial Review Reaffirmed – Court reiterated limited grounds of interference under Section 34(2A) – Held: Courts cannot reappreciate evidence or correct errors of law unless award shocks conscience or contravenes fundamental policy – Arbitrator’s findings that ignored binding government policy warranted judicial interference [Paras 63–67].

Interest – Arbitrator’s Award on Lump Sum Interest Set Aside – Arbitrator Awarded Interest from 01.01.2018 on Entire Claim Though Claims Arose Periodically – Division Bench rightly held that interest award was erroneous – Supreme Court: In light of full setting aside of award, interest claim becomes infructuous [Paras 43, 72].

Catering Contracts – Welcome Drink Charges – Reimbursement Denied – Bid documents and Clause 8.1 of MLA permitted menu changes – Circulars contemplated welcome drink as part of service without separate charges – Held: No entitlement to separate payment – Arbitrator’s award unjustified [Paras 60–61, 71].

Decision: Appeals of IRCTC allowed – Arbitral award dated 27.04.2022 (corrected on 26.07.2022) and Delhi High Court’s judgments dated 13.08.2024 and 10.02.2025 set aside – Cross appeals filed by caterers dismissed – Parties to bear own costs.

Land Acquisition – Employment in lieu of Acquired Land – No Statutory Right – Policy cannot override statute – Petitioner’s family land acquired in 1998 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; compensation paid at that time – Petitioner, born after acquisition, sought government employment in 2025 under a policy granting jobs to land-losers – Authorities and High Court rejected the claim as time-barred and unsupported by law – Held: Under the 1894 Act, acquisition entitles landowners only to compensation; there is no statutory or vested right to employment – Any administrative policy cannot override statutory provisions – Petition filed nearly 18 years after policy formulation is grossly delayed and misconceived – No illegality in rejection by authorities or High Court [Paras 2–3].

Administrative Policy – Employment Schemes for Land-losers – Effect of Delay – Claim for employment raised decades after acquisition is unsustainable—Delay defeats equity—Policy decisions being non-statutory confer no enforceable right unless contemporaneous with acquisition [Para 3].

Result – Special Leave Petition dismissed – No error in High Court order refusing employment – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 4].

Criminal Law – Review – Special Investigation Team – Constitution based on Religious Identity – Review petition filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking recall of directions mandating inclusion of Hindu and Muslim officers in the SIT investigating communal riots – Contention that such direction violates institutional secularism and amounts to religious profiling – Rejected – Held: The direction aimed at transparency and fairness in investigation of communal riots and does not impinge on secularism – State machinery must reflect fairness especially in sensitive communal cases [Paras 2-6].

Institutional Secularism – Alleged Violation – Direction to include police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities in SIT challenged as contrary to constitutional secularism – Supreme Court reiterated that secularism is a lived principle and should manifest in action – In cases involving religious conflict, inclusivity in investigation enhances public confidence – No constitutional infirmity in the impugned direction [Paras 4-6].

Police Misconduct – Failure to Register FIR – Despite clear information of a cognizable offence, police officers failed to act – Court found dereliction of duty by both local police and Superintendent – Justified constitution of a new investigation team with transparent composition [Para 3].

Open Court Hearing – Mentioning Practice Condemned – Application seeking open court hearing of review petition rejected – Court condemned the practice of seeking hearing before both Judges of the Bench separately without disclosure – Termed dubious and unprecedented [Para 1].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – Court found no error in the direction requiring religious diversity in SIT – Reaffirmed importance of transparency and real-world secularism in communal investigation contexts – Application for open court hearing rejected.

Stray Animal Menace – Implementation of ABC Rules, 2023 – Court examines compliance affidavits filed by States/UTs following prior orders – Amicus Curiae report reveals serious lapses in sterilisation, vaccination, and municipal preparedness – States/UTs directed to file additional affidavits detailing remedial steps – Registry to annex summary report as part of judicial record [Paras 5–7]

Highways – Road Safety – Stray Cattle and Animal-Related Accidents – Directions of Rajasthan High Court endorsed and extended nationwide – States/UTs, NHAI and PWDs directed to remove stray animals from highways – Mandate issued for coordinated patrols, shelters, helplines and signage – Personal accountability fixed on officials – Status reports to be filed within 8 weeks [Paras 8–11]

Dog Bites – Institutional Spaces – Alarming rise in attacks at schools, hospitals, stadia, bus depots and railway stations – Detailed incidents from multiple States examined – Causes include poor waste disposal, unguarded premises, and administrative inaction – Court holds such conditions violate Article 21 and demand systemic correction [Paras 12–24]

Preventive Framework – Nationwide Directions – Mandatory fencing, campus security and appointment of Nodal Officers for all public/private institutional spaces – Municipal authorities to remove stray dogs and prohibit their return to same premises – Hospitals directed to stock anti-rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin – Educational institutions to conduct awareness drives – Animal Welfare Board to issue national SOPs – Compliance to be monitored rigorously [Paras 25–32]

Constitutional Law – Right to Life – Held: Failure to secure public institutions from preventable dog attacks violates fundamental right under Article 21 – Reaffirmation of State obligation to ensure safe environments in spaces of education, treatment and transit – Directions aimed at eliminating human-animal conflict through lawful, humane measures [Paras 22–26]

Decision:

Comprehensive nationwide directions issued for prevention of dog-bite incidents and stray animal control in institutional spaces and highways – States/UTs, Union Ministries, NHAI and Animal Welfare Board to file compliance affidavits within 8 weeks – Non-compliance may attract contempt – Next hearing on 13/01/2026 [Paras 25–33]

Tender Law – Rejection of Highest Bid – Interpretation of “Previous Financial Year” – The appellant’s bid for a sand quarry lease was rejected for not submitting the Income Tax Return for FY 2021-2022 as mandated under Rule 27(4)(iv) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules – Supreme Court held that at the time of bid submission (July 2022), the statutory deadline for filing return for FY 2021-2022 had not expired – Return for FY 2020-2021 was validly submitted – Rejection based on misinterpretation of “previous financial year” was arbitrary and defeated public interest – Held: Interpretation of “previous financial year” must be harmonious with Income Tax Act timelines [Paras 14-15]

Judicial Review – Tender Process – Public Interest – Court reaffirmed that while tenders are not open to routine judicial scrutiny, interference is warranted in cases of irrationality or misconstruction that diminishes competition and public revenue – Erroneous exclusion of highest bidder on misinterpretation of Rule vitiates the tender process – High Court failed to address this aspect – Judgment set aside [Paras 9-11, 14]

Remedies – Fresh Auction Ordered – In view of lapse of significant lease period (3 years 3 months out of 5), fresh auction directed under 2016 Rules – All parties allowed to bid afresh – Refund with interest directed to the successful bidder whose bid was previously accepted but lease not executed due to litigation – Public interest in maximising revenue reaffirmed [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Fresh auction ordered – Refund with interest at 6% per annum to previous successful bidder – Liberty to all parties to participate afresh.

Housing Law – Cooperative Housing Fraud – Allotment Scam – Lease Cancellation – Judicial Directions for Revival – Petitioners, homebuyers in a cooperative housing project, challenged cancellation of lease by GNIDA and alleged fraud and mismanagement by the housing society and developers – Authorities failed to complete the project or recover misused funds – Court held that over 67 verified allottees suffered for nearly two decades without redressal – Held: Direction issued for phased restoration of lease and development of towers subject to verification and payment of proportional dues [Paras 1–36, 41–44].

Administrative Directions – Constitution of Independent Committee – Housing Dispute Resolution – Supreme Court ordered constitution of a one-member independent Enquiry Committee headed by Retd. Justice Pankaj Naqvi to examine land dues, lease restoration, identification of genuine allottees, and propose mechanisms for completing stalled construction – Directed all stakeholders including GNIDA, State, banks and verified allottees to cooperate – Committee to submit report within four months [Paras 37–48].

Consumer Protection – Homebuyers’ Rights – Equitable Relief – Interim Restoration of Possession and Construction Rights – Court permitted verified groups of allottees to jointly undertake completion of Towers 1 and 2 after structural audits and clearance of dues – Observed that failure of GNIDA to assist genuine homebuyers was unjustified – Directed partial restoration of lease for Tower 1 on proportional payment basis and left scope for similar orders for Towers 3 and 4 through group efforts [Paras 26–36, 43].

Delay and Deficiency – State’s Inaction Criticised – Failure to Support Victims of Real Estate Fraud – Court criticised Greater Noida Authority for delay and failure to present feasible plans despite multiple orders – Found State in dereliction of duty to protect homebuyers from builder fraud – Ordered cooperation with the Committee and publication of notices to trace other allottees [Paras 28–30, 45–47].

Decision: Enquiry Committee constituted under retired High Court Judge to verify claims, suggest lease restoration, and formulate a time-bound plan for project completion – Committee to report in four months – Verified allottees permitted to complete Tower 1 and encouraged to form groups for other towers – GNIDA and State directed to fully cooperate – Matter listed for further directions on 24/03/2026.