Water Sharing Dispute – Writ Petition under Article 32 – Petitioner, Government of NCT of Delhi, requested directions for the release of surplus water from Hathni Kund Barrage by Haryana and Himachal Pradesh to alleviate acute water shortage in Delhi – UYRB convened an emergent meeting and discussed the MoU between Delhi and Himachal Pradesh and the additional water required by Delhi – Himachal Pradesh initially agreed to release 137 cusecs of surplus water but later retracted – Haryana contended similar water scarcity and inability to provide additional water – Court acknowledged the complexity of inter-state water sharing and emphasized resolution through UYRB – Directed the Delhi Government to formally request Haryana for 150 cusecs of additional water on humanitarian grounds and UYRB to decide expeditiously [Paras 1-13].

Inter-State Water Dispute – Supreme Court's Jurisdiction – Court expressed limitations in expertise to adjudicate complex inter-state water disputes – Referred the matter to UYRB, emphasizing the necessity for a specialized body to handle such issues – Highlighted past orders and developments regarding water treatment and distribution in Delhi and Haryana – Recommended Delhi Government to take measures to prevent wastage of water during the crisis period [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Directed UYRB to convene a meeting to address Delhi's formal request for additional water and decide by 14th June 2024 – All interim applications disposed of [Paras 12-13].

Civil Procedure - Indigent Person Status - Filing of Appeal - The appellant, injured in a motor accident, was awarded compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal but had not received the amount. The High Court dismissed her application to file an appeal as an indigent person based on the awarded compensation. The Supreme Court held that the actual receipt of the compensation amount is essential for determining indigency status. The Court underscored the principle that lack of monetary capability should not preclude access to justice. The High Court's order was set aside, and the appellant was granted permission to appeal as an indigent person. [Paras 1-20]

Eligibility to File as Indigent - Analysis - It was observed that the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant's application without conducting the necessary inquiry to verify her indigency status at the time of filing the appeal. The statutory requirements under Order XLIV, Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure were not met. [Paras 15-18]

Decision - Grant of Indigent Status for Filing Appeal - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and permitted the appellant to file the appeal as an indigent person. The High Court was requested to expedite the disposal of the appeal within six months. [Paras 19-20]

Criminal Law – Trial Court Procedures and Judicial Conduct – Examination of procedural violations in trial court proceedings leading to death sentence under Section 376AB IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 – Accused's rights to fair trial compromised due to expedited process without adequate representation and consultation – High Court set aside conviction and sentence, ordering de novo trial due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards [Paras 43-50, 55-58].

Sentencing Guidelines – Comparative analysis of sentencing policies from Canada, New Zealand, and UK – Supreme Court's recommendation for a distinct sentencing policy in India – Urges Government of India to consider establishing a Sentencing Commission to develop comprehensive sentencing guidelines – Directs Union of India to file an affidavit on feasibility within six months [Paras 39-42, 58].

Evidence Evaluation – Procedural Flaws – Examination of trial court’s handling of evidence and witness protection – Trial court failed to comply with Sections 207, 226, 227, and 230 of CrPC, 1973, and Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 – High Court's detailed review revealed serious lapses affecting accused’s ability to defend [Paras 45-48, 55-57].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – Appeals by informant and trial judge dismissed – High Court's decision upheld due to significant procedural violations affecting fair trial – Directions issued for expeditious and compliant retrial under POCSO Act, 2012 – Government of India to explore introduction of sentencing guidelines [Paras 58-60].

Industrial Law – Application of Conferment Act – Civil Appeals against High Court decision affirming the conferment of permanent status to workmen – Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation claimed exemption from the Act – High Court and Supreme Court analyzed the applicability of the Act – Held, Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation qualifies as an industrial establishment under the Act and its employees are entitled to permanent status – Supreme Court dismissed the Corporation's appeal and allowed the employees' appeal – Directed compliance with the Inspector of Labour's order. [Paras 1-29]

Industrial Establishments – Definition and Applicability – Analysis – Held – Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation is an industrial establishment as per Section 2(3)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 – Activities of the Corporation deemed commercial – Employees met the continuous service requirement – Act applicable to Corporation and employees – No exemption under Section 7 applicable. [Paras 18-27]

Decision – Compliance with Labour Inspector's Order – High Court's limited scope on remand – Held, Inspector of Labour's order conferred permanent status to eligible employees – High Court should have enforced compliance instead of suggesting raising an industrial dispute – Supreme Court directs compliance with Labour Inspector's order. [Paras 28-29]

Corporate Law - Renewal of Mining Leases - Civil appeals against High Court orders regarding the renewal of mining leases originally granted to Bird and Company Limited, subsequently vested in Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (BPMEL), now in liquidation - Central Government and State of Odisha opposed the renewal of leases - High Court at Calcutta directed the formation of a High-Powered Committee to decide on renewal, which was challenged by the Government of Odisha and TGP Equity Management Private Limited.

Corporate Liquidation - Role of Official Liquidator and Creditor Rights - Analysis - Held - No practical or feasible benefit in renewing leases for a defunct company with substantial liabilities - Power of attorney given to OMDC terminated upon liquidation of BPMEL - TGP, as an assignee of UCO Bank, entitled to pursue claims in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956 - Workers' dues to be settled per statutory provisions. [Paras 31-37]

Decision - Appeals by State of Odisha allowed, and High Court’s order for a High-Powered Committee set aside - TGP's appeals dismissed - Applications for renewal of mining leases treated as rejected or dismissed - Proceedings to continue in Company Court for settlement of dues as per law. [Paras 38-39]

Criminal Law – SC/ST Act – Appeal against the order directing registration of FIR and prosecution of public servant – Complaint by Respondent No. 2 alleging caste-based insults at an equestrian training academy – High Court directed registration of FIR and prosecution of the SHO for not acting on the complaint – Supreme Court quashed the FIR and set aside the prosecution order – Held that allegations did not meet the public view requirement under the SC/ST Act – Complaint did not disclose cognizable offense under the Act – Order for prosecution of public servant without administrative enquiry recommendation invalid – FIR and consequent orders quashed. [Paras 1-29]

Public View Requirement – Analysis – Held – Intentional insult or intimidation must occur within public view – Allegations did not specify the public context required under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act – WhatsApp group chats and private settings not sufficient to meet the public view standard. [Para 20-21]

Prosecution of Public Servant – Section 4 of SC/ST Act – Held – Proviso to Section 4 requires administrative enquiry and recommendation for prosecution – High Court order bypassing this requirement is unsustainable – Protection for public servants in performing duties under the Act is crucial to avoid frivolous complaints. [Para 13-16]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and prosecution order – Supreme Court quashes the FIR and the order directing prosecution of the SHO – Complaint against appellants does not constitute offenses under the SC/ST Act – High Court's orders set aside. [Paras 27-29]

Termination of Dealership - Procedural Compliance - Appeal against High Court order affirming the quashing of dealership termination for violation of procedural norms during sample collection - Appellants contended that the dealership was terminated due to violations of the dealership agreement clauses and that SGS India, the agency appointed for sample collection, was authorized under Marketing Discipline Guidelines - Respondent challenged the validity of the sample collection process by SGS India, arguing it violated Clause 7 of the Control Order, which mandates sample collection by specific authorized officers - Single Judge and Division Bench upheld the respondent's contention, finding procedural lapses in sample collection and testing.

Procedural Lapses - Clause 7 of Control Order - The High Court found that SGS India lacked authority under Clause 7 of the Control Order to collect samples and the entire process was flawed as the required authorized officers were not involved - The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision, emphasizing the need for compliance with statutory procedures.

Sample Collection Authority - The appellants argued that the Marketing Discipline Guidelines permitted third-party agencies to collect samples - Supreme Court held that while the guidelines allowed administrative convenience, they could not override statutory provisions - The respondent was not prosecuted under the Control Order, rather the dealership was terminated for breach of contractual terms.

Judicial Discipline - Supreme Court noted adherence to principles laid down in prior judgments - Held that dealership termination must strictly comply with procedural rules and guidelines - Following the precedent in R.M. Service Centre, termination was justified if based solely on contractual breaches without violating statutory procedures.

Decision - Appeals allowed - Supreme Court found the dealership termination valid as per the terms of the agreement and procedural compliance under Marketing Discipline Guidelines - Noted no prosecutable offense under the Control Order, thus adherence to its procedural requirements was unnecessary for this case.

Specific Performance – Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell land – Appellant/plaintiff entered agreement with respondent no. 4, the Power of Attorney holder of other respondents, for purchase of land – Initial agreement dated 26.09.1995 with earnest money paid and extensions granted – Sale deed executed in favor of other respondents during the extension period – Plaintiff sued for specific performance after discovering the sale – Trial Court decreed in favor of plaintiff – High Court reversed, dismissing the suit – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision.

Agreement Validity – Assessment – Held – Initial agreement not executed by all co-owners – Defendant no. 1 signed as Power of Attorney holder but the agreement did not specify this role clearly – Power of Attorney not produced or proved in Trial Court – High Court correctly found that agreement was not binding on all co-owners. [Paras 6-7]

Plaintiff's Non-Appearance – Legal Implication – Held – Plaintiff did not appear as a witness, instead Power of Attorney holder deposed – Legal position prohibits Power of Attorney holder from testifying on matters requiring principal's personal knowledge and cross-examination – Non-appearance of plaintiff in specific performance suits seen as detrimental – High Court rightly disallowed deposition of Power of Attorney holder in place of plaintiff. [Paras 8-13]

Delay and Limitation – Suit for specific performance filed on last day of limitation – Cited legal precedents stress prompt action in specific performance suits – Delays viewed unfavorably – Supreme Court found suit was filed with unreasonable delay despite knowledge of adverse sale – Specific performance denied. [Paras 14-18]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment and decree upheld – Suit for specific performance denied due to lack of valid agreement by all co-owners, plaintiff's non-appearance, and delay in filing suit. [Paras 19-20]

Electricity Law – Deemed Distribution Licensee Status for SEZ Developer – Appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Appellant SEZ developer challenges orders requiring additional capital infusion for deemed distribution licensee status – Court held that SEZ developers automatically gain deemed distribution licensee status under 2010 Notification, without needing further application – Additional capital infusion requirement imposed by TSERC and upheld by APTEL found unjustified and contrary to statutory scheme – Condition for capital infusion excluded – Appeal partly allowed. [Paras 1-38].

Statutory Interpretation – Applicability of Capital Adequacy Rules to Deemed Licensees – Court held that 2005 Rules and regulation 12 of the 2013 Regulations do not apply to SEZ developers deemed to be distribution licensees under the 2010 Notification – Emphasized that reading up of regulation 12 to include deemed licensees is impermissible – Distinction maintained between regular applicants and deemed licensees. [Paras 26-36].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – TSERC and APTEL's orders are set aside to the extent they require additional capital infusion by appellant – TSERC’s grant of deemed licensee status to appellant upheld, excluding condition of additional capital infusion – Appeal allowed in these terms. [Paras 37-38].