Social Welfare Legislation – ESI Act – Applicability to BCCI – Whether BCCI qualifies as "shop" under the ESI Act – High Court and ESI Court held BCCI's activities to be systematic commercial activities – BCCI's primary objective to promote cricket does not exempt it from ESI Act – Liberal interpretation of "shop" under social welfare legislation – Predominant activities involve commercial transactions like selling tickets, earning revenue from events – ESI Act applies to BCCI – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-13].

Review of Previous Judgments – Courts’ interpretation of "shop" – Consistent with Supreme Court's previous rulings in similar cases involving social welfare legislations – Emphasis on legislative intent to provide benefits to workers – Interpretation aimed at broad coverage under ESI Act [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – BCCI's activities categorized as commercial, falling within definition of "shop" – Provisions of ESI Act applicable to BCCI [Paras 12-13].

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 405, 415, 420 – Breach of Contractual Terms – Alleged breach of contract does not constitute criminal breach of trust without clear entrustment – Offence of criminal breach of trust requires (i) entrustment with property, (ii) dishonest misappropriation or conversion – No entrustment shown – Cheating requires (i) deception, (ii) induced delivery or retention of property, or omission causing damage – No prima facie case of deception or dishonest intention – Complaint lacks ingredients of offences – Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, and Additional Sessions Judge order restored [Paras 1-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and order dated 12 July 2019 set aside – Order of IVth Additional Sessions Judge dated 15 December 2015 restored – Pending applications disposed of [Para 25-27].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Lease Disputes – Renewal – Division Bench of High Court erred in rejecting application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act for appointment of Arbitrator – Disputes concerning renewal or non-renewal of lease, period of renewal, and rent quantum are arbitrable – Lease deed read as a whole indicates disputes to be resolved by arbitration if mutual agreement on renewal terms fails [Paras 1-20].

Interpretation of Lease Deed – Clauses to be read together – Clause 4(xiii) requiring renewal offer to be accepted and disputes on terms referred to arbitration – Policy decisions for local employment do not override existing lease agreements with renewal clauses [Para 15-19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate disputes – Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya appointed as Arbitrator – Status quo order extended until further orders from Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 20-21].

Review Jurisdiction – Civil Procedure Code – Scope – Review of judgment permissible on discovery of new evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record – Second set of review petitions by respondents after first set was dismissed – No new evidence or error apparent shown – High Court erred in entertaining second review petitions – Order set aside, Appellate Authority's original decision restored [Paras 1-36].

Limitation and Due Diligence – New Evidence – Respondents failed to demonstrate new evidence discovered after due diligence – Documents claimed as new were already available during previous proceedings – No sufficient reason for second review – [Para 27-35].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 29th April 2022 set aside – Common judgment and order dated 9th July 2013 restored – No costs [Para 36-37].

Review Jurisdiction – Civil Procedure Code – Scope – Review of judgment permissible only on discovery of new and important evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason – Successive review petitions not maintainable on same grounds – No new evidence or error apparent demonstrated by respondents – High Court erred in entertaining second review petitions – Impugned judgment set aside, original order of Appellate Authority restored [Paras 1-36].

Review vs. Appeal – Clear distinction between appellate and review jurisdiction – Review cannot substitute an appeal or correct an erroneous decision unless error is apparent on the face of the record – Review jurisdiction strictly confined to limits prescribed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC [Para 26-27].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 29th April 2022 set aside – Common judgment and order dated 9th July 2013 restored – No costs [Para 36-37].

Environmental Law – Flood Management – Overflooding of Ghaggar Basin – Final Model Study Report by CWPRS, Pune – State Governments of Punjab and Haryana directed to implement recommendations – Periodical stakeholder meetings every four weeks to monitor progress – Ghaggar Standing Committee to report every three months to CWC – CWC to submit report to Supreme Court – Implementation to be in time-bound manner to resolve long-standing flood issues affecting 25 villages [Paras 1-4].

Flood Mitigation Measures – Recommendations by CWPRS – Short-term measures involving widening of river from 60m to 90m at feasible reaches and constructing embankments to limit water level rise to 2m at both banks – Adoption of optimal solution by State Governments – Recommendations forwarded to State Governments on 21.09.2021 – Periodic monitoring and reporting to ensure effective implementation [Para 2-4].

Decision: States of Punjab and Haryana directed to take steps in terms of the recommendations made in the final Model Study Report by CWPRS, Pune – Periodic meetings and reports to monitor progress – Matter to be listed on 09.11.2022 [Para 4].

Educational Law – UGC Regulations – Exemption from NET – 2016 UGC Regulations exempting Ph.D. holders from NET applied retrospectively – Dr. Jayakumar's appointment in compliance with earlier regulations – Appointment upheld – Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside [Paras 1-27].

Declaratory and Clarificatory Amendments – Interpretation – Retrospective Operation – Courts to interpret amendments giving clear inference of retrospective application – Amendments intended to protect prior rights and provide clarity operate retrospectively [Para 19-25].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Dr. Jayakumar's appointment as Lecturer upheld – No order as to costs [Para 27].

Civil Procedure Code – Counter Claim – Order 8 Rule 6A – Counter claim must be against the plaintiff and must be instituted before the defendant has delivered his defense or before the time limit for delivering his defense has expired – Counter claim can be made on a separate or independent cause of action, but it has limitations such as pecuniary limits of the court's jurisdiction – Counter claim set up by defendants in present case was not related to plaintiff's claim and was rightly rejected by the High Court [Paras 1-17].

Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Applicable in Haryana – Second appeals governed by Section 41 do not require formulation of substantial question of law – High Court's error in decreeing claim on two plots due to lack of counter claim by defendants despite plaintiffs' failure to prove their case – High Court's judgment partially set aside [Para 15-16].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – High Court’s judgment decreeing the claim of the plaintiffs on Killa Nos. 21//3/2 and 7//13 set aside – Counter claim by defendants on Killa Nos. 6//18 and 23 correctly rejected by High Court [Para 17].

Mining Law – Coal Block Allocation – Wrongful Inclusion – Respondent No.1 (UOI) failed to follow due process, leading to wrongful inclusion of appellant in list of illegal coal block allotments – Appellant followed proper procedure under MMDR Act and MC Rules – UOI's callous approach caused appellant loss and ignominy – Allocation to appellant not through Screening Committee Route or Government Dispensation Route – Consequences of Supreme Court's judgment on coal block allocations not applicable to appellant – [Paras 1-22].

Liability for Additional Levy – Compensation and Penalty – Additional levy imposed by UOI based on erroneous inclusion in illegal allocation list – Demand for additional levy quashed – UOI directed to pay litigation costs to appellant [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Demand for additional levy quashed – UOI directed to pay litigation costs of Rs. 100,000/- to appellant within four weeks – Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 7 of 2016 dismissed [Para 22-24].