FERA – Limitation – Reasonable Period – Show cause notices issued in 2002 for transactions from 1992-1993 – Supreme Court held such delay unreasonable – Proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable period when no statutory period is prescribed – Eight-year record preservation limit under Banking Companies Rules supports unreasonableness of delayed notices – High Court's setting aside of proceedings upheld [Paras 18-27].

Administrative Law – Policy and Procedure – Reasonable Time – Proceedings initiated under statute without prescribed limitation period must be within reasonable time – Cited cases emphasize necessity of timeliness in administrative actions to ensure fairness – Delays beyond standard record-keeping durations viewed as unreasonable [Paras 19-23, 25-27].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgments upheld – Show cause notices and proceedings initiated under FERA after long delays declared invalid [Paras 28-29].

Pension – Financial Constraints – Revision of Pension – High Court struck down Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 as arbitrary – Rule allowed revision of pension notionally from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008, with actual payment from 01.01.2009 due to financial constraints – Supreme Court found High Court erred in its decision – Financial constraints valid ground for cut-off date – Rule 3(3) upheld [Paras 1-7].

Policy Decision – Judicial Review – Financial Constraint – Government justified in setting cut-off date for pension revision due to financial constraints – Policy decision not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 – High Court's interference in policy decision unwarranted [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashing Rule 3(3) set aside – Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 upheld – No recovery from respondent despite interim relief [Paras 6-7].

Consumer Law – Refund and Interest – State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission directed refund of Rs. 21.18 lakhs with 9% simple interest per annum due to incomplete construction – National Commission reduced the refund amount to Rs. 16.18 lakhs – Supreme Court found National Commission's partial reversal erroneous – Order of State Commission restored – Respondent directed to comply within two months if not already refunded [Paras 1-6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of National Commission set aside – Order of State Commission dated 15.10.2020 restored – Respondent to refund Rs. 21.18 lakhs with 9% simple interest per annum from 19.01.2015 till realization and Rs. 5000 as litigation expenses within two months from today if not already refunded [Paras 4-6].

Electricity Law – Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) – Change in Law – Adani Power entitled to carrying cost with compound interest – Dispute arose from a Change in Law event requiring Adani Power to install Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) unit – Appellants contested compound interest on carrying cost, arguing for simple interest – Supreme Court upheld compound interest, emphasizing restitutionary principles and time value for money [Paras 1-20].

Restitutionary Principles – Compound Interest – Carrying Cost – Appellate Tribunal correctly applied compound interest to carrying cost – Supreme Court affirmed that restitution required full compensation for interest paid by Adani Power to banks – Restitutionary principle embedded in Article 13 of the PPA applied for compensating affected party to original economic position as if Change in Law event had not occurred [Paras 12-19].

Statutory Interpretation – No explicit prohibition on compound interest in Electricity Act, 2003 or PPAs – Supreme Court rejected argument that compound interest was not covered – Emphasized interpretation aligned with restitution and fair compensation principles [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellate Tribunal's decision upheld – Adani Power entitled to compound interest on carrying cost from the date of Change in Law event (29th January 2014) until actual payment [Paras 20].

Criminal Law – MCOCA – Organized Crime – Confession – Appellants challenged validity of confessions recorded by an Additional Superintendent of Police (Addl. SP) under MCOCA – Supreme Court held that Addl. SPs are not of the same rank as SPs – Confessions recorded by Addl. SPs not admissible under Section 18 MCOCA – High Court's dismissal of writ petitions set aside – FIRs and proceedings quashed.

Statutory Interpretation – Rank of Police Officers – Section 18 MCOCA requires confessions to be recorded by officers not below the rank of SP – Addl. SPs not considered to be of the same rank as SPs under MCOCA – Police Manual and state government notifications cannot override statutory requirements of MCOCA.

Organized Crime – Definition and Scope – MCOCA's applicability limited to activities of organized crime syndicates involving violence or threat of violence – Illegal gambling by itself does not constitute organized crime under MCOCA – Invocation of MCOCA in the present case held inappropriate.

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – FIRs and proceedings quashed – Confessions recorded by Addl. SPs not admissible under Section 18 MCOCA – Respondents directed to comply with this judgment.

Service Tax – Consulting Engineer vs. Works Contract – Services such as erection, installation, and commissioning of goods at customer sites cannot be classified as consulting engineer services – Tribunal correctly held that such services fall under works contract and are not liable for service tax as consulting engineering – Revenue's appeal dismissed [Paras 2-4].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal's decision upheld – No service tax liability on works contract for the period in question – No order as to costs [Paras 4-4.1].

Service Law – Assured Career Progression Scheme – Applicability – Appellants sought application of ACP Scheme retrospectively from August 9, 1999, as was done for State Government employees – BSEB adapted ACP Scheme effective from April 5, 2005 – Scheme not applicable to public undertakings or autonomous institutions unless specifically adapted – No malafide or ulterior motive in BSEB's choice of date for adaptation – High Court’s decision upheld, appellants’ appeal dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Retrospective Application – Judicial Review – Choice of date for applicability of the scheme – Judicial review limited to examining malafide or ulterior motive – No such finding in present case – Adaptation of scheme with effect from April 5, 2005, considered valid – Appellants retired before adaptation date cannot claim benefit [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – No merit in appellants’ claim for retrospective application of ACP Scheme [Paras 16-17].

Service Law – MACP Scheme – Applicability and Implementation Date – MACP Scheme implemented with effect from 1st September 2008, not 1st January 2006 – MACP Scheme provides financial upgradation to the immediate next grade pay in the hierarchy of the pay bands, not the next promotional post – Decision based on Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations and government policy – No hostile discrimination or irrationality in MACP Scheme [Paras 1-12].

Financial Upgradation – Administrative and Pre-promotional Course Norms – Personnel in Central Armed Police Forces eligible for MACP benefits with relaxation on pre-promotional norms if administrative or other reasons prevented their participation – Government agreed to pragmatic approach for genuine grievances [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – High Court’s judgment modified – MACP Scheme applicable from 1st September 2008 – Financial upgradation limited to immediate next grade pay – Relaxation of pre-promotional norms for Central Armed Forces personnel upheld [Para 12].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – Section 24(2) of Act 2013 – High Court wrongly declared acquisition proceedings lapsed – Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) overruled Pune Municipal Corporation (2014) and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (2015) – Possession taken in 1987, utilized for park – No lapse when possession taken or compensation paid – High Court judgment set aside – Compensation per Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applicable [Paras 1-3].

Compensation – Continuation of Vested Land – Land vested in State not divested under Section 24(2) of Act 2013 – No new compensation claims under Act 2013 for completed acquisitions – Original writ petitioners entitled to compensation under 1894 Act [Para 3.2].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment declaring acquisition proceedings lapsed quashed – Compensation to be as per Award No.102/1986-87 under 1894 Act or any lawful enhancement – No costs [Para 3.3].