Family Law – Interim Maintenance – Appellant sought full payment of arrears of interim maintenance – Respondent directed to pay only 20% of the total arrears by the High Court – Supreme Court modifies this, directing payment of Rs. 2 crores as a one-time settlement considering financial status, social standing, and ongoing litigation – Judgment reaffirms that maintenance is to prevent destitution rather than punishment [Paras 1-33].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Dissolution – Marriage between parties found irretrievably broken down due to prolonged separation and multiple failed reconciliations – Supreme Court exercises its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage, underscoring the futility of continuing a dead marriage [Paras 14-21].

Maintenance Considerations – Permanent Alimony – Principles for determining alimony discussed – Factors include income, lifestyle, dependents, obligations, and future prospects of both parties – Balanced approach towards determining fair amount – Rs. 2 crores fixed as permanent alimony to be paid by respondent to appellant within four months [Paras 22-33].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Marriage dissolved under Article 142 – Permanent alimony of Rs. 2 crores awarded – All pending cases to be disposed of accordingly [Paras 34-37].

SEBI Regulation – Liquidation of Attached Assets – Petitioners sought directions for SEBI to liquidate assets and distribute proceeds to investors – Court constituted a High-Powered Sale Committee (HPSC) to auction assets and ensure investor claims are satisfied – HPSC to involve experts, create a property database, and engage e-auction service providers [Paras 1-18].

Article 142 of the Constitution – Complete Justice – Court invoked Article 142 powers to constitute HPSC to address the complexity and ensure justice – SEBI and Petitioners directed to fully cooperate with HPSC – Petitioners’ interim bail granted due to long incarceration and ongoing trials [Paras 6-17].

Investor Refund Process – HPSC tasked to identify investors, determine refund amounts, and manage the escrow account – Refund process to be publicized widely – Emphasis on a transparent and efficient refund process [Para 8].

Remuneration of HPSC Members – Court outlined remuneration for HPSC Chairperson and members, reimbursable from sale proceeds – HPSC to ensure timely liquidation and refund process [Para 11-12].

Administrative Assistance – SEBI to assist HPSC with office setup and infrastructure – HPSC to manage website and process claims/objections – Completion of the sale process targeted within one year [Para 10].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – HPSC constituted to oversee asset liquidation and investor refund – Petitioners granted interim bail – SEBI and concerned states directed to cooperate with HPSC [Paras 7, 17].

Sentencing Principles – Proportionality and Gravity – The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that sentencing should be proportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence committed – The courts must ensure that the punishment reflects the seriousness of the crime and serves the interests of society while not being unduly lenient or harsh [Paras 2-4].

Bigamy – Serious Offence – The Court emphasized that bigamy, as defined under Section 494, IPC, is a serious offence deserving substantial punishment – The maximum sentence prescribed is seven years of imprisonment, reflecting the legislature's view on its seriousness [Paras 14-15].

Undue Leniency – Flea-Bite Sentence – The High Court's imposition of 'imprisonment till the rising of the court' was deemed too lenient for the serious offence of bigamy – The Court held that such a sentence did not align with the principles of proportionality and did not serve as an adequate deterrent [Paras 15-18].

Enhancement of Sentence – The Supreme Court modified the sentence imposed on the accused from 'imprisonment till the rising of the court' to six months of simple imprisonment – The fine was also adjusted from Rs. 20,000 each to Rs. 2,000 each, with a default sentence of three months of simple imprisonment for non-payment [Paras 19-20].

Special Circumstances – Child’s Welfare – Considering the welfare of the child born to the accused, the Court ordered a staggered surrender for serving the sentences – First, the second accused would serve the sentence, followed by the first accused after the second accused's release, ensuring continuous parental care for the child [Para 20].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court enhanced the sentence of the accused to six months of simple imprisonment with a reduced fine – The Court ordered a special arrangement for the surrender of the accused to protect the welfare of their young child [Paras 20-21].

Compromise Decree – Legal Validity – The compromise decree dated 20.08.1984 was contested on the grounds that no written compromise signed by the parties was presented, thus failing the requirements under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – The Supreme Court held that mere statements by parties do not satisfy the legal mandate of a written and signed compromise – Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC requires a lawful agreement in writing, without which the decree cannot be considered valid [Paras 12-23].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Applicability – The Court analyzed the effect of the sale deed executed on 22.08.1983 during the pendency of the appeal – Held that the sale deed is not affected by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the TP Act as the statements by parties indicated collusive conduct – The purchaser's rights were upheld despite the pending litigation, as the sale deed was not challenged [Paras 17-18].

Compromise and Agreement – Requirements under CPC – Emphasized that a compromise decree must be based on a written agreement signed by the parties and proven before the Court – The lack of such a document rendered the alleged compromise in the first appeal invalid [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court and first Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s judgment dismissing the suit confirmed – Reiterated the necessity of strict adherence to procedural requirements for compromises under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC [Paras 24-25].

E-Auction Process – Bid Mistake – The appellant's bid of 140.10% in an e-auction for a mining lease, significantly higher than the preceding bid of 104.05%, was claimed to be a typographical error – The Supreme Court held that the system's lack of a mechanism to rectify such errors and the appellant’s immediate attempt to inform the respondents constituted a bona fide mistake – The Court recognized the principles of proportionality and reasonableness in addressing the appellant’s grievance [Paras 10-20].

Equitable Relief – Mistake in Bid – The Court applied the principles from W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd., allowing equitable relief when a mistake is promptly reported – The appellant’s actions were deemed bona fide, and the error was not intended to gain undue advantage [Paras 15-19].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Applying the doctrine, the Court noted that forfeiture of the entire security deposit for a bona fide error was punitive and disproportionate – Directed the appellant to pay Rs 3 crore instead, balancing state and private interests [Paras 23-25].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Impugned communication quashed – Directed fresh e-auction and appellant to pay Rs 3 crore to the first respondent, failing which the bank guarantee may be encashed – Part of the amount to be used for local charitable purposes [Paras 26-27].

Pay Scale Revision – Historical Context – Controversy centered on the pay scale revisions of SDI/ABSA and DBSA compared to Headmasters following the Fifth Central Pay Commission's recommendations – The 2001 Order revised Headmasters' pay scales but not SDI/ABSA and DBSA, leading to perceived discrepancies [Paras 4-10].

Doctrine of Merger – Application – The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's judgment dated 06.05.2002 merged with its own order dated 08.12.2010 – High Court's assumption that its decision remained enforceable was erroneous [Paras 39-44].

Equitable Relief – Recovery of Excess Payment – The Supreme Court upheld the Single Judge's direction against recovering excess payments made to retired SDI/ABSA and DBSA, adhering to the principles in State of Punjab v. Rafique Masih [Para 47].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Observed that forfeiture of the entire security deposit for a bona fide error was punitive and disproportionate – Directed the appellant to pay Rs 3 crore instead, balancing state and private interests [Paras 23-25].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – 2011 Order approved – Respondents entitled to the pay scale as per the 2011 Order, with no recovery of excess payments – Arrears to be paid with 7% interest per annum [Paras 60-61].

Exemption from Fees – Market Fee vs. Rural Development Fee – Appeal against the denial of exemption from Rural Development Fee under the 2003 Industrial Policy – Respondent sought exemption, claiming similarity with other industries granted such benefits – High Court dismissed initial writ and subsequent modification application – Supreme Court finds both fees distinct under separate statutes – Policy only explicitly exempts Market Fee, not Rural Development Fee – Exemption from Market Fee does not imply exemption from Rural Development Fee [Paras 7-30].

Interpretation of Industrial Policy, 2003 – Distinction between fees levied under different statutes – High Court’s non-adjudication on merits regarding the exemption – Supreme Court emphasizes clear separation of statutory provisions and objectives of the two Acts – Respondent’s assumption of combined exemption deemed overreaching policy’s scope [Paras 21-24].

Effect of State Communications – Analysis of various notes and letters relied upon by Respondent – Supreme Court notes withdrawal of key letters and clarifies non-application of exemptions – Subsequent clarifications reinforce separate consideration for exemptions under Market Fee and Rural Development Fee [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders dated 27.01.2010 and 24.09.2010 set aside – High Court’s dismissal of Civil W.P. No. 14847 of 2009 upheld – No exemption from Rural Development Fee granted – Pending applications disposed of [Para 30-31].

Overcharging – Recovery Powers – The NPPA issued demand notices for overcharging on the drug Roscilox, requiring the appellant to deposit both the overcharged principal amount and the interest – The NPPA's authority to recover overcharged amounts is rooted in Paragraph 13 of the DPCO, which empowers the government to recover amounts accrued from charging prices higher than those fixed or notified under the DPCO [Paras 4-5].

Definitions – Dealer and Distributor – The DPCO definitions of 'dealer,' 'distributor,' and 'wholesaler' show overlapping roles – A 'distributor' includes any stockist appointed by a manufacturer, which encompasses roles performed by 'dealers' – The appellant's dual role as a 'distributor' and 'dealer' does not exempt it from the ambit of Paragraph 13 of the DPCO [Paras 6, 10-11].

Judicial Review – Scope of Appeal – The appellant's attempt to question the validity of the demand and the computation under Paragraph 19 of the DPCO was not entertained by the Supreme Court, as these issues were not properly raised before the Delhi High Court – The Court restricted its review to whether the appellant falls within the reach of Paragraph 13 [Paras 7-8].

Corporate Veil – Piercing the Corporate Veil – The High Court's exercise of piercing the corporate veil to find overlapping identities between the appellant and its group companies was acknowledged but not re-evaluated by the Supreme Court – The appellant's own admissions in its replies to the NPPA confirmed its direct contact with the manufacturer [Paras 9-10].

Laudable Objective – Price Control – The DPCO aims to control drug prices to ensure affordability for the common man – The Court emphasized the importance of not restricting the interpretation of the DPCO's provisions, which are intended to prevent overcharging by those involved in the manufacture and marketing of drugs [Para 11].

Inconsistent Versions – Lack of Documentation – The appellant's inconsistent versions and failure to provide firm documentation about its arrangements with manufacturers undermined its claim of being merely a 'dealer' – The appellant could not establish a clear factual foundation to support its exemption from Paragraph 13 [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's rejection of the appellant's claim – The Court upheld the NPPA's demand notices and vacated the status quo order previously granted [Paras 14-15].

Misuse of Criminal Proceedings in Commercial Dispute – Appeal against frivolous criminal proceedings initiated for personal vengeance in a civil matter – Accusations of cheating and forgery in a financial transaction between corporate entities – Abusing legal system by disguising a commercial dispute as a criminal case, leading to unnecessary litigation and misuse of judicial resources [Paras 2, 14, 32-34].

False Claims and Jurisdiction Manipulation – Manipulation of jurisdiction by providing misleading addresses – Complainant filed case in an inappropriate forum with false addresses, demonstrating a malicious attempt to harass and abuse the legal process [Paras 22-24, 27, 33].

Investment and Shareholding Dispute – Dispute over investment and shareholding in private companies – Decision of the complainant to invest in equity misrepresented as a loan transaction – Shareholding affected by merger and amalgamation of companies, a subject of civil law [Paras 4-7, 27-30, 35].

Delayed Legal Recourse and Arbitration Proceedings – Delay in taking legal steps for recovery of alleged dues – Dispute referred to arbitration by Delhi High Court, highlighting its civil nature [Paras 15, 32, 35].

Decision and Imposition of Costs – Appeals allowed, FIR and subsequent proceedings against appellants quashed – Imposition of costs on the complainant for misuse of legal system and false litigation, to be deposited for the benefit of legal community [Paras 36-39].