Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Arun Kumar Dharambir Aggarwal vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 17 February, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.19778/2024)
ARUN KUMAR DHARAMBIR AGGARWAL & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated
29.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras,
in terms whereof, the order passed by the Executing Court
determining the amount of compensation to which the
appellants are entitled to as per the judgment dated
10.05.2023 passed in C.A. Nos.9369-9372/2013 has been set
aside. It seems that the Executing Court, while determining
the total amount, has also added an interest component on
the solatium amount, calculable from the date such solatium,
Signature Not Verified along with the additional amount, which was payable to the
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2026.02.21
13:27:36 IST
Reason: appellants when the award for acquiring the subject land was
passed.
1
3. Bharat Petroleum/respondent No. 1 felt aggrieved by the
Executing Court providing interest on solatium and
consequently approached the High Court, relying upon two
decisions of this Court, namely, (i) Sunder vs. Union of
India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 and another Constitution Bench
judgment in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC
457. These judgments were relied upon to contend that no
interest was payable on solatium prior to 19.09.2001.
4. While it is undoubtedly true that the aforementioned
decisions of this Court have been doubted in some orders of
this Court, in the absence of an explicit reference to a
larger Bench, the view taken by a Constitution Bench of this
Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra) currently holds the field.
5. The High Court, to that extent, seems to be correct in
observing that the appellants are not entitled to seek
interest on solatium prior to 19.09.2001. At the same time,
the appellants are also not wrong in contending that since
the previous relevant rulings have been doubted, there is a
persisting grey area which requires authoritative
pronouncement in due course.
6. We have heard learned senior counsel on both sides in
this regard. With a view to ensuring that the undisputed and
legally tenable amount of compensation is paid to the
appellants without any delay, we modify the operative part
of the impugned order of the High Court and remit the case
to the High Court with a request that:
2
(i) The exact amount of compensation as per the judgment of
this Court dated 10.05.2023 be re-determined after excluding
the arrears of interest on solatium for the period prior to
19.09.2001;
(ii) The High Court shall do the needful within a period of
six weeks;
(iii) If such balance amount has not been paid or deposited
already, the respondent–Corporation shall deposit the same
within four weeks thereafter;
(iv) The appellants shall be entitled to receive the amount
without prejudice to their right to seek interest on
solatium for the period prior to 19.09.2001, if at any
subsequent stage, this Court finds that the view taken in
Gurpreet Singh (supra) was erroneous or that the land owners
are entitled to interest on solatium calculable from the
date when such provision came to be incorporated in the
erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
7. Since the element of interest on solatium for the period
prior to 19.09.2001 has been excluded, the appellants shall
not be liable to furnish any security for withdrawing the
remaining compensation amount.
8. It is clarified that the submissions from both sides
with respect to determination of actual amount have been
kept open to be considered by the High Court and we have not
expressed any opinion in this regard except with respect to
3
the legal issues regarding entitlement of interest on
solatium for the period prior to 19.09.2001.
9. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
……………………..CJI.
(SURYA KANT)
……………………….J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
……………………….J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 17, 2026
4
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).19778/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-07-2024
in CRP No.951/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
ARUN KUMAR DHARAMBIR AGGARWAL & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No.29599/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 17-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR
Mr. Divyam Dhyani, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv.
Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Rudra Dutta, Adv.
Ms. Priyal Jain, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
3. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)
5
