Appeal against High Court's judgment confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused – Accused convicted under Section 302, 307, 148, 149 of IPC and Explosive Substance Act – Challenge to the correctness of the High Court's order. [Para 1-8]

Delay in Filing FIR – Impact of delay in registering the First Information Report (FIR) – Applicability of delay as a factor to assess the reliability of prosecution's version – Principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding delay in FIR registration. [Para 13-16]

Plea of Alibi – Defense of alibi claimed by the accused – Legal principles governing the plea of alibi – Burden of proof on the accused – Requirement of corroborative evidence to establish alibi – Insufficiency of evidence to substantiate alibi. [Para 18-22]

Contradictions in Testimonies – Allegations of contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses – Examination of testimonies regarding material facts – Finding that testimonies are coherent on essential aspects of the case. [Para 23]

Previous Criminal Record of Deceased – Mention of the deceased's criminal record – Insufficiency of unsubstantiated claims regarding the deceased's past criminal involvement as a defense against the charges – Courts cannot grant the benefit of doubt merely based on the deceased's history. [Para 24]

Dismissal of Appeal – Dismissal of the appeal against the conviction and sentence – Observation that the sentences imposed are not excessive or disproportionate – Cancellation of bail and direction for appellants to surrender. [Para 25-27]

Criminal Appeal - Quashing of Complaint - Appellant's challenge to the order refusing to quash the complaint under Section 482 Cr.PC - Grounds for seeking quashment - Allegations of appellant's resignation from the partnership firm and lack of mandatory averments - High Court's refusal to quash the complaint upheld - [Para 2-4]

Specific Averments in Complaint - Requirement of specific averments to establish vicarious liability under Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Failure to specify the appellant's role in day-to-day affairs of the company - Inadequate averments to attract vicarious liability - [Para 11-17]

Quashing of Complaint - Averments in the complaint found insufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 141(1) of the NI Act - Appellant entitled to succeed in quashing the criminal complaint against him - [Para 17]

Impugned Order Set Aside - Criminal Complaint Quashed as it pertains to the appellant (Accused No. 4) - Appeal allowed with no order as to costs - [Para 17]

Civil Appeals - Interpretation of Contract Terms - Date of Conversion of Currency - Appellants and Respondents in dispute over the date for converting awarded sum from USD to Indian Rupees as per the agreement dated 29th June 1982 - Judgment of the High Court referred the question to the Supreme Court under Article 134A of the Constitution - Examination of the agreement, award, and previous judgment - Agreement specifies payment in Iraqi Dinars and US Dollars but not in Indian Rupees - Award directs payment in Iraqi Dinars to be convertible into US Dollars as per the original agreement - No provision for payment in Indian Rupees - Supreme Court clarifies that the payment has to be made in foreign currency (USD), and parties may agree on the rate of conversion - No need to determine a date for conversion into Indian Rupees. [Para 1-15]

Civil Appeal - Partition Suit - Interpretation of Will dated 18.11.1999 - Dispute regarding succession to a property owned by Late Sheila Kapila - Issue revolves around the interpretation of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of the said Will - Division Bench of High Court affirmed the Judgment declaring the parties' shares based on the interpretation of the Will - Civil Appeal filed challenging the said judgment. [Para 4-18]

Legal Interpretation - Examination of pleadings and admissions in a partition suit involving the alleged existence and interpretation of a will – Disagreement on whether the will grants absolute ownership to the children or only a beneficial life interest – Issue of whether the Suit Property devolves through testamentary succession or by devolution – Suit property to be partitioned among heirs in equal shares – Dispute arises over the share of late Dr. Rajendra Kapila – Judgment on admission is challenged as it assumes admissions that are disputed – Pleadings reveal a triable issue and the need for a full trial to determine the validity and interpretation of the will. [Para 19-32]

Civil Appeal - Partition Suit - Admission of Will - Dispute over the existence and validity of a Will - Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 propounding the existence of the Will dated 18.11.1999, while Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 and 2 denying it - No categorical admission found - Suit raises triable issues in facts and law. [Para 33-38]

Testamentary Succession - Intestate Succession - Validity of Will - Whether the suit property is divided among the parties on testamentary succession or intestate succession - Whether the Will propounded by Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 is valid, legal, and binding on the parties - Key issues for adjudication. [Para 37.1]

Sale of Property - Authorization for Sale - Majority of parties are septuagenarian or octogenarian - Need for speedy adjudication - Sale authorized without a Preliminary Decree under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893 - Directions for the sale process outlined. [Para 39-39.1]

Local Commissioner - Fees and Charges - Fees fixed at Rs. 5,00,000/- plus out-of-pocket expenses - Apportionment among the parties - Recovery from sale proceeds as a first charge - Parties to assist the Local Commissioner in carrying out tasks. [Para 39.1 IX-X]

Speedy Disposal - Remand to the Learned Single Judge - Request for expeditious disposal of the suit within four months from receipt of this Judgment, considering the age of contesting parties. [Para 40]

Error of Law - Impugned Judgments set aside - Matter remitted to the Learned Single Judge for framing issues and affording an opportunity for trial - Emphasis on comprehensive adjudication in partition suits. [Para 41-42]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC – Appeal by accused no. 2 – High Court's conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC substituted with Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Absence of appellant's advocate during High Court proceedings – Violation of principles of natural justice – Gross illegality – Conviction under Section 201 of IPC upheld. [Para 8-13]

Alteration of Charge – Power of Appellate Court to alter or add charges under Section 386 of Cr.PC – Requirement of notice to accused when altering charges – Absence of notice to appellant regarding alteration to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Prejudice caused to the appellant – Violation of natural justice – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside. [Para 12-15]

Common Intention – Lack of evidence for common intention among accused – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC not justified – Conviction for causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC) based on consistent eyewitness testimony upheld. [Para 18-19]

Electricity Act, 2003 - Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Act and Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 - Classification of a Captive Generating Plant (CGP) and captive user - The judgment provides an interpretation of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the relevant rules for the classification of a Captive Generating Plant and captive user. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the principles of law and applying them to specific cases. [Para 1-3]

Electricity Act, 2003 - Interpretation of Relevant Provisions - Classification of Captive Generating Plant (CGP) and Captive User - Three key issues addressed in the judgment:

I. Eligibility criteria for a CGP/captive user under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules.

II. Interpretation of the second proviso under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, particularly regarding the term "association of persons."

III. Determination of whether a company set up as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for generating electricity qualifies as an "association of persons" under the second proviso to Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules. [Para 21]

Eligibility criteria for a Captive Generating Plant (CGP) and captive user as specified under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules - primary criteria for a CGP are as follows:

1. The captive user should own not less than 26% of the CGP.

2. The captive user should consume not less than 51% of the electricity generated by the CGP.

3. In the case of an association of persons, the captive users' ownership and consumption should meet these criteria in proportion to their shares in the CGP, with a variation not exceeding +10%.

Issue I - Criteria are the minimum thresholds - no upper limit on ownership - captive user who owns 100% of the CGP and consumes 51% or more of the electricity generated would still qualify as a captive user.

Interpretation of "set up" - not necessarily mean the initial construction of the plant - Ownership can be transferred, and the CGP does not lose its captive status as long as the new owner meets the eligibility criteria - practical difficulties in applying the criteria throughout the financial year -  when there are changes in shareholding - ownership and consumption criteria must be maintained continuously throughout the year.

Issue II -  second proviso to Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, which applies when captive users are an "association of persons." - requires that the captive users hold not less than 26% of the ownership of the CGP and consume not less than 51% of the electricity generated in proportion to their ownership, with a variation not exceeding +10%. Where there are changes in ownership or shareholding within the CGP - importance of using a weighted average shareholding method to determine proportionate electricity consumption when there are fluctuations in ownership throughout the year.

Issue III - Electricity Generation – Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) - Whether a company set up as an SPV for generating electricity is an 'association of persons' which must meet the proportionality requirement specified in the second proviso to Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules – Interpretation of Rules and Act – SPVs owning, operating, and maintaining CGPs are considered an "association of persons" under the second proviso to Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules – Companies, body corporates, and other persons owning shares and being captive users of a CGP set up by an SPV are required to comply with Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules read with the second proviso to the Rules. [Para 49-67]

Land Ceiling Act - Interpretation of 'Vacant Land' - Challenge to calculation of 'excess vacant land' - Appellants' claim of exclusion of certain area from 'vacant land' rejected by Competent Authority - High Court upheld the decision - Appellants contend procedure for calculating 'excess vacant land' is contrary to Section 2(q)(i) and 2(q)(ii) read with Building Regulations - Status quo maintained pending litigation. [Para 1-13]

Ceiling Act - Interpretation of Section 2(q)(i) - Discrepancy between various decisions - Ceiling Act, an expropriatory legislation, to be strictly construed - Payment under Section 11 not based on fair market value - Importance of the words "in an area" in Section 2(g) and 2(q) - Need for authoritative determination of related issues by a Larger Bench - Case referred to Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate directions. [Para 34-37]

Civil Appeal - Dispute over recovery of deductions in monthly tariff under the Electricity Act, 2003 - Matter traveled from Regulatory Commission to Appellate Tribunal and to the Supreme Court - Judgment delivered in Nabha Power Limited v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited - Relief granted regarding washing cost of coal and Gross Calorific Value of coal. [Para 1-2]

Contempt Proceedings - Respondent's non-compliance with payment orders - Contempt petitions filed - Court compelled respondent to make payment in installments - Liberty granted to raise future disputes. [Para 5-15]

Fresh Dispute - Respondent filed a petition before the Regulatory Commission seeking approval for recovery of amounts paid to the appellant - Allegations of inflating coal costs and washing discrepancies - Appellant's objection to maintainability. [Para 12-19]

Impugned Order - Regulatory Commission maintains the petition - Appellant argues against reopening settled issues - Court finds respondent's actions as attempts to evade payment obligations under the 2017 judgment. [Para 20-23]

Costs Awarded - Appellants awarded costs for their legal expenses - Appellants' legal fees quantified. [Para 24-25]

Appeals Allowed - Impugned order set aside with awarded costs. [Para 26]

Criminal Appeal - Conviction based on the testimony of PW-9, recovery of motorcycles, and motive attributed by PW-9 - Examination of courts' judgments and rival contentions - Inconsistencies and defects in the prosecution's case raise doubts [Para 8]

Evidence - Motive attributed to accused for the killing - Discrepancies and defective investigation - Failure to record the statement of a key witness (Suraj) - First gap in the prosecution's story [Para 9]

Witness Testimony - Reliability of PW-9's testimony - Inconsistencies in his statements - Failure to name appellants in the FIR - Identification of appellants in court but not in the initial statement - Doubts about PW-9's presence at the scene of the incident [Para 9.1]

CCTV Footage - Reliance on CCTV footage as evidence - Doubts about the source and authenticity of the footage - Lack of clarity in evidence regarding the video recording - Inability to identify faces and registration numbers in the footage - Inadequate support for the prosecution's case [Para 9.4]

Confessional Statements - Recording of confessional statements when accused were in police custody - Provisions of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act - Inadmissibility of such statements - Citing relevant case law [Para 9.6]

Common Object and Vicarious Liability - Application of Section 149 IPC - Requirement to prove shared common object and awareness of likely offences - Lack of evidence connecting the appellants with the alleged unlawful assembly and motive - Absence of overt acts attributed to the appellants - Failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Miscarriage of justice [Para 10]

Acquittal - Appeals allowed, judgments of the Sessions Court and High Court set aside - Appellants acquitted of the alleged offences and ordered to be released [Para 11]