Search Judgments

(Re-determination of Land Acquisition Compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894)

This judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), particularly concerning the maintainability of a second application for re-determination of compensation based on an appellate court's award.

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Sections 3(d), 4(1), 11, 18, 28-A, and 54. The appellants, landowners whose property was acquired, had initially sought and received re-determined compensation under Section 28-A of the LA Act based on an enhanced award by the Reference Court. Subsequently, the High Court further enhanced the compensation for similarly situated landowners in appeals.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149; Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25, 27 ; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 82, 83, 438 – The Supreme Court heard an appeal from the original complainant against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order. The High Court had granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No.2 (Accused), directing him to surrender and obtain regular bail on the same day. The Accused was named in an FIR (No. 226/2017) involving a death and injuries from gunshots, linked to political rivalry.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) – Section 181 – This judgment addresses two cross-appeals stemming from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The petitioners, consisting of the wife and sons of the deceased K. Ravichandran, sought enhanced compensation for his death in a motor accident on December 15, 2017. The second respondent, the insurance company, filed an appeal seeking to set aside or reduce the awarded compensation.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 34 and 37 ; The BOCW Act Sections 40 and 62; Interpretation of BOCW Act and Cess Act – This judgment addresses civil appeals arising from arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerning the interpretation and implementation of ‘The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996’ (BOCW Act) and ‘The Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996′ (Cess Act).

The core issue in the appeals filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) is whether the BOCW Act and the Cess Act can be considered ‘subsequent legislation’ in contracts entered into with its contractors.
The Supreme Court delves into the statutory schemes of both Acts, highlighting the delayed implementation despite their enactment in 1996, necessitating judicial intervention for their enforcement.

The Court emphasizes that the constitution of Welfare Boards under the BOCW Act is a prerequisite for the effective implementation of both Acts, and the cess could not be levied or collected before these boards were established.

Constitution of India – Article 14, 16 and 335 ; Right to Information Act, 2005 – Appeals against a judgment by the Kerala High Court regarding the selection process for Junior Assistant (Fire Service) positions at the Airport Authority of India (AAI) based on Advertisement No. 01/SR/2013. The High Court directed AAI to appoint the first respondent, Sham Krishna, and to properly implement reservation policies according to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum of 1997.

The AAI had advertised 245 posts with reservations for OBC, SC, and ST categories.

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Stamp Act) – Section 2(24), Section 6, Article 58(a)(ii), Article 62(e); Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 2(d) – This judgment concerns a writ appeal by the State challenging the stamp duty levied on a “Transfer of Trusteeship Declaration” deed. The deed facilitated the transfer of management and properties from the Christu Kula Charitable Trust to the National Missionary Society of India, a necessary step as the original trustees were unable to continue their operations, in accordance with the original trust deed.

The primary legal contention was whether the document constituted a “Settlement” under Article 58(a)(ii) or a transfer between trustees under Article 62(e) of the Stamp Act. While the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had imposed higher stamp duty classifying it as a “Settlement,” the learned Single Judge reclassified it under Article 62(e), finding no ‘consideration’ or ‘transfer of ownership’.

Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963  Section 15  –Revolves around an appeal against a writ order that had set aside the proceedings of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration concerning the grant of patta (land ownership document) for land in Kasapuram Village, Kancheepuram District. The land in question was an Inam Village taken over by the government under the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.

The respondent, Mr. M.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – This case concerned an appeal against a High Court judgment that rejected a plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates pre-institution mediation unless urgent interim relief is contemplated. The appellant, a Danish company, filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of its patent and design rights by the respondents, its former distributor and a related company. The High Court rejected the plaint, finding no urgency due to a delay between discovering the infringement and filing the suit.

The Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of “contemplates any urgent interim relief” in Section 12A, specifically in the context of intellectual property rights infringement.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) Section 2(c)(vi) – This Criminal Original Petition was filed seeking directions for the respondents to investigate a complaint and submit a charge sheet in F.I.R. No. RC0322023A0020/2023. The petitioner, former Managing Director of M/s.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498(A), 504, 506 and 34 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – The case concerns an appeal against a High Court order that accepted a submission from a Sub-Divisional Police Officer to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused persons and witnesses during an investigation related to a missing person and alleged dowry harassment.

The appellant argued that the High Court’s decision contravened the law established in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, which protects personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and Article 20(3) which is against self-incrimination.

The Supreme Court addressed three key issues: whether the High Court could accept such a submission, whether a voluntary narco-analysis test report can be the sole basis for conviction, and whether an accused has an indefeasible right to request a narco-analysis test.