Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Suicide of Data Ram – Alleged abetment by Prabhat Kumar Mishra – Mishra challenged the charges under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act – Based on suicide note of Data Ram alleging pressure and humiliation – High Court rejected Mishra's application under Section 482 CrPC – Appeal to Supreme Court. [Paras 2-10]

Non-Constituent of Offences – Supreme Court observed prosecution under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act to be illegal – No evidence of offence committed on caste basis – Parameters of abetment under Section 306 IPC not met – Relying on similar judgments including Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. and M. Mohan v. State. [Paras 16-21]

Ineffectiveness of Suicide Note – Suicide note did not exhibit acts or omissions by Mishra constituting abetment – Indicated frustration and pressure unrelated to Mishra – Initial closure report by investigating agency supported non-prosecution. [Paras 22-24]

Decision – Supreme Court quashed High Court order and all proceedings against Mishra under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act – Appeal allowed. [Paras 25-27]

Agricultural Produce – Livestock Products – Inclusion of Ghee – The Supreme Court evaluated whether 'ghee' falls under the category of a 'product of livestock' according to The Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. The Court also examined the validity of the Government notification, G.O. Ms. No.286 dated 05.07.1994, which declared 'ghee' as a livestock product. [Para 1-2, 10]

Compliance with Legislative Procedure - Validity of 1994 Notification - The Court affirmed the validity of the 1994 Government notification under Section 4, not Section 3, of the Act, negating the need for a draft notification and public objections process - This notification was for the declaration of a 'notified market area' for "ghee" [Para 11].

Obligation to Pay Market Fees - Appellants Liable for Market Fees - The Court held that appellants must pay market fees from 1994 to 2009, rejecting their argument for exemption - They are allowed to pay the accumulated fee over two years in four equal installments [Para 13].

Dismissal of Appeals - Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the majority decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and lifting interim orders that had restrained collection of market fees [Para 14].

Applicability of Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 - In contracts between buyer and supplier, the buyer must make payments within a timeframe, not exceeding 120 days from the day of acceptance or deemed acceptance - Interest chargeable after this period as per Sections 3 and 4 of the Act - Proviso to Section 3 limits payment date to a maximum of 120 days regardless of the contract terms. [Paras 3, 6-8, 14]

Definition of 'appointed day', 'buyer', and 'supplier' under the 1993 Act - Explanation of these terms critical for determining the start date for calculating interest on delayed payments - Amendments to include National Small Industries Corporation and State Industrial Development Corporations under 'supplier' definition. [Para 4, 5]

Arbitral award dated 30.06.2003 set aside by High Court - Sections 3 to 5 of the 1993 Act require ascertaining the appointed day, acceptance day, or deemed acceptance day for interest calculations - Further proceedings to determine these facts and the consequent interest payable under the Act. [Paras 13, 14]

Consideration of compound interest under Section 5 of the Act - Compound interest treated separately from the principal amount - Need for clarification on whether compounded interest is to be considered as principal for future calculations. [Para 15]

Restitution and enforcement of security by MSSIDCL - MSSIDCL entitled to enforce security or seek restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for payments made to SSPL. [Para 16]

Appeal dismissed without costs - Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. [Para 17]

Transaction in Securities and Attachment of Property – Appellant's appeals against Special Court's order for recovery of funds under the Act of 1992 – Involvement of appellant with benami companies and alleged failure to repay borrowed funds – Act focused on handling irregularities in transactions in securities, and provisions for attachment of properties of notified persons – [Paras 3-11, 32-33, 35-38].

Interpretation of the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 – examined – the Court analyzed the provisions of the Act of 1992, especially focusing on the appointment of custodians, the attachment of properties, and the role of the Special Court in dealing with offences and recovery of assets related to securities transactions. [Para 3-11, 34-35]

Burden of Proof and Evidence – discussed – the Court considered the principles of burden of proof and the adequacy of evidence presented. It delved into whether the appellants successfully discharged their onus of proving that loans taken from respondent companies were repaid, and whether the Custodian provided sufficient evidence to establish outstanding debts. [Para 22-24, 26-27, 36-38]

Decision – Reversal of Special Court's Judgment – The Supreme Court reversed the Special Court's decision, finding that the judgments against the appellants were not substantiated by sufficient evidence and were contrary to legal principles. The Court emphasized the importance of reliable documentary evidence and proper legal procedure in such financial cases. [Para 39-41]

Reimbursement Ordered – The Court directed the reimbursement of amounts deposited by the appellants in compliance with a previous order, underscoring the significance of just and fair legal processes in financial litigations. [Para 42]

Disposition – The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of the Special Court were quashed. Any pending applications related to the case were disposed of. [Para 41-43]

Recruitment – Local and Non-Local Candidates – legality of the recruitment process conducted by the Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board, where the contention was regarding the allocation of posts to local and non-local candidates as per the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975. [Para 4-5, 7, 13-14]

Amendment to Government Order – Clarification of Recruitment Process – held – The amendment to G.O.P No. 763 via GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002 mandates filling up 30% of posts first with both locals and non-locals on the basis of merit, followed by filling the remaining 70% with locals. The Court found that the recruitment process adhered to this mandate. [Para 5, 13]

Interpretation of Recruitment Rules – Zone Preferences – The Court held that a candidate could be considered for a zone as per their preference and merit, thereby rejecting the argument that respondent no. 2 should not have been considered for a zone which was her second preference. [Para 8, 14]

Judicial Interference in Recruitment Process – Limitations – emphasized – The Supreme Court stressed the need for judicial restraint in interfering with the decisions of recruitment agencies unless there is evidence of illegality, material irregularity, or mala fides. Reliance was placed on the decision in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, (1990) 1 SCC 305. [Para 14]

Decision – Upholding of Recruitment to Respondent No. 2 – The Court set aside the High Court's decision, affirming the recruitment of respondent no. 2 and thus upholding the recruitment process conducted by the appellant. [Para 15]

Land Acquisition – Notice and Opportunity to Object – examined the compliance of statutory notice requirements under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, in the context of land acquisition. The court addressed the issue of whether the absence of individual notice to certain tenure-holders vitiated the acquisition process. [Para 1-6, 16-17]

Application of 1965 Act Provisions – The Court scrutinized the provisions of the 1965 Act, focusing on the obligation to issue a pre-acquisition notice and the entitlement of affected parties to object to the acquisition. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for a valid acquisition. [Para 4-6, 16]

Invalidity of Acquisition Process – The Court held that the absence of public or individual notice proposing to acquire certain lands rendered the acquisition process invalid. This lack of notice denied the respondents an effective opportunity to object, leading to the quashing of the acquisition of specific plots. [Para 16-17]

Assessment of Compensation under 2013 Act – Considering the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Court directed that compensation for acquired land should be assessed in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This decision aligns the process with contemporary standards of fair compensation. [Para 18-19]

Directions for Future Action – The Court directed the appropriate government to dispense with certain procedures under the 2013 Act for practical reasons and ordered the determination of compensation in compliance with the Act. It also provided guidelines for dealing with the compensation amount amid a title dispute and maintaining the status quo regarding the land. [Para 20-22]

Conclusion – The appeal was disposed of with specific directions, emphasizing the adherence to procedural requirements in land acquisition and the assessment of fair compensation under the 2013 Act. [Para 23-24]

Claim of Juvenility – Petitioner convicted of murder in 1986, claimed juvenility at the time of incident (10th September, 1982) based on a medical report and family register – Petitioner’s age was a central issue in determining eligibility for relief under the Juvenile Justice Act. [Paras 1-5]

Medical Examination and Age Determination – Medical Board conducted age estimation via X-rays, opining petitioner around 56 years old in 2021 – Claimed petitioner was around 15 years in 1982 – Ossification test and family register scrutinized for age verification. [Paras 5, 7]

Inquiry by Sessions Court – Ordered by Supreme Court to examine petitioner’s claim and authenticity of the family register – Found petitioner's date of birth as 2nd July, 1960, and that he was major at the time of incident – Medical opinion noted uncertainty in age estimation based on X-ray after 25 years of age. [Paras 6, 7, 17-19]

Legal Argument and Court's Observation – Petitioner contested inquiry findings, arguing discrepancies in the family register and school records – The court considered school records more reliable in age determination under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act. [Paras 9-14, 20]

Dismissal of Writ Petition – Supreme Court found no merit in the petition based on detailed inquiry and evidence – Upheld the decision that the petitioner was not a juvenile at the time of the incident and dismissed the writ petition. [Para 21]

Suspension and Cancellation under PC&PNDT Act - Interpretation of Sections 20(1), (2), and (3) - The appeal focuses on the powers for cancellation, suspension, or suspension in public interest under the PC&PNDT Act - Concerns the case of suspension of registration of "Dev Hospital," Ahmedabad, without notice or hearing, deemed contrary to the provisions of the Act [Paras 2, 3, 5, 10-12, 17-18]

Administrative Action – Principles of Natural Justice – Emphasized the need for following principles of natural justice, such as issuing a show cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing, before suspending or cancelling medical registration under the PC&PNDT Act. [Para 5, 13, 17]

Interpretation of Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act – Clarified – Held that the power under Section 20(3) for suspension in public interest is distinct and can be exercised independently of Sections 20(1) & (2). However, this power should be exercised sparingly and for interim periods, not indefinitely, and requires explicit reasoning demonstrating the necessity or expediency in public interest. [Para 11, 16, 17]

Decision – Upholding High Court's Judgment – The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, which had set aside the suspension orders of the hospital's registration by the appropriate authority under the PC&PNDT Act, finding procedural impropriety and lack of adherence to principles of natural justice. [Para 13, 18]

Directive – No Additional Orders Required – Since the hospital in question is operational and the challenged suspension orders were implemented, no further orders were deemed necessary for reviving the registration. [Para 18]

Arbitration – Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards – Conflict of Interest and Bias – challenge against enforcement of a foreign arbitral award on grounds of arbitrator's alleged bias and conflict of interest under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The appellants contended that the presiding arbitrator had failed to disclose conflicts of interest, impacting his impartiality and independence, thus violating the public policy of India. [Para 6, 26-28]

Application of IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest – Evaluated – The court examined the application of the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflict of Interest in International Arbitration to determine whether there was a duty of disclosure by the arbitrator and if the alleged non-disclosure led to a conflict of interest. The court found that the arbitrator complied with the disclosure obligations, and no bias or improper conduct could be attributed to the arbitral award. [Para 30-37]

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards – Upheld – Court underscored the need for minimal judicial intervention in foreign arbitral awards, highlighting the distinction between the standards of public policy applicable in domestic and international arbitration. The court held that refusal to enforce a foreign arbitral award on grounds of bias should be an exceptional circumstance, applying international standards over domestic ones. The award was found enforceable as the appellants failed to meet the high threshold for refusal under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act. [Para 21, 27, 42-44]

Challenge at Enforcement Stage – Discouraged – The court discouraged the practice of raising challenges like arbitrator bias at the enforcement stage, stating such strategies prolong legal battles and delay the enforcement process. It emphasized the importance of timely and strategic resolution in arbitration cases, advocating for adherence to international standards in determining bias. [Para 29, 42]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The court dismissed the appeals, finding them devoid of merit and underscored the need for swift enforcement of the foreign arbitral award without further indulgence to the award debtors. [Para 44]