Land Acquisition — Procedural Violations — Sections 5A and 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Acquisition of land challenged on grounds of procedural lapses and discrimination — High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by appellants — Supreme Court examined procedural compliance and discriminatory treatment — Acquisition quashed due to non-application of mind by Chief Minister and procedural violations [Paras 1-36].

Discrimination — Article 14 of Constitution — Release of land owned by other entities while retaining appellants' land — Discriminatory treatment without justification — Solitary reason for non-release that land was lying vacant found to be erroneous — State Government's action violated appellants' right to equality [Paras 17, 32-36].

Procedural Compliance — Section 5A(2) and 6(1) — Collector's report on objections and Chief Minister’s non-application of mind — Importance of Section 5A in ensuring a fair hearing before land acquisition — Procedural lapses in considering objections and issuing declarations [Paras 20-34].

Decision — Appeals allowed — High Court’s order set aside — Declaration issued under Section 6(1) quashed — State Government may reconsider objections filed by appellants under Section 5A(1) — Fresh decision to be taken objectively and in accordance with law [Paras 35-36].

Environmental Law — Closure of Plant — High Court directed closure of appellant's copper smelter plant due to procedural breaches and environmental concerns — Supreme Court found the procedural exercise by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) valid and not vitiated by irrationality — High Court erred in interfering with TNPCB's decision — Appeals allowed and closure orders set aside [Paras 1-22].

Judicial Review — Scope and Grounds — Review limited to assessing legality, rationality, and procedural propriety — High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by substituting its judgment for that of the TNPCB without sufficient grounds — Judicial intervention inappropriate where statutory authority's decision is procedurally sound and rational [Paras 22-27].

Environmental Compliance — Consent and Clearance — Appellants obtained required environmental clearances and consents under relevant statutes — NEERI and other reports substantiated compliance with most conditions, and any deficiencies were being addressed — No substantial evidence of persistent non-compliance or significant environmental harm [Paras 28-37].

Compensation for Environmental Damage — Appellants liable for past environmental damage and unauthorized operations — Directed to pay compensation of Rs. 100 crores to be utilized for environmental restoration and local community welfare — Compensation to serve as a deterrent and ensure future compliance [Paras 39-41].

Decision — Appeals allowed — High Court's closure order set aside — Appellants directed to deposit compensation — TNPCB authorized to monitor compliance and issue further directions if necessary [Paras 42-43].

Preventive Detention — Delay in Consideration — Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Section 3(1) — Constitution of India - Article 22(5) — Detention order cannot be quashed solely due to delay in issuance — However, constitutional obligation under Article 22(5) requires prompt consideration of detenu's representation — Unexplained delay breaches constitutional mandate, rendering continued detention illegal — Any delay must be satisfactorily explained to avoid breach of constitutional rights [Paras 11-14].

Independent Consideration — Representation by Detenu — Assertion that representation was not independently considered by detaining authority, though not raised in earlier proceedings, was examined due to habeas corpus principles — Detaining authority must demonstrate independent consideration of representation without being influenced by subordinate officers' endorsements [Paras 5, 10].

Procedural Safeguards — Importance in Preventive Detention — Emphasis on strict compliance with procedural safeguards as the only protection for detenu — Gravity of the offense is irrelevant in preventive detention matters — Procedural lapses affecting the detenu's rights result in setting aside continued detention [Para 9].

Decision — Appeal allowed — Continued detention of detenu declared illegal due to delay in considering representation — Detenu to be released forthwith if not required in any other case — Detention order itself upheld as valid [Paras 17-18].

Military Law — Joint Trial and Juvenility — Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954 — Respondent, a soldier, charged with theft, unauthorized absence, and possessing counterfeit seals — GCM conducted and punishment awarded — High Court quashed entire GCM proceedings due to some offenses committed when respondent was a juvenile — Supreme Court held joint trial valid for offenses committed after attaining majority — GCM's punishment partly upheld and reduced [Paras 1-28].

Juvenile Justice — Scope and Application — Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — Respondent was a juvenile at the time of some offenses — Plea of juvenility can be raised at any time — Juvenile cannot be tried for offenses committed as a juvenile by GCM — Offenses committed after attaining majority validly tried and sentenced [Paras 10-18].

Severability of Charges — Misjoinder of Charges — Army Rules, 1954 — Rule 79 allows for separate trials for distinct offenses — Joint trial conducted for distinct offenses benefitted respondent — Applying principles of severability, part of GCM proceedings held valid — No prejudice caused to respondent by joint trial [Paras 18-27].

Decision — Appeal allowed — High Court's order set aside — GCM's order of conviction restored — Sentence reduced to five years in light of circumstances and totality of offenses committed after respondent attained majority [Paras 27-28].

Land Acquisition — De-Notification — Section 48(1) of Land Acquisition Act — Division Bench failed to consider gross illegality in de-notification ordered by the Minister — Possession already handed over to the State — Civil Court decree did not prevent authorities from taking possession through legal means — Single Judge's order restoring status quo upheld — Division Bench's order set aside [Paras 1-19].

Writ Jurisdiction — Article 226 of Constitution — High Courts have broad powers to correct manifest injustices and apparent errors — Court can issue orders to remedy gross illegalities and ensure justice — Judicial review appropriate where statutory authority exceeds jurisdiction or fails to administer the law correctly [Paras 14-18].

Procedural Regularity — Possession and Compensation — Possession taken and handed over to State following due process under Land Acquisition Act — Compensation paid and Mahazar drawn in presence of witnesses — Subsequent de-notification found to be without legal basis [Paras 2-12].

Decision — Appeals allowed — Division Bench order set aside — Single Judge's order dated 26.08.2002 restored — Legal principles reaffirmed on jurisdiction and procedural propriety [Paras 19-20].

Land Acquisition — Lapsing of Reservation — Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — If land reserved under the Development plan is not acquired or no steps are commenced within six months of the notice under Section 127, the reservation lapses — Mere passing of a resolution or sending a letter to the Collector does not amount to the commencement of acquisition proceedings — Appeals dismissed [Paras 20-22].

Interpretation of Statutes — Procedural Safeguards — Statutory provisions ensuring the rights of landowners must be strictly followed — Section 127 provides a safeguard against the arbitrary and prolonged reservation of land without compensation — Failure to act within the stipulated period results in the lapsing of reservation [Paras 18, 21].

Judicial Review — Legislative Intent — The intent of the legislature is clear in ensuring timely action for the acquisition of land reserved under the Development plan — Any interpretation contrary to this intent would render the provisions unworkable and unjust to landowners [Paras 20-22].

Decision — Appeals dismissed — High Court's order upheld — Reservation of land in question lapsed as no steps were taken for its acquisition within the prescribed period [Para 23].

Patent Law — Patentability under Section 3(d) — Patents Act, 1970 — Appellant's claim for patent on beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate — Assistant Controller and IPAB rejected the claim on grounds of anticipation by prior publication, obviousness, and non-patentability under Section 3(d) — IPAB reversed findings on anticipation and obviousness but upheld non-patentability under Section 3(d) — Supreme Court found no force in submission that development of Imatinib Mesylate from Imatinib constitutes a new invention outside the Zimmermann patent — Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-22, 36-41].

Interpretation of Section 3(d) — Enhanced Efficacy — The court emphasized that Section 3(d) requires a demonstration of enhanced efficacy for derivatives of known substances — Imatinib Mesylate in beta crystalline form found to lack substantial increase in efficacy over the known substance Imatinib — Application of Section 3(d) to prevent evergreening of patents affirmed [Paras 10-18, 32-35].

Impact on Public Health — Balancing TRIPS Obligations and Public Health — The court acknowledged the need to balance international obligations under TRIPS with public health considerations — Emphasized the importance of maintaining affordable access to life-saving drugs while promoting innovation — Doha Declaration's affirmation of TRIPS flexibilities noted [Paras 60-66].

Decision — Appeals dismissed — Application of Section 3(d) upheld — Beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate not patentable due to lack of enhanced efficacy [Paras 22, 41].

Criminal Law – Vicarious Liability – Summoning of Directors and Officials: High Court quashed the summons issued against the directors and officials of India Infoline Ltd., holding that the complaint lacked specific allegations detailing the individual roles of the directors in the alleged offenses. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that criminal liability cannot be attributed to corporate officials without specific allegations indicating their direct involvement [Paras 1-22].

Complaint and Summoning Order – Specific Allegations Required: The Supreme Court highlighted that the complaint must contain specific allegations against each accused, detailing their individual roles and actions. Vague and general allegations are insufficient to summon corporate directors and officials [Paras 11-13, 18-19].

Abuse of Process – Summoning without Prima Facie Case: The Supreme Court stressed that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and should not be done mechanically. The Magistrate must apply judicial mind and record satisfaction about the prima facie case based on specific allegations and evidence. The Court found the summoning order in this case lacked such satisfaction and amounted to abuse of process [Paras 14-19].

Civil Dispute – Not a Criminal Offense: The Court reiterated that not every breach of trust or cheating constitutes a criminal offense. Situations where allegations predominantly point to a civil dispute should not be converted into criminal cases [Paras 13, 15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the summons against the directors and officials of India Infoline Ltd., emphasizing the necessity of specific allegations and proper judicial application before summoning in criminal cases [Paras 21-22].

Co-operative Societies – Bifurcation – Tenant-Members’ Rights: The Supreme Court addressed the prolonged litigation involving the bifurcation of the Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society and the protection of tenant-members' rights. The appellants, tenant-members of the society, sought bifurcation to form a separate entity exclusively for tenant-members, claiming inadequate representation and protection of their interests [Paras 11-14, 21-22].

Interim Relief – Balance of Convenience: The Court considered the balance of convenience in granting or denying interim relief. It was noted that the appellant tenant-members, forming a small minority, were obstructing the redevelopment plan beneficial to a larger number of society members. The balance of convenience favored allowing the redevelopment to proceed [Paras 26-30].

Status of Tenant-Members – Cooperative Society Membership: The Court reaffirmed that tenant-members would not lose their cooperative society membership post-redevelopment. The new buildings would house both allottee-members and tenant-members, ensuring their continued membership in the redeveloped society [Paras 28-29].

Previous Litigation – Finality of Orders: The Court highlighted the finality of previous litigation upholding the society's redevelopment resolution dated 25.9.1966. The repeated challenges by the tenant-members had been dismissed at various levels, establishing the legality of the redevelopment plan [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's order vacating interim protection for the tenant-members. The redevelopment plan approved by the society was allowed to proceed, with the tenant-members retaining their membership rights in the redeveloped property [Paras 34-35].