Competition Law – Anti-Competitive Agreement – Section 3(3)(b) – Federation boycott – Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation (KFEF) found to have engaged in anti-competitive conduct by threatening distributors and boycotting Crown Theatre for dealing independently – CCI held KFEF and its office bearers guilty – Appeal against COMPAT’s order that set aside penalties on two office-bearers on natural justice grounds – Held: CCI’s notice dated 10.06.2015 satisfied legal requirements, and principles of natural justice were complied with – Penalties restored [Paras 1-3, 37-43, 68].

Due Process – Show-Cause Notice – Section 27 and Regulation 48 – Whether second show-cause notice is mandatory before imposition of penalty – Held: No requirement for separate penalty notice under the Act or Regulations – Furnishing of DG Report and oral hearing suffice – Appellate Tribunal erred in reading additional procedural safeguards into the statute [Paras 15, 35, 52-57].

Section 48 – Liability of Office Bearers – Federation deemed a company under Section 48 – President and General Secretary (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) held liable for KFEF’s anti-competitive conduct – They failed to prove lack of knowledge or due diligence – Monetary penalties and behavioural remedies imposed – Directions disassociating them from KFEF restored [Paras 41-43, 64-66].

Proportionality – Doctrine of Proportionality – Penalties of 10% of average income not disproportionate – Behavioural remedy barring participation in KFEF’s governance for 2 years justified in light of repeat offences and prior penalty in Case No. 45/2012 – Held: Penalty not shocking or excessive – Consistent with legislative intent to make CCI an effective regulator unlike defunct MRTP Commission [Paras 47-51, 64-66].

Natural Justice – No Violation – DG Report named Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as key decision-makers – Respondents were issued notice, given opportunity to reply, submit income documents, and were heard – COMPAT’s finding of procedural violation was incorrect – Violation of natural justice not established [Paras 39-41, 66-67].

Freedom of Association – Article 19(1)(c) – Challenge to personal liability of office-bearers under Article 19(1)(c) rejected – Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(4) justified to curb unethical and anti-competitive practices – CCI’s powers under Section 27 not unconstitutional [Para 67].

Decision: Appeal allowed – COMPAT’s order set aside insofar as it interfered with penalty and behavioural remedies – CCI’s full order dated 08.09.2015 restored – Disassociation of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from KFEF to take effect from 01.12.2025 for 2 years – Compliance to be reported within 3 months [Para 68].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Resolution Plan – Concurrent Findings – Appeals under Section 62 lie only on a question of law – NCLT and NCLAT concurrently upheld JSW’s plan with minor modification regarding EBITDA – Held: Appeals not maintainable in absence of statutory grounds under Section 61 – Concurrent findings not to be disturbed unless perverse, arbitrary or contrary to statute [Paras 87-96].

IBC – Clause Permitting CoC to Extend Implementation Period – Validity – Clause authorising CoC to extend effective date of implementation by 66% majority not open-ended – No renegotiation or withdrawal of plan involved – Distinguished from Ebix Singapore and Amtek Auto – Held: Such discretion to CoC permissible to address exigencies – Delay not attributable to JSW or CoC but due to litigation, ED attachments and interim orders – Plan validly implemented on 26.03.2021 [Paras 97-128].

IBC – Compliance with IBBI (CIRP) Regulations – Priority of OCs – Resolution Plan submitted when Regulation 38 mandated only liquidation value to OCs – Subsequent amendment (05.10.2018) providing priority complied with via addendum – Ex gratia payment of Rs. 350 crores to OCs beyond entitlement – Later amendment (27.11.2019) inapplicable as prospective – No contravention of law – Promoters cannot raise issue not agitated by OCs [Paras 130-143].

IBC – Upfront Infusion of Funds – CCDs as Equity – JSW infused Rs. 8,450 crore by compulsorily convertible debentures – CCDs mandatorily convertible into equity treated as equity instruments in law (Narendra Kumar Maheshwari, IFCI Ltd.) – Upfront commitment fulfilled – Commercial wisdom of CoC paramount and non-justiciable [Paras 144-152].

IBC – Distribution of EBITDA – NCLT directed distribution based on NCLAT Essar – NCLAT relying on SC Essar held EBITDA not distributable absent provision in RfRP – CoC initially opposed distribution, later took contrary stand in affidavit post-review – Held: RfRP silent, no such claim permissible after plan approval – EBITDA to remain with corporate debtor – Finality of resolution plan cannot be unsettled [Paras 153-171, 185-190].

IBC – Classification of Contingent Creditors – Jaldhi – Claim based on foreign arbitral awards – Withdrawn execution petitions before Calcutta High Court – Awards not deemed decrees under Section 49 of Arbitration Act – Stand of creditor inconsistent – CoC’s commercial wisdom in classifying as contingent creditor upheld – Non-justiciable [Paras 172-180].

IBC – Pre-CIRP Dues – Medi & Darcl – Payments made during CIRP adjusted against services rendered – No CoC approval for pre-CIRP dues – Must be treated only under resolution plan – Appeals dismissed [Paras 181-184].

IBC – Section 32A Immunity – Corporate debtor’s liability for pre-CIRP offences ceases after plan approval – ED attachments and prosecutions could not continue once management changed – Delay due to pendency of such proceedings not attributable to JSW – Implementation valid [Paras 105-123, 116-118].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – NCLAT order dated 17.02.2020 upholding resolution plan of JSW Steel Limited affirmed – Implementation of plan on 26.03.2021 valid – Contingent claims, EBITDA demands, and objections of ex-promoters rejected – Section 32A immunity reiterated – Resolution Plan attained finality [Paras 185-192].

Motor Accident Compensation – Determination of Income – Appellant, 23-year-old loader, lost right leg in lorry accident (01.12.2015) – Tribunal fixed income at ₹9,000 p.m., assessed 85% disability, applied multiplier 18, awarded ₹19,35,400 under various heads – High Court reduced income to ₹8,000 relying on Workmen’s Compensation Act ceiling, further considering only 60% thereof, thereby reducing award to ₹10,41,022 – Supreme Court: High Court erred in importing Workmen’s Compensation Act parameters into MV Act claim – Once claimant elected remedy under MV Act, insurer cannot seek application of Workmen’s Compensation Act provisions – Tribunal’s award restored [Paras 3–6].

Future Prospects – Appellant argued addition of 40% for future prospects (Pranay Sethi) – Court held not permissible since claimant had not appealed against Tribunal award, only insurer’s appeal considered by High Court – Hence no enhancement beyond Tribunal’s award [Para 6.1].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 23.01.2020 set aside – Tribunal’s award of ₹19,35,400 restored – No further addition for future prospects permitted.

Motor Accident Compensation – Quantum – Future Medical Expenses – Income Assessment – Pillion rider (aged 20) rendered paraplegic (C4–5 fracture) after being run over by car driven rashly – Liability not in dispute; appeal limited to (i) acceptance of medical bills and (ii) income for loss of earning capacity – Insurance company’s objection to bills from Goa rejected; Court accepts verification and directs ₹20 lakhs towards medical expenses beyond HC award; no interest if paid within 4 months – Monthly income reasonably fixed at ₹5,000 (2001) for a B.Com final-year student enrolled with ICAI; 40% future prospects and multiplier 18 applied as per Pranay Sethi – Loss of income computed at ₹15,12,000; total compensation recalculated at ₹40,34,356 with 9% interest from filing till realisation – Additional ₹20 lakhs for medical expenses payable within 4 months, failing which 9% interest from judgment date – Appeal allowed with modification [Paras 2–6].

Insurance Bills – Verification & Place of Treatment – Objection that bills were from Goa/Bengaluru and not Delhi rejected; insurer with nationwide presence cannot plead inability to verify – Justified relocation to Goa due to pneumonia and adverse climate in Delhi – Directed tabulated bills; ₹21 lakhs verified as genuine; net ₹20 lakhs ordered (after HC’s additional ₹1 lakh) towards medical expenses incurred over two decades of 100% disability [Paras 2–3].

Income Determination – Prospective Career – Minimum wages for a “skilled worker” in 2001 (₹3,352/₹3,339) not appropriate proxy for a graduate on track for CA – Court fixes ₹5,000 p.m. (2001) as reasonable; adds 40% future prospects; applies multiplier 18 per Pranay Sethi; computes loss of income at ₹15,12,000 [Para 4–5].

Recalculation of Award – High Court components retained (₹14 lakhs under conventional heads; medical expenses ₹11,22,356) – Total compensation fixed at ₹40,34,356 with 9% interest from petition till realisation – Direction to pay within four months [Para 5].

Additional Direction – ₹20 lakhs towards future medical expenses payable within 4 months; no interest if paid in time; otherwise 9% from judgment date [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award enhanced and directions issued regarding payment timelines and interest.

Judicial Services – Eligibility Criteria – Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2023 – Rule 5(5.1)(a) restricting eligibility to advocates practicing in Telangana High Court or its subordinate courts for not less than 7 years – Petitioners challenged rejection of their applications on ground of discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 233 – High Court dismissed writ petitions holding Rule valid – Supreme Court refrained from adjudicating constitutionality of Rules but permitted qualified petitioners to be appointed as District Judges as a special case without treating it as precedent [Paras 4, 6-9, 11-12].

Recruitment – Judicial Service Examinations – Petitioners permitted by interim orders to participate in written and viva-voce examinations – They secured qualifying marks – Supreme Court directed High Court to declare results and proceed with verification of antecedents – Qualified candidates to be appointed within two months but without arrears of benefits – Seniority to be reckoned from date of actual appointment; existing appointees to rank senior [Paras 8-10].

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Connected Petitions – Writ petitioners challenging Bar Association enrolment requirement also permitted to appear in exams pursuant to interim order – Supreme Court extended similar relief, directing declaration of results and appointment if qualified [Para 10].

Constitutional Law – Scope of Relief – Supreme Court clarified that directions were confined to peculiar facts and circumstances and would not operate as precedent – All questions of law kept open for determination in future [Para 11].

Decision: Appeals, SLPs, and Writ Petition disposed of – Qualified petitioners directed to be appointed as District Judges as special case – No precedent – Parties to bear own costs.

Motor Accident Compensation – Insurance Policy Validity – Fraud Allegation – Deceased, 21-year-old security guard earning ₹4,000/month, died in road accident on 21.06.2006 – Tribunal awarded ₹3,87,000 with 7% interest against insurer based on insurance policy produced by vehicle owner showing coverage from 17.06.2006 – Insurer later discovered policy validity was fraudulently altered, actual period being 28.06.2006–27.06.2007 – Review before Tribunal dismissed; order not challenged in appeal – High Court upheld Tribunal’s award – Supreme Court: Allegation of fraud not proved during main proceedings, insurer bound to satisfy award – However, in equity, insurer allowed to recover 50% of compensation from owner and driver [Paras 3–6].

Procedural Law – Review Petition – Tribunal rightly dismissed insurer’s review application for lack of review power under Motor Vehicles Act – Insurer’s failure to challenge review dismissal before High Court fatal to its contention [Paras 3.2, 5.2].

Equitable Relief – Recovery Rights – Although insurer liable to pay claimants, permitted to recover 50% of compensation from vehicle owner and driver to balance equities, given fraudulent alteration of policy dates by owner [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with modification – Insurer directed to pay award, but entitled to recover 50% from vehicle owner and driver – Any unpaid compensation to be deposited within six weeks.

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Compliance of Supreme Court Order – Jurisdiction of Trial Court – Supreme Court had directed the Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Alipore to dispose of case AC-2053/2017 within six weeks from order dated 18.01.2024 – Judicial Magistrate, upon failing to conclude trial in time, passed order on 19.03.2024 declaring loss of jurisdiction due to lapse of time – Supreme Court expresses displeasure – Held: Judicial Officer cannot abdicate jurisdiction merely due to expiry of time fixed by Supreme Court – Proper course was to seek extension of time from higher court [Paras 4–6].

Judicial Conduct – Accountability – Supreme Court directs District Judge concerned to seek written explanation from the Judicial Magistrate – To report back to Supreme Court within one month explaining reasons and circumstances under which the Magistrate concluded he lacked jurisdiction – Directions issued to ensure proper procedural compliance and judicial discipline [Para 6].

Condonation of Delay – Delay in filing modification application condoned – Petitioners granted two weeks’ time to file detailed response explaining delay in conclusion of trial proceedings [Paras 1, 7].

Decision: Delay condoned – Registry directed to forward copy of order to relevant authorities – District Judge to obtain explanation from concerned Magistrate and submit report within one month – Petitioners allowed two weeks to file response.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 & 37 – Scope of interference – International Commercial Arbitration – EPC contractor SEPCO obtained arbitral award of ~₹995 crores against GMRKE Ltd. – Single Judge dismissed GKEL’s Section 34 challenge – Division Bench allowed appeal under Section 37, set aside award and Single Judge’s order, holding Tribunal rewrote contract, ignored “No Waiver” and “No Oral Modification” clauses, recorded mistaken facts, applied common law termination contrary to contract, and treated Performance Guarantee Test as completed despite failure of Unit Characteristics Test – Also found Tribunal discriminatory in accepting SEPCO’s claims without notices but rejecting GKEL’s counterclaims for lack of notices – Supreme Court upheld Division Bench – Held: Scope of interference under Sections 34/37 is narrow, but award violative of Sections 18 and 28(3), contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law and shocking to conscience, can be set aside – Appeal dismissed [Paras 59–63, 83–124].

Arbitration – Setting Aside of Arbitral Award – Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Arbitral Tribunal passed an award in favour of SEPCO awarding approximately INR 995 Crores – High Court Single Judge rejected challenge under Section 34 – Division Bench allowed appeal under Section 37 and set aside both the award and Section 34 Judgment – Supreme Court upheld the decision – Held: Arbitral Tribunal committed jurisdictional errors, modified contract terms, violated natural justice, and acted contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law – Justifies setting aside of entire award [Paras 1, 3, 14, 41, 116, 123–125]

Contract Interpretation – EPC Contract – Tribunal interpreted emails and Jinan Agreement as waiver of contractual notice clauses despite express “No Oral Modification” and “No Waiver” provisions – Tribunal relied on equitable estoppel based on informal communication – Held: Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by overriding explicit contractual terms – Such reasoning not supported by evidence – Discriminatory and contrary to Section 28(3) of the 1996 Act [Paras 10, 17–18, 25, 84–86, 90–95, 99, 103, 121]

Natural Justice – Discriminatory Treatment by Arbitral Tribunal – SEPCO awarded claims despite failure to give contractual notice – GMRKE’s counterclaims rejected for same reason – Tribunal relied on unpleaded estoppel to favour SEPCO – No opportunity given to GMRKE to respond – Held: Tribunal violated Section 18 and Section 34(2)(a)(iii) – Discrimination shocked the conscience of the Court – Arbitral Award rightly set aside [Paras 20–21, 104–107, 114, 116–121]

Estoppel and Waiver – Unpleaded Grounds – Tribunal held waiver of notice arose from March 2012 communications – SEPCO never pleaded waiver or estoppel for that period – Tribunal created its own theory without giving GMRKE chance to present evidence – Held: Violated audi alteram partem – Application of estoppel failed to meet test under Rock Advertising and Indian Evidence Act – Invalid under law [Paras 10, 20–21, 86–87, 99–100, 105]

Performance Guarantee Test – Milestone Conditions Ignored – Tribunal awarded INR 255 Crores to SEPCO for successful completion of Performance Guarantee Test – However, Unit Characteristic Test (precondition) for Unit 1 had failed – Held: Tribunal rewrote milestone conditions – Awarded amounts contractually not due – Violation of contract and public policy under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) – Division Bench right in interfering [Paras 12, 37, 102–103, 120]

Notice Requirement – Contractual Condition Precedent – Amended CWEETC Agreement mandated written notices for claims – Tribunal excused SEPCO’s failure to serve notices while penalizing GMRKE for same – Held: Tribunal's selective waiver approach undermined equality and violated Section 18 – Tribunal cannot override express condition precedent without written modification per contract [Paras 10, 17, 87–88, 107, 121]

Judicial Review – Scope under Sections 34 and 37 – Limited but Not Toothless – Supreme Court reiterated that courts do not sit in appeal over awards – However, they must intervene when there is perversity, jurisdictional error, or violation of public policy – Division Bench rightly found that Single Judge failed to apply correct test – Tribunal's findings failed Wednesbury Reasonableness – Reappreciation was warranted [Paras 57–73, 114, 122–123]

Tribunal Exceeded Mandate – Modification of Contract – Tribunal held SEPCO had common law right of termination and awarded claims post demobilization – Agreement contained exclusive termination clauses excluding common law remedies – Held: Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by resurrecting repudiatory breach rights excluded by contract – Violated Section 28(3) and fundamental policy of Indian law [Paras 12, 38, 121]

Bias – Single Judge Erred in Dismissing Challenge – GMRKE alleged bias and procedural irregularity by Tribunal – Single Judge dismissed without proper reasoning – Held: Single Judge's findings were perverse – GMRKE could not have anticipated tribunal’s discriminatory award – Division Bench rightly found procedural irregularity and natural justice violations [Paras 22, 40, 101, 117–118]

International Commercial Arbitration – Seat in India – Substantive Law of England – Tribunal and Indian Courts bound by 1996 Act – Held: Despite English law governing substance, award must comply with Indian public policy due to Indian seat – Tribunal’s errors reviewable under Indian law – SEPCO's reliance on Indian precedents confirms applicability [Paras 75–83]

Waiver Must be Unequivocal – Mere Emails Insufficient – Tribunal relied on 2012 emails as waiver of notice – Contract explicitly required written and signed modification – No unequivocal words or conduct proven – Held: Tribunal misapplied waiver and estoppel – Failed test of deliberate relinquishment – Contrary to ICA Sections 62 & 63 and settled law [Paras 29–34, 84–86, 99]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Arbitral Award and Section 34 Judgment rightly set aside by High Court Division Bench – Held: Tribunal violated express contractual terms, principles of equality, and natural justice – Discrimination in application of notice condition and rewriting of contract shocked conscience of Court – Entire Arbitral Award unsustainable – No severance possible – No costs [Paras 115–125]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Prevention of Corruption – Bribery Allegations – Complaint alleged offer of ₹2 crores and later ₹5 crores to MLA to abstain or vote in MLC elections – FIR registered belatedly on 31.05.2015 based on audio-video recordings of sting operation – Allegations against A4 vague and unconnected to subsequent alleged transaction – A4 not present at scene of occurrence – Court held complaint against A4 casual, improbable, and lacking nexus – High Court rightly quashed FIR against A4 – No interference warranted [Paras 5–8].

Quashing of FIR – Scope – State argued High Court conducted “mini-trial” while exercising quashing jurisdiction – Supreme Court held High Court’s detailed reasoning, though lengthy, did not amount to mini-trial – Brevity not essential if reasons are justified – Quashing valid where allegations fail to disclose cognizable offence [Paras 2–4].

Procedural Law – Delay in Registration of FIR – Complaint dated 28.05.2015 by MLA; FIR registered only on 31.05.2015 – Delay and lack of contemporaneous registration under Section 154 CrPC noted – Weakens prosecution case against A4 [Para 6].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – High Court order quashing FIR against A4 upheld – No material linking A4 to bribery allegations.