Civil Law - Arbitration – Scope of judicial interference under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 – The appellant challenged the High Court’s order setting aside an arbitral award—Held: The High Court correctly intervened as the awarded claim of ₹68.15 lakhs was beyond the contractual scope and not based on actual damages, but speculative calculations—Courts can interfere with arbitral awards if the findings are perverse or beyond the contract’s terms [Paras 6-10].

Liquidated Damages – Enforceability under Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872 – The contract explicitly limited liquidated damages for performance failure to ₹18.64 lakhs—The appellant claimed additional damages beyond this—Held: When a contract stipulates liquidated damages, the claimant cannot seek additional compensation unless actual losses exceeding the stipulated amount are proved—No such proof was furnished, making the High Court’s rejection valid [Paras 17-19].

Contractual Obligations – Failure of guaranteed performance – Whether refund of the entire contract price is justified – The appellant sought a refund of ₹107.54 lakhs, asserting that the plant was non-functional—Held: The contract did not provide for a full refund but only for replacement or rectification—The appellant neither exercised the option of replacement nor proved the plant was unusable—Claim for full refund rightly rejected [Paras 22-27].

Performance Guarantees – Breach of contract and entitlement to damages – The plant failed to achieve the promised alcohol yield of 280 liters per metric tonne of molasses—Held: The appellant was entitled only to the agreed liquidated damages, not an additional claim based on projected losses—The High Court correctly restricted damages to contractual limits [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s ruling upheld – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to restrict damages to the contractually agreed amount—Held: Appellant not entitled to ₹68.15 lakhs, as it was based on an impermissible claim for refund, contrary to contractual provisions and Section 74 of the Contract Act [Paras 28-30].
 

Labour Law - challenging termination - Judicial Review – Scope of review jurisdiction – Suppression of material evidence – The Corporation failed to disclose to the Labour Court that, in parallel proceedings before the MACT, it had admitted that the accident was solely caused by the negligence of a lorry driver—The High Court exercised its review jurisdiction to correct this suppression—Held: Courts can review their orders where material evidence, which could have altered the outcome, was not available at the time of the original decision—No party can be allowed to benefit from suppresio veri and suggestio falsi [Paras 21-27].

Labour Law – Dismissal of employee based on suppressed evidence – Whether justified – The respondent, a bus driver, was dismissed after an accident that resulted in fatalities—However, in compensation proceedings, the Corporation argued that the lorry driver was entirely at fault—The suppression of this evidence in the Labour Court led to an erroneous dismissal—Held: The Corporation’s suppression of evidence amounted to unfair labor practice—Reinstatement not granted due to superannuation, but back wages awarded [Paras 28-32].

Back Wages – Principles governing award of back wages – Proportionality test – The Court reaffirmed that reinstatement with full back wages is the norm in cases of wrongful termination—However, in cases of gainful employment, back wages may be reduced—The respondent admitted to working as a daily wage worker post-termination—Held: Instead of full back wages, 75% back wages awarded from the date of termination until superannuation [Paras 38-46].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Award of relief in employment disputes – The Court balanced the equities by modifying the High Court’s order—Reinstatement was not possible due to the respondent’s superannuation—Held: The respondent is entitled to 75% back wages and full terminal benefits, along with 6% interest per annum—If payment is not made within three months, an additional 2% penalty interest will apply [Paras 47-49].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Modification of High Court order – The High Court’s order reinstating the respondent was modified—Instead, 75% back wages with terminal benefits granted—Corporation directed to release payments within three months, failing which additional 2% interest will apply—No order as to costs [Paras 50-51].
 

Civil Law - Stamp Duty – Whether an agreement to sell is deemed a conveyance under Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 – The appellant contended that possession was retained as a tenant and not transferred under the agreement—Held: Possession of the property was already with the appellant, and the agreement did not alter his status as a tenant—However, since the agreement stipulated future transfer of possession on ownership basis, it falls within Explanation I to Article 25, making it liable for stamp duty as a conveyance [Paras 8-11].

Impounding of Instrument – Section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 – The trial court impounded the agreement and directed it to be sent to the Registrar of Stamps for recovery of deficient stamp duty and penalty—Held: Courts are bound to impound unstamped or inadequately stamped documents under Section 34 before admitting them in evidence—Direction for payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty upheld [Paras 12-13].

Possession and Stamp Duty – Whether mere possession by a tenant affects stamp duty liability – The agreement to sell did not immediately transfer possession, but it contemplated transfer of ownership-based possession upon execution of the sale deed—Held: Possession on rental basis does not exclude the agreement from being deemed a conveyance if ownership transfer is agreed upon—Stamp duty must be paid accordingly [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Precedents – Whether courts should interfere with stamp duty determinations – The appellant relied on specific clauses in the agreement to argue that possession remained that of a tenant, distinguishing it from a conveyance—Held: Courts have consistently upheld the levy of stamp duty on agreements where possession, or its right, is transferred without a separate sale deed—No interference warranted in orders passed by the trial court and High Court [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Stamp duty and penalty to be paid – The Supreme Court upheld the impounding of the document and the requirement to pay deficit stamp duty with penalty—Held: The appellant must pay the shortfall in stamp duty and penalty before the agreement can be admitted as evidence—However, any stamp duty already paid shall be adjusted against future payments upon execution of the final sale deed [Paras 12-13].
 

Electricity Law  - Electricity Tariff Rebate – Whether the appellants were entitled to a 25% rebate under the 1991 notification – The rebate scheme under the 1991 notification was rescinded on 31.03.1995, barring new applicants from availing benefits—Held: As the appellants received power connections after 31.03.1995, they could not claim benefits under the rescinded notification—Thus, their claims were untenable [Paras 19-20].

Validity of Subsequent Notifications – Whether 1996 amendments revived the rebate scheme – The 1996 notifications (15.05.1996 & 01.08.1996) purportedly reinstated the rebate, but they were later declared non-est and void ab initio by the High Court in Manohar Parrikar v. State of Goa—Held: Since the 1996 notifications were legally non-existent, the appellants could not rely on them to claim benefits [Paras 20-21].

Promissory Estoppel – Whether the Government could withdraw the rebate scheme – The appellants argued that they set up industries in Goa based on the Government’s promise of a rebate—Held: While promissory estoppel applies to government assurances, it cannot override public interest or fiscal constraints—The State proved financial necessity for withdrawal, making promissory estoppel inapplicable [Paras 26-27].

Res Judicata – Whether the issue was already decided in previous litigation – The same rebate issue was previously adjudicated in GR Ispat Ltd. v. Chief Electrical Engineer, Goa, where the High Court upheld the rescission—Held: As the appellants were bound by the earlier decision, their claims were barred by res judicata [Paras 22-25].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Demand notices for recovery of rebates upheld – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that the appellants must refund the rebates received—Held: The Goa (Prohibition of Further Payments and Recovery of Rebate Benefits) Act, 2002, was valid, and demand notices were lawfully issued—Appeals dismissed [Paras 28-29].
 

Bail – Prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoner – Right to speedy trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – The appellant had been in custody since 24th March 2020, with the prosecution yet to complete the examination of 100 witnesses – The Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial completion violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial – Held: The appellant is entitled to bail on appropriate conditions [Paras 7-10].

Excessive delay in trial – Role of Public Prosecutor in case management – The Court questioned the necessity of examining 100 witnesses, stressing that excessive witness examination leads to indefinite trial delays – It directed that Public Prosecutors must exercise discretion to avoid redundant evidence – Held: The Special Judge must ensure efficient prosecution by limiting unnecessary witnesses [Paras 11-14].

Judicial responsibility – Duty of courts to prevent undue delay in trials – The Court observed that judicial officers must take proactive steps to expedite proceedings, ensuring that trials do not drag on for years, particularly in serious offenses – Emphasized that long trials affect not just the accused but also victims, society, and the justice system’s credibility – Held: Courts should effectively utilize procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code to expedite trials [Paras 15-16].

Bail conditions – Restrictions on movement of the accused – While granting bail, the Court imposed conditions, including a restriction on the appellant’s entry into district Kanker, Chhattisgarh, except for his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Non-compliance with bail conditions would lead to automatic cancellation – Held: Bail granted with specific movement restrictions to balance fair trial and public safety [Paras 17-18].

Decision – High Court’s order denying bail set aside – Bail granted – The Court found that the appellant had already spent five years in judicial custody without trial completion – Emphasized that unnecessary delays in criminal trials violate the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Held: The appeal was allowed, bail granted with conditions, and violation of bail terms would result in automatic cancellation [Paras 16-18].
 

Civil Law - Public Contracts – Mistaken bid submission – Whether enforceable – The appellant mistakenly quoted ₹1,569 instead of ₹1,569 crores in a high-value tender—BRO insisted on enforcing the erroneous bid and sought forfeiture of the bank guarantee—Held: The mistake was self-evident, and BRO’s insistence on proceeding with the bid lacked reasonableness—The bid was liable to be set aside [Paras 3-10].

Principle of Mistake in Contracts – Section 20 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – A contract is void if both parties are under a mistake of fact essential to the agreement—The Court recognized the principle that a manifest and undisputed error in bid submission can be rectified, provided it is promptly brought to the authorities' attention—Held: The appellant’s mistake was patent and should not have been enforced—Equity requires relief to be granted in such cases [Paras 5-7].

Proportionality in Contract Enforcement – Doctrine of Proportionality – The Court reiterated that administrative authorities must act proportionately when dealing with contractual errors—BRO’s refusal to acknowledge the obvious mistake led to unnecessary litigation and delay—Held: A rigid approach in government contracts must give way to practical and fair considerations to uphold transparency and efficiency [Paras 9-12].

Encashment of Bank Guarantee – Justification for forfeiture – BRO sought to forfeit ₹15.04 crores citing the appellant’s failure to fulfill the contract—The Court held that the error was promptly communicated, and BRO’s actions were unjustified—Held: Instead of forfeiture, the appellant was directed to pay ₹1 crore as a consequence of its mistake, and the bank guarantee was to be returned [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Bank guarantee to be returned upon payment of ₹1 crore – The Supreme Court found that the appellant’s bid contained an obvious and unintentional mistake—BRO’s stance was unreasonable, causing unnecessary litigation—Held: The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the appellant was directed to pay ₹1 crore to BRO, after which the bank guarantee was to be returned within one week [Paras 16-17].
 

Civil Law - Representative Suit – Locus Standi of Plaintiffs – Whether former students and rate-paying citizens can maintain a suit – The plaintiffs, claiming to be former students of Government Junior College, Tumkur, and rate-paying citizens, filed the present suit seeking declaration in favor of the State of Karnataka—Held: Since the State itself was a party to the earlier litigation and did not assert its title, third parties could not maintain a suit in a representative capacity to challenge the decree—Present suit not maintainable [Paras 17-18].

Res Judicata – Whether the present suit is barred – The appellant had earlier obtained a permanent injunction decree in O.S. No. 80 of 1978, which was upheld in appeal—The plaintiffs in the present suit were not parties to the earlier suit, but the State of Karnataka (Respondent No. 2) was a party and had contested the case up to the High Court—Held: Once a decree has attained finality against the State, a subsequent suit filed by third parties to achieve the same result is barred by res judicata [Paras 16-17].

Declaratory Relief – Title and Adverse Possession – Whether the High Court erred in granting a declaration – The High Court decreed the suit in favor of the State of Karnataka, holding that the property was forfeited in 1919 due to non-payment of land revenue—Held: The appellant and his predecessors were in continuous possession for over 60 years, and no conclusive evidence of forfeiture was produced—The High Court erred in assuming government ownership without proper adjudication of title [Paras 14-15].

Limitations in Civil Suits – Whether the suit was barred by limitation – The appellant purchased the suit property in 1970 and obtained an injunction decree in 1981, while the present suit was filed only in 1989—Held: The High Court erroneously ignored the limitation period, and a suit challenging ownership decades later is barred by limitation [Para 9.1].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Suit dismissed as not maintainable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding that the plaintiffs had no locus standi, the suit was barred by res judicata, and the issue of title required separate adjudication—Held: Present suit dismissed, but liberty granted to approach the competent civil court for title adjudication [Paras 19-20].
 

Criminal Law - Sections 395 and 397 IPC – Appeal against conviction - Acquittal - benefit of doubt -  Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Evidentiary value – Non-examination of identifying witnesses – The appellant was allegedly identified in a TIP by the bus driver, conductor, and cleaner—However, none of them were examined during trial—Held: A TIP serves only as corroborative evidence, and without substantive testimony from the identifying witnesses, the TIP loses evidentiary value—Conviction cannot be sustained based on uncorroborated dock identification alone [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Identification – Dock identification without prior TIP participation – Reliability – The only witness who identified the appellant in court was a police personnel (PW-9), who did not participate in the TIP—PW-9 admitted to having seen the appellant earlier, raising the possibility of prior familiarity—Held: Failure to subject PW-9 to TIP and withholding the best evidence (bus driver, conductor, and cleaner) renders dock identification unreliable [Paras 16-17].

Recovery Evidence – Arrest and seizure of country-made pistol – Lack of forensic linkage – The prosecution claimed that the appellant was arrested at 3:00 AM while allegedly hiding in bushes with a country-made pistol—No forensic evidence linked the seized pistol to the crime scene or fired cartridges—Held: The prosecution’s version of arrest was doubtful, and absence of corroboration rendered the recovery evidence unreliable [Paras 18-24].

Burden of Proof – Prosecution’s failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The prosecution failed to prove: (i) recovery of stolen property from the appellant, (ii) forensic linkage between the seized firearm and the crime, and (iii) reliability of the sole identifying witness—Held: The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused—Conviction set aside [Paras 25].

Decision – Acquittal granted – Conviction and sentence set aside – The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Held: The appeal is allowed, the conviction is set aside, and the appellant need not surrender as he was already on bail—His bail bond is discharged [Paras 25-26].
 

Education Law – Appointment of Chancellor – Requirement of Approval from the Visitor – No Deemed Approval – The appellants contended that the appointment of the Chancellor was valid despite the lack of express approval from the Visitor (Governor of Meghalaya), relying on the doctrine of "deemed approval" – Held: The provisions of the CMJ University Act, 2009 make the approval of the Visitor mandatory for the appointment of the Chancellor – There is no concept of deemed approval under the Act – A university cannot function without a legally appointed Chancellor – Appointment of Chancellor declared illegal and non-est in law [Paras 33-46].

University Dissolution – Compliance with Section 48 of CMJ University Act – Adherence to Procedural Requirements – The dissolution of CMJ University was challenged on the ground that the State Government did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 48 – Held: The State issued show cause notices, considered replies, and found significant irregularities, including fraudulent admissions, lack of proper faculty, and non-compliance with statutory directives – The State gave multiple opportunities for compliance, which the University failed to adhere to – Dissolution upheld as per due process of law [Paras 47-59].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Power to Remand – Whether Justified – The Division Bench of the High Court remanded the matter to the Single Judge for reconsideration of the dissolution order – Held: Once the High Court upheld the validity of the dissolution process, remanding the matter for reconsideration was unnecessary and unwarranted – Remand order set aside [Paras 60-63].

Decision – The appeal filed by CMJ Foundation was dismissed – The dissolution of CMJ University upheld – The appeal by the State of Meghalaya against the High Court’s remand order was allowed, setting aside the direction for reconsideration by the Single Judge – Status quo order vacated, and dissolution order affirmed [Paras 64-66].