Civil Law - Electricity Act - Jurisdiction of CERC – Powers under Section 79 – Regulatory Order Valid – Held: CERC has dual functions of regulation and adjudication – Even in absence of regulations under Section 178, CERC is empowered to regulate tariff matters between parties under Section 79 – Grant of liberty to claim compensation falls within such regulatory scope [Paras 43-48, 60-63].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy Available – Writ Petition Improperly Admitted – The High Court entertained the writ despite availability of appellate remedy under Section 111 – No violation of natural justice, no constitutional question involved, and no lack of jurisdiction shown – Held: High Court erred in applying Whirlpool exception – Writ petition was not maintainable [Paras 64-66].

Compensation for Delay – Transmission Charges – Regulatory Function Not Adjudication – CERC’s direction to allow appellant to claim transmission charges for unutilized assets due to respondent’s delay addressed a regulatory gap – Such order was not an adjudication on liability, but regulation to fill a lacuna in the 2014 Tariff Regulations – Held: Ad hoc regulatory action permissible and valid [Paras 55-60].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order admitting the writ petitions – Clarified that respondent may raise factual challenge on merits before APTEL if it chooses to appeal – No determination on actual liability was made [Paras 65-66].

Criminal Law - Custodial Death – Demand for Independent Investigation – Local Police Involved – CBI Directed to Take Over – Allegations of police brutality leading to the death of Deva Pardhi in custody prompted a plea by relatives seeking transfer of investigation from local police, who were the accused themselves – Supreme Court found that no arrests were made eight months after FIR and that doctors possibly acted under pressure – Held: Investigation transferred to CBI to ensure impartiality and credibility [Paras 3–32].

Witness Intimidation – Sole Eyewitness Threatened and Implicated – Witness Protection Ordered – Gangaram Pardhi, sole eyewitness to the custodial torture, was being implicated in multiple FIRs post-incident – Court acknowledged threats and coercion and upheld High Court's order shifting him to Central Jail – Held: State authorities directed to provide witness protection as per law [Paras 7, 12, 20, 27, 35–36].

Bail Application – Direction to Approach High Court – Liberty Granted – Supreme Court refrained from directly granting bail but noted ongoing persecution of the eyewitness – Held: Gangaram Pardhi permitted to approach High Court for bail in all implicated cases post-incident; High Court to decide considering present observations [Paras 33–34].

Decision – CBI to Investigate – Witness Protection and Bail Liberty Granted – Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part by transferring the investigation to CBI, directing protection for Gangaram Pardhi, and permitting him to seek bail from High Court with due consideration to the case circumstances [Paras 31–37].

Family Law - Child Custody – Repetitive IA Requirement – Procedural Burden Criticized – Modified - The Family Court required the father to file fresh interlocutory applications for custody every time he visited India – Held: Such repetitive litigation imposes undue burden on non-custodial parent and child, disrupts planning, and hinders bonding – Supreme Court substituted a structured interim visitation schedule to ensure predictability and preserve parental relationship [Paras 2, 6, 15–17].

Child Welfare – Shared Parenting Principles – Interim Custody Balanced - The Court recognized the importance of regular meaningful contact with both parents – Held: Even while trial is pending, structured parenting time is essential for the child’s emotional well-being – Interim custody split during vacations and alternate weekends, with structured video interaction during the appellant’s overseas postings [Paras 16–20].

Family Court Jurisdiction – Interim Access Orders – Judicial Discretion Guided - High Court’s refusal to grant structured schedule was reversed – Held: Interim arrangements must account for practicalities of international employment and avoid repetitive litigation – Family Court may vary logistics only upon material change, but not reduce access granted [Paras 17–20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Permanent Interim Visitation Framework Issued - Supreme Court replaced piecemeal interim custody system with a standing schedule – Directed equal division of vacation time (if appellant present), alternate weekends, routine video contact, and streamlined coordination procedures – Directed Family Court to adjudicate main custody case expeditiously [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Law - Dowry Death – Applicability of Section 304-B IPC – Conviction Upheld – The deceased died an unnatural death within 1 year and 4 months of marriage due to traumatic brain injuries – Consistent testimonies from father and brothers of the deceased established dowry harassment and monetary demands by the accused-husband – Held: Essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC were fulfilled; conviction proper [Paras 27-30, 39].

Presumption under Evidence Act – Section 113-B – Failure to Rebut – Presumption Drawn – Once prosecution proved harassment and unnatural death soon before death, burden shifted to the accused to rebut presumption – Defence of depression due to knee pain and alternate theories of suicide or accidental fall were rejected as unsubstantiated and contradictory – Held: Presumption under Section 113-B validly invoked; defence theories not credible [Paras 20-22, 28, 31, 34-36].

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem via Affidavit – Curable Irregularity – Medical Officer's Affidavit Accepted – Though medical evidence was recorded by affidavit contrary to Section 296 CrPC, the defence cross-examined the doctor and did not object – Held: No prejudice caused; post-mortem proved cause of death as traumatic head injury due to mechanical violence [Paras 23-26].

Contradictory Defence – Inconsistencies in Accused's Explanation – Defence Rejected – The accused alternated between claiming accidental fall and suicide due to medical condition – Neither theory matched facts including the location of the body and the timing of distress calls – Held: Defence concocted; does not displace prosecution's case [Paras 28-29, 35-36].

Demand for Money for Job – Treated as Dowry – Dowry Demand Proved – Accused demanded Rs. 5 lakhs from deceased’s father to secure employment – Rs. 50,000 was paid; harassment continued thereafter – Held: Such demand, linked to marriage, qualifies as dowry under law [Paras 16-17, 22, 30].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – No infirmity found in reasoning of Trial or High Court – Accused-appellant directed to surrender and serve remaining sentence [Paras 40-42].

Electricity Act – Connection Agreement and Liability – Sole Responsibility of Applicant – Appeal Allowed - The Supreme Court held that under the Connection Agreement dated 02.07.2021, BHP Ltd., as the sole applicant, bore full liability to HPPTC Ltd. for Bay construction and O&M charges – Respondents No. 2 and 3, not being parties to the agreement, could not be held contractually liable by HPPTC Ltd. – Any recovery from these parties was BHP Ltd.'s internal matter governed by a separate Internal Tripartite Agreement – The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity erred in holding otherwise [Paras 21–24, 28–30].

Doctrine of Privity – Applicability to Electricity Transmission Contracts – Third Parties Not Liable – Appeal Allowed - The Court reaffirmed that under the doctrine of privity, parties not signatory to a contract (Respondents 2 and 3) could not be held liable by a party (HPPTC Ltd.) for obligations under said contract (Connection Agreement), even if they benefitted from its execution – Tribunal’s reasoning failed to consider this foundational contractual principle [Paras 26–29].

Decision – APTEL Order Set Aside – State Commission Order Restored - The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity dated 17.03.2023 – Restored the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Order dated 27.12.2022 – Appeal by HPPTC Ltd. allowed with no order as to costs [Paras 30–31].

Contract Law – Clause Requiring Minimum Service Period – Not Restraint of Trade – Appeal Allowed - The Supreme Court held that Clause 11(k) of the appointment letter, requiring an employee to serve a minimum of three years or pay ₹2 lakh as liquidated damages, was not violative of Section 27 of the Contract Act – Such negative covenants during the subsistence of an employment contract are not considered restraint of trade – Held: Clause valid and enforceable [Paras 13–16, 35].

Public Policy – Standard Form Employment Contract – No Inequality of Bargaining – Appeal Allowed - The Court rejected the argument that the clause was imposed through unequal bargaining power – Held: The clause was part of a legitimate strategy to curb attrition in a competitive environment and was not unconscionable or unfair – Not opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act [Paras 18–21, 27].

Liquidated Damages – ₹2 Lakhs Not Disproportionate – Appeal Allowed - The clause requiring ₹2 lakh payment for premature resignation was held reasonable and not causing unjust enrichment – Recruitment process costs, administrative disruptions, and public sector constraints justified the amount – Respondent paid under protest but failed to establish excessive hardship [Paras 28–31].

Decision – High Court Order Set Aside – Restrictive Covenant Upheld - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the enforceability of Clause 11(k) – High Court’s reliance on prior decision in BEML held inapplicable due to different factual context – Civil Appeal No. 11499 of 2016 dismissed following same reasoning [Paras 32–37].

Custom Law - Customs Exemption – Administrative Circular Cannot Override Statutory Notification – Appeal Allowed - The Supreme Court held that Circular No. 10/2004-Cus., which expanded the scope of excluded goods under Notification No. 53/2003-Cus., was legally unsustainable – Such a circular cannot add conditions or restrict exemptions granted by a statutory notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act – Held: Circular had no legal consequence and could not deny exemption to crude degummed soyabean oil [Paras 30–36, 58(i)].

Manufacture – Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil is Distinct Product – Not Agricultural – Appeal Allowed - The Court found that the process to extract crude degummed soyabean oil from soyabean constituted ‘manufacture’ resulting in a distinct, marketable product – Rejected the High Court’s view that crude oil retained the identity of soyabean – Held: Crude degummed soyabean oil is not an agricultural product and thus not excluded from exemption under Notification No. 53/2003 [Paras 40–57, 58(ii)-(iv)].

EXIM Policy – Entitlement Under Duty-Free Scheme – Benefit Restored – Appeal Allowed - The appellant, a recognized status holder, was entitled to duty-free import benefit under the 2002–2007 EXIM policy – Import through MMTC and the classification under Chapter 15 supported their claim – Demand of duty by Customs and High Court’s order upholding it were both quashed [Paras 5–8, 58(v)–60].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Appellants, members of a political party, sought quashing of FIR registered under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – FIR dated 30th April, 2023, based on a prior incident dated 10th October, 2022, wherein appellants were already booked under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 307, 323, 504, 506 and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act – High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing – Supreme Court held that invocation of UP Gangsters Act was unwarranted in absence of any subsequent criminal activity between the first FIR dated 11th October, 2022, and the gang chart prepared on 29th April, 2023 – No evidence of organized crime, habitual behavior, or intent to gain undue advantage [Paras 3, 4, 5, 9, 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 29, 30].

Gangsters Act – Applicability – Definition of ‘Gang’ under Section 2(b) requires a group engaged in anti-social activities with objective of disturbing public order or gaining undue pecuniary, temporal or material advantage – FIR merely refers to a single protest incident triggered by an inflammatory post on religion – No evidence of hierarchical structure, systematic planning or continuity of criminal acts – Held, appellants' participation in spontaneous protest does not constitute membership of a gang under the Act – Invocation of the Gangsters Act was colorable exercise of power [Paras 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25].

Mala Fide Intention – Political Vendetta – Registration of FIR under the Gangsters Act occurred just days after appellant’s family member filed nomination for Nagar Panchayat elections – Appellants had filed a prior representation anticipating false implication – Supreme Court observed that FIR appeared politically motivated and a misuse of statutory powers [Paras 5.4, 21, 24].

Constitutional Safeguards – Personal Liberty – Court reiterated that extraordinary statutes abridging procedural safeguards must be invoked with strong evidentiary foundation – Absence of fresh criminal conduct or continuing threat rendered invocation of Gangsters Act arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution – Procedural fairness underlined as essential [Paras 23, 24, 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – FIR dated 30th April, 2023, and all consequential proceedings quashed – Pending proceedings in earlier FIRs CC No. 294 of 2022 and CC No. 296 of 2022 to continue unaffected – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 29, 30, 31, 32].

Civil Law - Land Allotment – Not a Sale – Statutory Scheme Governs – Appeal Allowed - The Supreme Court held that the alienation of land in favour of the respondent-charitable trust was not an outright sale but a conditional allotment under a statutory scheme governed by the Telangana Land Revenue Act and relevant rules – The District Collector’s 2001 order explicitly imposed conditions, including usage for specific purposes and completion of construction – High Court erred in treating this as a freehold sale without restrictions [Paras 15–18, 21].

Condition on Use – Validity of Restrictions – Section 10 TPA Not Attracted - The Court held that Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which renders conditions restraining alienation void, does not apply to state allotments under statutory schemes – The restrictions imposed in public interest override the general rule applicable to private transfers – Respondent’s claim that conditions violated Section 10 was untenable [Paras 22–23].

Fraudulent Misrepresentation – GPA Executed without Disclosure – Mala Fide Intent Inferred - The Respondent-Trust executed a General Power of Attorney in 2011 without disclosing the conditional nature of the allotment – The Court held this as indicative of mala fides – The decision to develop and sell plots from the allotted land amounted to fraud on statute [Paras 24–25].

Decision – Impugned Judgments Set Aside – Appeal Allowed - The judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Telangana High Court dated 24.06.2014 and 05.07.2022 were set aside – The Appeal filed by the State of Telangana was allowed, upholding the conditional nature of the land allotment [Para 26].