Education Law – Admission Delay – Petitioner, a meritorious student from the Scheduled Caste category, secured a rank of 1455 in JEE (Advanced) 2024 and was allotted a seat in IIT Dhanbad for B.Tech in Electrical Engineering – Due to technical issues, his payment and document upload failed before the portal closed – Despite multiple login attempts, his fee payment was unsuccessful, and subsequent appeals to the authorities were unfruitful – Petitioner sought legal remedy after initial attempts with High Courts, eventually approaching the Supreme Court [Paras 1-3].

Judicial Powers – Article 142 of the Constitution – Supreme Court invoked its powers to ensure substantial justice for the petitioner, recognizing his diligent efforts to comply with admission requirements – The Court acknowledged that the petitioner, being from a marginalized group, should not be denied an opportunity for reasons beyond his control – Court ordered IIT Dhanbad to admit the petitioner, create a supernumerary seat if necessary, and ensure the student is not disadvantaged due to the delayed admission [Paras 4-5].

Relief Granted – Admission Ordered – Petitioner to be admitted to IIT Dhanbad in the allocated course and batch – A supernumerary seat to be created if required – Petitioner to pay the pending fees upon admission and be granted all consequential benefits, including hostel accommodation – IIT Dhanbad directed to assist the petitioner in catching up with missed coursework to avoid academic disadvantage [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions for immediate admission – Court ensures no disruption to current students and the petitioner’s timely integration into the academic program.

Deviations from Standard Bidding Guidelines – Section 63 Electricity Act – Validity of Tariff Approval – The appellant, Kerala State Electricity Board, deviated from the standard bidding guidelines in power procurement tenders, leading to objections from the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC) – Supreme Court held: KSERC was correct in rejecting the tariffs for non-compliance with the guidelines – The bidding process must adhere strictly to the guidelines for tariff approval under Section 63 [Paras 4, 9].

Binding Nature of State Government Directives – Section 108 Electricity Act – Limited Role of State Government – The Kerala State Government issued directives under Section 108 of the Electricity Act to KSERC to reconsider its tariff disapproval, citing public interest – Supreme Court upheld the APTEL’s judgment that such directives cannot displace the independent adjudicatory functions of KSERC – State government directions under Section 108 can only guide policy, not override quasi-judicial functions [Paras 16-18].

Scope of Review Jurisdiction – Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review Powers of KSERC – KSERC’s decision to review and approve the power supply agreements (PSAs) based solely on state government directives violated Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC – Supreme Court affirmed APTEL's decision that review must be based on errors apparent on the face of the record, not subsequent policy directives [Paras 13, 19].

Decision – The appeal is allowed in part – The impugned order of APTEL setting aside the KSERC’s review order is upheld – However, the original appeal filed before APTEL challenging KSERC’s order dated 10 May 2023 is restored – APTEL will now reconsider the appeal on grounds not addressed in the present judgment [Paras 21-23].

Arbitration – Scope of Appeal under Section 37 – Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Order – Reversed – The appellants, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., challenged the High Court’s decision setting aside an arbitral award in their favor – The High Court interfered with the arbitral award, despite its confirmation under Section 34, on the basis of its own interpretation of facts – Held: The scope of appeal under Section 37 is restricted and does not allow reappraisal of evidence or merits of the arbitral award unless it violates public policy or fundamental principles of Indian law – The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in overturning the arbitral award without finding any violation of the grounds set out in Section 34 [Paras 12, 16].

Arbitral Award – Limited Judicial Interference – Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act – Courts are not permitted to interfere with arbitral awards merely because another interpretation of facts or law is possible – Judicial intervention is limited to cases where the award is contrary to public policy, morality, or basic notions of justice – The Appellate Court's action in setting aside the arbitral award, without a clear violation of Section 34, was unjustified and legally erroneous [Paras 18, 24, 26].

Decision – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment under Section 37 and restored the arbitral award dated 08.11.2012, holding that it was based on evidence, reasonable, and in compliance with the law – Appeal allowed with no order as to costs [Paras 28, 30].

Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Perversity in Findings – Appeal Allowed – Appellant, Lakha Singh, challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts denying specific performance of an agreement to sell land and directing recovery of earnest money – The respondent-plaintiff alleged that the appellant-defendant failed to execute the sale deed as per the agreement – Held: The findings of the lower courts were perverse, as crucial facts were ignored, such as the absence of any advance intimation or effort by the respondent to complete the sale and discrepancies in the agreement, including missing signatures on pages and suspicious blank spaces – The agreement appeared to be a concoction, and the appellant's case merited interference under Article 136 [Paras 18, 28].

Fraud Allegation – Execution of Agreement – Evidence of Misrepresentation – The appellant claimed that the agreement to sell was prepared fraudulently by the respondent, a Police Constable, using blank stamp papers – The evidence suggested that the agreement was suspiciously created, and the respondent's testimony, including the absence of withdrawal of funds from a bank and failure to obtain departmental permission, further discredited his claim – Held: The disputed agreement was a result of misrepresentation and fraud [Paras 32, 35].

Decision – The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgments of the trial court, First Appellate Court, and High Court were quashed – No order as to costs [Paras 45, 48].

Auction Sale – Valuation of Property – Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Auction Challenged – Auction Upheld – Appellant, Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., challenged the auction sale of Mula Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd.’s property, claiming undervaluation and insufficient participation by bidders – High Court dismissed the writ petition, rejecting claims of undervaluation and irregularities, as the auction purchaser was a statutory body, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Rahuri – Held: Appellant was aware of the auction price but failed to act promptly, leading to the finalization of the sale [Paras 1, 10].

Undervaluation Allegation – Appellant contended that its valuation report from 2013 set the property value at ₹4.10 crore, while later valuations in 2016 by the Sub-Registrar and Liquidator ranged between ₹87 lakh and ₹2.47 crore – However, appellant did not object to the property being auctioned at ₹2.47 crore until after the sale was finalized, undermining its case – Held: Delay in raising objections, combined with failure to prevent the finalization of the sale, invalidated the appellant’s undervaluation claims [Paras 14, 20, 21].

Auction Process – Allegation of procedural lapses – Appellant argued that the auction process was flawed due to the absence of proper publication of corrigenda and inadequate bidder participation – High Court found that three bidders had expressed interest, and no mala fide intent was established in the auction process – Held: No significant procedural irregularities were proven, and the appellant failed to take timely action during the auction process [Paras 23, 27, 29].

Decision: Supreme Court upheld the auction sale but invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure equity – Directed the auction purchaser to pay ₹1.05 crore (without interest) to the appellant towards full settlement of dues – Failure to pay within three months would attract 6% simple interest – Appeal dismissed with parties bearing their own costs [Paras 33, 34, 35].

Service Law - Police Service – Censure Entry – Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 – Procedural Violations Claimed – Censure Upheld – Appellant, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was handed a censure entry for negligence in completing investigations – Appellant claimed violation of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued prior to the penalty – Held: The censure was imposed following due process, including a detailed report submitted by the Additional Director General of Police, and the Superintendent of Police was competent to issue the censure under Rule 7 – No violation of natural justice found [Paras 14, 21].

*Principles of Natural Justice – Opportunity to Respond – Rules 1991 – Appellant contended that no written notice or opportunity to respond was provided before the censure was imposed – Held: The appellant was given an opportunity to explain delays in investigation and submitted a response to the Circle Officer, but the explanation was found unsatisfactory – Thus, the imposition of censure followed prescribed rules and procedures [Paras 7, 19].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Jurisdiction of Superintendent of Police – Appellant argued that the censure was imposed by an authority not competent under the Rules – Held: The Superintendent of Police had jurisdiction under Rule 7(2) to impose the minor penalty of censure on Sub-Inspectors – Therefore, the penalty was lawfully imposed [Paras 16, 21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs – High Court's dismissal of the writ petition and writ appeal upheld [Paras 21, 22].

Criminal Law – Bail under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Appellant, a former Minister in Tamil Nadu, was arrested for alleged money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA – Accused of collecting large sums by promising job opportunities in the Transport Department – Bail application rejected by the High Court – On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the appellant's incarceration for over 15 months and the delay in trial – Noted that more than 2000 accused and 600 witnesses in connected scheduled offences made timely completion of the trial unlikely – Held: Continued detention would violate the appellant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1-31].

Witness Tampering – Apprehension of Tampering with Evidence – Solicitor General argued that appellant, holding significant political influence, could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses – Supreme Court observed that most evidence is documentary and already seized, reducing the risk of tampering – Imposed stringent conditions to mitigate concerns, including regular reporting to enforcement authorities and restriction on contacting witnesses [Paras 9-31].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Appellant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 emphasized – Noted that while PMLA imposes stringent bail conditions, prolonged pre-trial detention without prospects of timely trial breaches fundamental rights – Cited precedents from K.A. Najeeb and Manish Sisodia cases where constitutional courts allowed bail despite statutory restrictions due to undue trial delay – Held: Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception when a trial cannot be concluded within a reasonable timeframe [Paras 22-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant granted bail on furnishing bail bonds and fulfilling specific conditions, including regular attendance before authorities and surrendering passport – Failure to comply with conditions may result in bail cancellation [Paras 31-32].

Civil Law – Specific Performance – Rejection of Plaintiffs' Claim – Appellants (Defendant Nos. 9 to 11) were bona fide purchasers of property after executing a valid sale deed with all co-owners, including the sisters (Defendant Nos. 6 to 8) – Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) had earlier entered into an agreement for the same property with only two co-owners without securing the consent of Defendant Nos. 6 to 8, despite knowing their consent was required – Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act – Appeal allowed, High Court's decree set aside, and Trial Court's judgment dismissing the suit for specific performance restored [Paras 1, 9-11, 24-25].

Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiffs' Obligation to Secure Consent – The agreement dated 06.06.1993 required Plaintiffs to ensure that Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 would consent and execute the sale deed within three months – Plaintiffs took no proactive steps to secure this consent, instead relying on Defendant No. 1 and late Soumendra to fulfill this condition – Plaintiffs failed to communicate or contact Defendant Nos. 6 to 8, indicating a lack of readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract – High Court's conclusion of Plaintiffs' readiness was found to be inadequate [Paras 9-13].

General Power of Attorney – Authority to Sell – Defendant No. 1 lacked authority to sell on behalf of Defendant Nos. 6 to 8, as the General Power of Attorney dated 30.12.1982 was unregistered and effectively revoked by a partition deed dated 17.02.1988 – The partition deed limited Defendant No. 1's authority to rent collection, not the sale of property – Held: Agreement dated 06.06.1993 could not be enforced against Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 due to lack of authority [Paras 14-18].

Discretionary Nature of Specific Performance – Specific performance is a discretionary remedy under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act (pre-2018 amendment) – The agreement in question was incomplete and unenforceable against Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 – Plaintiffs failed to fulfill essential contractual obligations – Granting specific performance would unfairly prejudice the Defendants, especially Defendant Nos. 6 to 8 – Monetary compensation deemed sufficient – Appeal allowed, suit for specific performance dismissed [Paras 19-23].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The judgment and decree of the High Court dated 25.10.2013 is set aside – The judgment of the Trial Court dated 17.05.1997 dismissing the suit for specific performance is restored – Appellants (Defendant Nos. 9 to 11) are directed to refund ₹10,00,000 to the Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2) within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Charges under Section 307 IPC – Appellant was assaulted due to a dispute related to Waqf Board – Initial FIR lodged under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC – Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 307 IPC – High Court set aside charges, ruling injuries insufficient for Section 307 – Held: Minor injuries are not a bar for framing charges under Section 307 IPC if intent is present – High Court's judgment set aside, and the accused are to face trial under all relevant sections, including Section 307 IPC [Paras 1, 6, 12-16].

Medical Evidence – Relevance of Doctor’s Report – The doctor’s report suspected throttling, which could have led to respiratory arrest – Despite the injuries being described as minor, intent to cause death could be inferred from the circumstances – The court held that medical evidence of possible throttling supported the framing of Section 307 IPC charges [Paras 7, 12-13].

Section 307 IPC – Attempt to Murder – Essential ingredients include intent to kill or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death – Court emphasized that even minor injuries could suffice if the intent to kill is present – Injuries, whether simple or grievous, are irrelevant if the intent is clear – The court applied this principle to hold that the High Court erred in refusing to frame charges under Section 307 IPC [Paras 10-14].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Eight accused were involved, and the court examined the applicability of Section 34 IPC – Common intention can be inferred from the actions and circumstances – The court highlighted that common intention need not be pre-arranged and could develop on the spot – The accused acted with a common purpose, making Section 34 applicable [Paras 11.4-11.5].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – High Court's order in Criminal Revision No. 3125 of 2021 set aside – Trial court directed to proceed with trial, including Section 307 IPC, without being influenced by the current judgment – Trial to be expedited [Paras 16-17].