Customs Law - Reduction of Redemption Fine and Penalty – Appeals challenging the Tribunal's decision to reduce redemption fine and penalty imposed on importers – Supreme Court examines whether the Tribunal can uniformly apply a formula for reduction based on margin of profit and demurrage costs – Held that each case must be examined on its own facts – However, Tribunal's findings that facts were similar across cases not challenged by the Revenue – Tribunal's reduction of fines and penalties upheld. [Paras 9-15]

Reference to High Court - Question of Law – Examination of whether the High Court erred in rejecting applications for reference under Section 130A of the Customs Act – Supreme Court considers whether questions proposed by Revenue constitute questions of law – Held that Tribunal's factual findings not specifically challenged as perverse by the Revenue – No substantial question of law arises – High Court's rejection of reference applications upheld. [Paras 11-15]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The appeals by the Revenue are dismissed, affirming the High Court's orders – Supreme Court upholds the Tribunal's decision to reduce redemption fine and penalty based on its findings of fact – No interference warranted as no substantial question of law arises from the Tribunal's orders. [Para 16]

Constitutional Law - Writ Petition - Maintainability – Civil Appeal against High Court's dismissal of writ petition for higher interest on compensation for surplus land acquired by the State – High Court held that writ petition for recovery of money was not maintainable – Supreme Court examined the nature of the claim and the statutory functions of the State – Held that the writ petition was maintainable as it involved public law functions and allegations of arbitrariness and discrimination – High Court's reliance on Suganmal case was misplaced. [Paras 5-7]

Interest on Compensation - Statutory Interpretation – Appeal concerning the rate of interest on compensation for acquired land – Appellant sought 9% interest per annum based on precedent cases – Respondents argued for 3% interest per annum as per statutory provisions – Supreme Court held that the statutory rate of 3% per annum applies for the first 20 years – For periods beyond 20 years, equitable principles apply, and 6% interest per annum is appropriate – Compensation and interest recalculated accordingly. [Paras 8-12]

Decision – Maintainability of Writ Petition and Interest Rate Adjustment – High Court's order set aside – Writ petition held maintainable – Interest on compensation awarded at 3% per annum for the first 20 years and 6% per annum thereafter – Appeal allowed in part, directing payment of recalculated interest within three months, with adjustments for amounts already paid. [Para 13]

Constitutional Law - Writ Petition - Maintainability – The petition under Article 32 by companies challenging the withdrawal of Hill Development Rebate by statutory notification – Supreme Court examines whether companies have fundamental rights under Article 19 and maintains a petition under Article 32 – Held that companies do not have rights under Article 19 but can claim rights under Article 14 – Writ petition maintainable on grounds of alleged violation of Article 14. [Paras 8-9]

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - Application to Statutory Notifications – Appeal concerning the withdrawal of electricity rebate by a subsequent statutory notification – Supreme Court considers whether promissory estoppel applies – Held that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against statutory powers – Withdrawal of rebate through subsequent statutory notification valid – Sections 14 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permit modification or rescission of notifications. [Paras 11-14]

Contractual Terms and Tariff Revisions - Enforcement of Agreements – Appeal addressing whether UP Power Corporation is bound by contractual terms to continue the rebate despite tariff revisions – Supreme Court examines contractual provisions and statutory authority – Held that the contractual clause allows for revision of tariff rates – No estoppel against the state for revising tariffs in larger public interest. [Paras 19-20]

Policy Decisions and Judicial Review - Court's Role in Policy Matters – Appeal concerning the court's intervention in policy decisions regarding industrial incentives – Supreme Court assesses whether policy decisions on rebates are subject to judicial review – Held that policy decisions, unless arbitrary or unreasonable, are not subject to judicial review – Policy decision of the State Government not to extend rebate upheld. [Paras 21-22]

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Court dismisses the writ petition, upholding the withdrawal of Hill Development Rebate by the notification dated 07.08.2000 – No breach of Article 14 established – Petitioners precluded from challenging the withdrawal of rebate. [Paras 24-25]

Constitutional Law - Writ Petition - Maintainability – Civil Appeal against High Court's dismissal of writ petition for higher interest on compensation for surplus land acquired by the State – High Court held that writ petition for recovery of money was not maintainable – Supreme Court examined the nature of the claim and the statutory functions of the State – Held that the writ petition was maintainable as it involved public law functions and allegations of arbitrariness and discrimination – High Court's reliance on Suganmal case was misplaced. [Paras 5-7]

Interest on Compensation - Statutory Interpretation – Appeal concerning the rate of interest on compensation for acquired land – Appellant sought 9% interest per annum based on precedent cases – Respondents argued for 3% interest per annum as per statutory provisions – Supreme Court held that the statutory rate of 3% per annum applies for the first 20 years – For periods beyond 20 years, equitable principles apply, and 6% interest per annum is appropriate – Compensation and interest recalculated accordingly. [Paras 8-12]

Decision – Maintainability of Writ Petition and Interest Rate Adjustment – High Court's order set aside – Writ petition held maintainable – Interest on compensation awarded at 3% per annum for the first 20 years and 6% per annum thereafter – Appeal allowed in part, directing payment of recalculated interest within three months, with adjustments for amounts already paid. [Para 13]

Constitutional Law - Writ Petition - Maintainability – The petition under Article 32 by companies challenging the withdrawal of Hill Development Rebate by statutory notification – Supreme Court examines whether companies have fundamental rights under Article 19 and maintains a petition under Article 32 – Held that companies do not have rights under Article 19 but can claim rights under Article 14 – Writ petition maintainable on grounds of alleged violation of Article 14. [Paras 8-9]

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - Application to Statutory Notifications – Appeal concerning the withdrawal of electricity rebate by a subsequent statutory notification – Supreme Court considers whether promissory estoppel applies – Held that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against statutory powers – Withdrawal of rebate through subsequent statutory notification valid – Sections 14 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 permit modification or rescission of notifications. [Paras 11-14]

Contractual Terms and Tariff Revisions - Enforcement of Agreements – Appeal addressing whether UP Power Corporation is bound by contractual terms to continue the rebate despite tariff revisions – Supreme Court examines contractual provisions and statutory authority – Held that the contractual clause allows for revision of tariff rates – No estoppel against the state for revising tariffs in larger public interest. [Paras 19-20]

Policy Decisions and Judicial Review - Court's Role in Policy Matters – Appeal concerning the court's intervention in policy decisions regarding industrial incentives – Supreme Court assesses whether policy decisions on rebates are subject to judicial review – Held that policy decisions, unless arbitrary or unreasonable, are not subject to judicial review – Policy decision of the State Government not to extend rebate upheld. [Paras 21-22]

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Court dismisses the writ petition, upholding the withdrawal of Hill Development Rebate by the notification dated 07.08.2000 – No breach of Article 14 established – Petitioners precluded from challenging the withdrawal of rebate. [Paras 24-25]

Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Rape – Appeal against conviction – The High Court upheld the trial court’s conviction of appellants for kidnapping and raping the victim, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine – Supreme Court found inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution's case, and noted that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable – The delay in filing the FIR and the contradictions in the victim's testimony weakened the prosecution’s case – Held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside, and appellants acquitted. [Paras 1-48]

Evidence - Reliability and Contradictions – Analysis – Held – The testimony of the victim and other prosecution witnesses contained significant contradictions and inconsistencies – Delay in filing FIR not satisfactorily explained – Medical evidence did not conclusively establish the victim’s age as below 18 years – Transfer certificate and medical reports lacked credibility – The behavior of the victim and her relatives during the alleged incident was inconsistent with the prosecution's story. [Para 20-41]

Legal Principles – Burden of Proof – Application – Held – Prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving serious offenses like kidnapping and rape – Benefit of doubt given to the appellants due to unreliable and contradictory evidence – Convictions based on improbable and inconsistent evidence cannot be sustained. [Para 19]

Decision – Appeal Allowed; Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and directed their release – Appellants acquitted of all charges due to lack of credible evidence. [Para 48]

Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Rape – Appeal against conviction – The High Court upheld the trial court’s conviction of appellants for kidnapping and raping the victim, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine – Supreme Court found inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution's case, and noted that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable – The delay in filing the FIR and the contradictions in the victim's testimony weakened the prosecution’s case – Held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside, and appellants acquitted. [Paras 1-48]

Evidence - Reliability and Contradictions – Analysis – Held – The testimony of the victim and other prosecution witnesses contained significant contradictions and inconsistencies – Delay in filing FIR not satisfactorily explained – Medical evidence did not conclusively establish the victim’s age as below 18 years – Transfer certificate and medical reports lacked credibility – The behavior of the victim and her relatives during the alleged incident was inconsistent with the prosecution's story. [Para 20-41]

Legal Principles – Burden of Proof – Application – Held – Prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving serious offenses like kidnapping and rape – Benefit of doubt given to the appellants due to unreliable and contradictory evidence – Convictions based on improbable and inconsistent evidence cannot be sustained. [Para 19]

Decision – Appeal Allowed; Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and directed their release – Appellants acquitted of all charges due to lack of credible evidence. [Para 48]

Urban Development Law - Land Acquisition - Applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act – Appeal against High Court's judgment – Appellant challenged the acquisition of land by the BDA, contending that the lapse provisions under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act should apply – Supreme Court held that the BDA Act is a complete code in itself and the specific time frames under the BDA Act exclude the applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act – Acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act do not lapse merely because the award is not made within two years as specified under Section 11A – High Court's decision affirmed. [Paras 1-36]

Legislation by Incorporation vs. Legislation by Reference – Interpretation – Analysis – Held – The BDA Act incorporates the Land Acquisition Act by reference only to the extent necessary for procedural aspects of land acquisition, not including the lapse provisions of Section 11A – The BDA Act is intended to be a self-contained code with its own specific time frames and procedural requirements, which take precedence over the Land Acquisition Act. [Para 17-29]

Constitutional Provisions – Legislative Competence – Analysis – Held – The legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the BDA Act is traceable to Entries 5 and 18 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution – The BDA Act deals with planned development and incidental land acquisition, falling under the State List – No conflict or repugnancy with the Central Land Acquisition Act, hence, BDA Act prevails in its domain. [Para 37-45]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed; High Court Judgment Affirmed – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s judgment – Affirmed that the BDA Act’s provisions prevail over Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act in cases of land acquisition for planned development – No order as to costs. [Para 46-47]

Election Law - Non-compliance and Material Effect – Appeal against High Court's dismissal – Appellant challenged the election of the returned candidate on the ground of non-compliance with Sections 25, 31, 56, 57, and 58 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Rules 3 and 15 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 – Polling took place at a non-notified polling station initially – High Court held non-compliance but found no material effect on the election result – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings, emphasizing the requirement to prove that non-compliance materially affected the result of the election – Appellant's evidence deemed hearsay and insufficient. [Paras 1-27]

Burden of Proof - Material Effect on Election Result – Legal Interpretation – Analysis – Held – To declare an election void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, it must be proven that the non-compliance materially affected the result – The burden of proof lies on the election petitioner, who must provide cogent and reliable evidence – Mere allegations or hearsay evidence are insufficient – The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, not broad probabilities. [Para 13-16]

Evidence - Hearsay Rule and Its Applicability – Legal Principles – Analysis – Held – Hearsay evidence is inadmissible in election petitions – Testimonies based on information from others are not reliable and cannot be used to establish material facts – Courts require direct evidence from witnesses who have personal knowledge of the facts. [Para 18-22]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed; High Court Judgment Affirmed – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment that the non-compliance with election laws did not materially affect the election result – Appellant failed to provide direct and reliable evidence to prove that the outcome was impacted by the initial polling at a non-notified station – No costs awarded. [Para 26-27]