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.

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].

Medical Education – Provisional Admission – High Court's orders granting provisional admissions beyond the cut-off date are not legally sustainable – Strict adherence to the admission schedule is mandated – Admissions based on merit-cum-preference through NEET examination – Appeals allowed, High Court's orders quashed [Paras 20-27].

Admission Schedule – Medical Council of India Regulations 2000 – Last date for admissions to post-graduate courses is 31st May – No deviation allowed – Orders extending admissions beyond this date are invalid [Paras 20-22].

Merit Principle – Provisional admissions ignored the principle of merit – High Court’s orders based on provisional basis, not considering merit ranks – Such admissions cannot be validated by the Court [Paras 24-26].

Sympathetic Consideration – Court refused to show sympathy for students admitted in contravention to regulations – Students admitted beyond cut-off date and without merit cannot be allowed to continue [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders set aside – Provisional admissions annulled – No costs [Paras 27-28].

Promissory Estoppel – Doctrine of estoppel will not be applied against the State in its governmental public or sovereign capacity – Exception where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice – Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act rescinds earlier tax exemptions – Estoppel cannot operate against legislative functions – Union not bound by 2003 O.M. due to statutory changes – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31-55].

CGST Act – Section 174(2)(c) – Provision explicitly rescinds earlier tax exemptions – New GST regime provides 58% budgetary support instead of 100% exemption – Legislative changes override earlier promises – Doctrine of promissory estoppel not applicable against statutory mandates [Paras 28-31].

Public Interest – Withdrawal of exemptions in larger public interest – Consistent judicial stance that State can withdraw exemptions when public interest demands – Estoppel not applicable when policy change serves public interest [Paras 56-58].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Promissory estoppel claim rejected – Union's decision to provide 58% budgetary support upheld – No order as to costs [Para 63].

Land Acquisition Act – Determination of Compensation – High Court erred in reducing compensation from Rs. 1000/- per square yard to Rs. 166/- to Rs. 200/- per square yard – Original Reference Court's assessment of Rs. 1000/- per square yard restored – State's failure to appeal earlier Reference Court judgment noted – Assessment of compensation based on sale deeds examined – Appeals allowed to the extent of restoring compensation to Rs. 1000/- per square yard [Paras 5-10].

Market Value – Assessment – Sale deeds relied upon by landowners and State examined – Sale deeds closer to Section 4 notification date considered unreliable due to variance in price and small area – Compensation assessed based on fair market value [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgment quashed – Compensation set at Rs. 1000/- per square yard as per earlier Reference Court decision – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].

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].

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].

Penal Code 1860 (IPC) – Murder – Acquittal – Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' evidence – Material contradictions noted in testimonies – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-62].

Discrepancies in Evidence – Vital discrepancies in prosecution's witnesses – Testimonies failed to corroborate key facts – Contradictory versions on who delivered the fatal blow – Witnesses were related, lacking independent evidence [Paras 41-52].

Inconsistent Testimonies – Material improvements and contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses – Inconsistent statements regarding the assailants – Lack of clarity on crucial facts [Paras 40-43].

Independent Witnesses – Prosecution's failure to examine any independent witness – All witnesses related to each other – Evidence deemed unreliable due to contradictions [Paras 48-54].

Reappreciation of Evidence – Supreme Court reappreciated evidence due to misreading and misappreciation by lower courts – Found prosecution's evidence unreliable and insufficient for conviction [Paras 55-60].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 61-62].

Defamation – Private Complaint by Minister/Public Servant – Special procedure under Section 199(2) CrPC does not eclipse general procedure under Section 199(6) – Public servant's right to file individual complaint preserved – Appeals concerning procedural objections dismissed [Paras 41-56].

Tweets and Defamation – Statement “your answer will disclose your scam” not per se defamatory – Summoning order against appellant for this statement quashed – Application of mind by Magistrate found lacking – Appeal by appellant who made the statement allowed [Paras 57-63].

Procedural Protection – Section 237 CrPC provides safety valve against malicious prosecution – Section 250 CrPC offers similar protection for individual complaints – No additional protection needed beyond existing statutory provisions [Paras 52-55].

Decision – Appeal by Manoj Kumar Tiwari (A-1) dismissed – Appeal by Vijender Gupta (A-5) allowed – Summoning order against A-5 quashed – Complaint to proceed against other accused [Paras 56-65].