Preventive Detention – Right to Representation – Legibility of Documents – High Court set aside the detention orders on grounds of failure to supply legible copies of documents relied upon by the detaining authority – Supreme Court upheld that this failure violated the detenu's fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution – Appeal dismissed – Orders upheld [Paras 7-10, 16-17, 21-23].

Article 22(5) – Fundamental Right – Representation – Detention order quashed due to non-supply of legible documents needed for effective representation – Fundamental right to make representation under Article 22(5) emphasized – High Court's decisions upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 17-19, 21-24].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court judgments upheld – Orders of preventive detention declared illegal and set aside.

Commercial Courts – Jurisdiction – Arbitration – High Court held the State Government's notification to confer jurisdiction on Civil Judge (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts is in line with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision – Sections 3 and 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, prevail over Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appeals dismissed [Paras 10-12].

Arbitration Proceedings – Principal Civil Court – Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction for arbitration matters under the Arbitration Act, 1996, shall lie with the Commercial Courts established under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and not exclusively with the Principal Civil Court – Legislative intent for speedy disposal of commercial disputes upheld [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Notification by State of Odisha deemed valid.

Advocates Act – GPA Holder – Legal Representation – High Court held the appellant’s wife, as his GPA holder, cannot represent him despite being an advocate – Supreme Court held Section 32 of Advocates Act, 1961 permits non-advocates to appear with court’s permission – No bar for GPA holder if enrolled as an advocate – Previous High Court orders permitting representation by appellant’s wife as GPA holder upheld – Appeal allowed [Paras 3-5, 14, 16, 17].

Res Judicata – Previous Orders – High Court’s previous orders allowing appellant’s wife to represent as GPA holder found binding – Supreme Court held that principles of res judicata apply, barring re-litigation of the issue – Appeal allowed [Paras 6-11, 15].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Previous permission for appellant’s wife to represent as GPA holder reinstated.

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation – Enhancement – The appellant sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident leading to lifelong disabilities – Tribunal dismissed the claim on technical grounds – High Court awarded Rs. 13,34,000/- – Appellant sought enhancement – Supreme Court considered severity of injuries, disabilities, and future needs – Enhanced compensation to Rs. 24,90,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition – Directions issued for investment and disbursement of compensation amount [Paras 3-6, 10-15].

Permanent Disability – Attender Charges – High Court granted a lump sum of Rs. 1 Lakh for attender charges – Supreme Court enhanced to Rs. 17 Lakhs considering lifelong need for two attendants – Application of multiplier method upheld [Paras 10.1.1-10.1.4].

Pain and Suffering – Loss of Amenities – High Court awarded Rs. 3 Lakhs – Supreme Court enhanced to Rs. 6 Lakhs following precedents for over 90% disability cases [Paras 2, 10.1.4].

Marriage Prospects – No compensation awarded by High Court – Supreme Court granted Rs. 3 Lakhs considering impact on appellant’s prospects due to physical condition [Paras 10, 10.1.4].

Future Medical Treatment – High Court awarded Rs. 1 Lakh – Supreme Court enhanced by an additional Rs. 1 Lakh recognizing the ongoing medical needs [Paras 10, 10.1.4].

Special Diet – Supreme Court granted an additional Rs. 90,000/- for special dietary needs [Paras 10, 10.1.4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment modified – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 24,90,000/- – Directions for investment and periodic release of funds for appellant’s care and future needs.

Tariff Orders – Truing Up – Amendment Not Permissible – High Court held that it is not permissible to amend the tariff order made under Section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003, during the truing up exercise – A tariff order is quasi-judicial in nature and becomes final and binding unless amended or revoked under Section 64(6) or set aside by the Appellate Authority – At the stage of truing up, the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) cannot change the rules or methodology used in the initial tariff determination by altering the basic principles and issues involved in the initial projection of ARR – Appeals allowed – Orders of the APTEL set aside [Paras 51, 55].

Truing Up – Principles – The DERC at the stage of truing up cannot rethink de novo on the basic principles, premises, and issues involved in the initial projections of revenue requirement – The truing up stage cannot be used to retrospectively change the methodology/principles of tariff determination – Appeals allowed – Orders of the APTEL set aside [Paras 53, 66].

Interest on Consumer Security Deposits – Disallowance – DERC disallowed interest on consumer security deposits retained by DPCL – High Court held that interest on consumer security deposits is a legitimate expense – Appeals allowed – Orders of the APTEL set aside – Directions issued to DERC to allow interest on consumer security deposits [Paras 71-72].

Enforcement Sales – Assessment – High Court held that the assessed energy has to be considered as supply by the appellants in enforcement cases – Appeals allowed – Orders of the APTEL set aside – Directions issued to DERC to consider assessed energy for calculation of enforcement sales and allow the impact of the same along with carrying costs [Paras 79-80].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of the APTEL and DERC set aside – Directions issued for fresh assessment based on clarified principles.

Consumer Law – Insurance Claim – Repudiation – National Commission's Error – The National Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by interpreting the insurance policy's nature, altering its coverage scope beyond the repudiation grounds – State Commission dismissed the claim without adequate examination of policy terms – Appeal allowed – Orders of both Commissions set aside – Case remanded to State Commission for fresh decision based on repudiation grounds [Paras 14-15].

Insurance Policy – Coverage Interpretation – National Commission wrongly construed the change in the insurance policy from "anywhere in India to anywhere in India" to a "Sales Turnover policy" – Proper interpretation required within repudiation grounds – Appeal allowed – Directions for fresh assessment by State Commission [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of NCDRC and SCDRC set aside – Matter remanded to State Commission for fresh decision based on initial grounds of repudiation – No order as to costs.

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Just Compensation – Supreme Court held that the compensation determined under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act must be fair, reasonable, and equitable – High Court's grant of compensation was inadequate – Enhanced compensation awarded [Paras 2, 8-12, 14-15].

Future Prospects – Income Assessment – Supreme Court applied the principles from Pranay Sethi's case, adding 50% to the actual salary for future prospects – Monthly income taken as Rs. 13,817/- after deducting certain allowances – Annual income calculated at Rs. 1,65,810/- – Multiplier of 16 applied for loss of dependency [Paras 8-12].

Conventional Heads – Compensation – Supreme Court awarded Rs. 15,000/- each for 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses' – Additional Rs. 35,000/- for 'loss of spousal consortium' and Rs. 80,000/- for 'loss of parental consortium' to minor children – Deducted excessive amounts awarded under 'loss of love and affection' by the High Court [Paras 13-19].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Enhanced compensation of Rs. 10,29,260/- awarded – Directions issued for payment within 8 weeks with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization [Paras 21-22].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Accident – High Court's reduction of compensation from Rs. 2,064,000/- to Rs. 1,134,136/- challenged – Supreme Court found High Court erred by not considering future prospects and reducing the interest rate – Adjusted notional income with a 40% rise for future prospects and a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses – Compensation recalculated under loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and conventional heads – Ordered Rs. 1,387,790/- as compensation with 7.5% p.a. interest from the claim petition filing date till realization [Paras 1-5].

Future Prospects – Compensation Calculation – High Court did not award future prospects in determining compensation – Supreme Court applied 40% increase for future prospects based on Pranay Sethi case [Paras 2-4].

Interest Rate – Reduction by High Court – High Court reduced interest rate from 9% to 6% – Supreme Court corrected interest rate to 7.5% p.a. considering the time elapsed since the accident [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – High Court's judgment modified – Appellants awarded Rs. 1,387,790/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from claim petition filing date till realization – No order as to costs [Para 5].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Accident – High Court reduced compensation from Rs. 3,239,000/- to Rs. 1,970,000/- – Supreme Court found the reduction of the deceased's notional income from Rs. 17,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- erroneous – Adequate compensation recalculated considering documentary evidence, future prospects, and correct notional income – Compensation for loss of dependency recalculated to Rs. 2,795,520/- – Total compensation awarded Rs. 2,973,520/- with 9% p.a. interest from claim petition filing date till realization [Paras 1-27].

Determination of Notional Income – High Court's reduction of deceased's monthly income from Rs. 17,500/- to Rs. 10,000/- deemed incorrect – Supreme Court established the deceased's income at Rs. 15,600/- based on documentary evidence and statutory minimum wages [Paras 16-22].

Future Prospects – Addition of 40% for future prospects as per Pranay Sethi's case – Loss of dependency recalculated using a multiplier of 16, with a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses [Paras 16-22].

Compensation under Non-conventional Heads – Insurance Company's objection to compensation under non-conventional heads not entertained due to lack of appeal – Legal question on compensation under non-conventional heads kept open [Para 23].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – High Court's judgment modified – Appellants awarded Rs. 2,973,520/- with interest at 9% p.a. from claim petition filing date till realization – Enhanced compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company within six weeks, apportioned among the Appellants as per Tribunal's award [Paras 24-27].