Reservation in Educational Institutions – Amendment to Reservation Act – The Supreme Court upheld the Manipur University’s adoption of reservation norms as 2% for SC, 31% for ST, and 17% for OBC candidates following the amendment to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, by the Amendment Act of 2012 – The university was correct in reverting to the reservation quotas that were in place immediately before the commencement of the Reservation Act [Paras 1-33].

Legislative Intent – Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting the second proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation Act inserted by the Amendment Act in a manner that ensures the norms for SC, ST, and OBC reservations are derived from the same source to avoid inconsistency and uncertainty – Any other interpretation would make the proviso unworkable and redundant [Paras 33].

Application of Reservation Act – Norms for Specified North Eastern Region – For Central Educational Institutions in the specified North Eastern region, the reservation norms must be aligned with the second proviso to Section 3, ensuring that the reservation for SC and ST candidates is based on the percentages existing prior to the enactment of the Reservation Act [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The reservation norms of 2% for SC, 31% for ST, and 17% for OBC candidates in Manipur University upheld as being in accordance with the Amendment Act – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 34-35].

Insolvency Law – Resolution Professional Fees – Reasonableness and Basis – The Supreme Court held that both the adjudicating authority (NCLT) and the appellate authority (NCLAT) must consider the basis and reasonableness of the fees and expenses claimed by the Resolution Professional (RP) – Orders passed in an ad hoc manner without providing reasons for determining the fees are not sustainable – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-33].

Jurisdiction – Exercise of Jurisdiction – The Court emphasized that the adjudicating authority must scrutinize and verify the factual position before determining the fees and expenses payable to the RP – An arbitrary fixation of fees without assessing the reasonableness of the claim constitutes an abdication of jurisdiction [Paras 16-17].

Adjudicating Authority’s Role – Detailed Assessment – The NCLT and NCLAT orders were set aside due to the lack of detailed assessment and reasoning – The case was remanded to the NCLT for a fresh decision with specific instructions to expedite the process [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of the NCLT and NCLAT set aside – Matter remanded to the NCLT for a fresh decision on the application for fees and expenses of the RP – NCLT directed to expedite the disposal within one month from the receipt of the certified copy of this order [Para 17].

Land Law – Scheduled Caste Land Transactions – Applicability of Local Laws – The Supreme Court held that an individual who is a Scheduled Caste member in Punjab cannot claim the benefit of Scheduled Caste status in Rajasthan for the purpose of purchasing land allotted to a Scheduled Caste person in Rajasthan – The sale transaction was in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Inter-State Migration – Scheduled Caste Status – The Court reiterated that a Scheduled Caste individual from one state cannot automatically claim Scheduled Caste status in another state upon migration – This principle ensures that local protections and benefits for Scheduled Castes are not diluted by inter-state migrations [Paras 7-9].

Regularization of Illegal Transactions – Board of Revenue’s Power – The Court found that the Board of Revenue erred in permitting the compounding and regularization of the transaction under Section 13(A)(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 – The compounding provision applies only when the transferee is in possession, which was not the case here – The order was contrary to the statutory provisions [Paras 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The land transaction in favor of the appellant was void and in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 – The High Court’s decision was upheld – No order as to costs [Para 12].

Employment Law – Departmental Inquiry – Representation by Retired Employee – The Supreme Court held that there is no absolute right for an employee facing departmental proceedings to be represented by a retired employee of the bank as his DR – Regulation 44 of the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, does not specifically permit or restrict the engagement of a retired employee as a DR – The High Court erred in permitting such representation without considering Clause 8 of the Handbook of Vigilance Administration & Disciplinary Action, which mandates that the DR should be a serving official/employee of the bank – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-33].

Regulation and Handbook Procedure – Harmonious Reading – The Court emphasized that the provisions of Regulation 44 and the Handbook Procedure should be read harmoniously – The Handbook, approved by the Board of Directors, is supplementary to the regulations and binding on all employees – It specifically requires the DR to be a serving official/employee, thus excluding retired employees [Paras 7-10].

Right to Representation – Limits and Employer's Discretion – It was reiterated that the right to representation in departmental proceedings is not absolute and can be restricted by the employer through regulations or standing orders – The principle is to avoid any outsider, including retired employees, from representing in internal inquiries to maintain decorum and confidentiality [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment permitting the respondent to be represented by a retired employee in the departmental inquiry set aside – Directions issued to adhere to the Handbook Procedure requiring the DR to be a serving employee – No order as to costs [Para 10].

Election Law – Disqualification of Panchayat Members – Appealability: The Supreme Court held that no remedy of appeal is envisaged against an order of the State Election Commission or its delegatee (the Collector) under Section 14B(1) rejecting the complaint or dropping proceedings for the declaration of a Sarpanch/Member having incurred disqualification. Such an order becomes final and is deemed to have been passed by the State Election Commission itself. The Divisional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against such an order. The appeals are allowed [Paras 1-23].

Jurisdiction of Divisional Commissioner – Finality of Collector’s Order: The Court emphasized that the Divisional Commissioner would have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Collector's order under Section 14B(1). The State Election Commission or its delegatee cannot review or reconsider such an order once passed. The High Court's analogy drawn from Section 16(2) was incorrect, as the processes under Section 14B and Section 16 are distinct [Paras 14-17].

Legislative Intent – Appeals and Review: The statutory framework does not provide for an appeal against the rejection of a disqualification complaint by the Collector. The only instance where the Divisional Commissioner or State Election Commission can intervene is to remove or reduce the period of disqualification once it has been declared. This design prevents the same authority from reviewing its own decisions, ensuring finality and preventing jurisdictional overreach [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Orders of the Divisional Commissioner dated 15.07.2019 are set aside – The Collector's orders rejecting the Dispute Applications are restored – No order as to costs [Para 23].

Arbitration Law – Termination of Mandate – Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act – The Supreme Court held that the originally constituted Arbitral Tribunal, a Stationery Purchase Committee comprising officers of the respondent, had lost its mandate by operation of law under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – A fresh arbitrator is required to be appointed under the provisions of the Act – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-33].

Neutrality of Arbitrators – Amendment Act 2015 – The Court emphasized that the Amendment Act 2015 was introduced to ensure the neutrality of arbitrators – Any person whose relationship with the parties or the subject matter of the dispute falls under the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator – The prior constitution of the arbitral tribunal in the year 2001 does not exempt it from the application of the amended Section 12(5) [Paras 7-9].

Applicability of Section 12(5) – Prospective and Retrospective Operation – The Court clarified that Section 12(5) applies to ongoing arbitral proceedings unless there is an express agreement in writing post-dispute to continue with the same arbitrators – The principle of independence and impartiality applies regardless of the timeline of the constitution of the tribunal [Paras 8-9].

Appointment of Fresh Arbitrator – Ineligibility of Previous Arbitrators – The originally constituted tribunal comprising officers of the respondent is declared ineligible – The Court appoints a fresh arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order dated 27.08.2021 set aside – The earlier Arbitral Tribunal's mandate terminated – Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, former Judge of the Supreme Court, appointed as the fresh arbitrator – Directions issued for expeditious conclusion of arbitration proceedings [Paras 10-12].

Foreign Trade Policy – Terminal Excise Duty Refund – Applicability – The Supreme Court held that the policy circular dated 15.03.2013 issued by the DGFT, clarifying that no refund of TED should be provided for supplies from DTA to EOU as such supplies are ab initio exempted from payment of excise duty, was valid – Refund claims for TED were inadmissible under the FTP as the supplies were to be made without payment of excise duty – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-33].

Ab Initio Exemption – DTA to EOU Supplies – The Court emphasized that the FTP mandated supplies from DTA to EOUs to be made without payment of excise duty, thereby making any refund claim for TED untenable – The provision of FTP for exemption from duty overrides any past practice of granting refunds [Paras 15-17].

Judicial Review – Policy Circulars – The policy circular issued by DGFT was held to be clarificatory and consistent with the FTP, ensuring uniform application of the policy – Past instances of refund do not create a vested right against the express provisions of the FTP [Paras 27-30].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s orders upholding the DGFT’s policy circular affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 33].

Arbitration – Remittal to Arbitrator – Section 34(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Court's discretion to remit matter to arbitrator to fill gaps in reasoning or provide additional reasons – Not obligatory to remit in cases of patent illegality or absence of findings on contentious issues – High Court dismissed motion for remittal as arbitral award lacked findings on key issue of abrupt and illegal termination of contract – Appeal dismissed [Paras 17-22].

Patent Illegality – Arbitrator’s Award – Arbitral award challenged for lacking findings on contentious issue – Respondent claimed accord and satisfaction evidenced by documents not considered by arbitrator – Remittal inappropriate where award is per se illegal or findings ignore material evidence – Arbitrator cannot alter award under guise of providing additional reasons [Paras 18-21].

Discretionary Power – Section 34(4) of Arbitration Act – Court’s discretion to remit matter based on appropriateness – Factors include grounds in application under Section 34(1), grounds for remittal, and responses thereto – Not obligatory for Court to remit merely on application – Remittal intended for cases with inadequate reasoning, not for altering findings [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court order upheld – Remittal not appropriate due to absence of findings on key issue and potential alteration of award – No order as to costs [Para 22].

Income Tax – Deductible Expenses – Section 40(a)(iib) – Gallonage fee, licence fee, and shop rental (kist) paid by appellant with respect to FL-9 and FL-1 licences fall within purview of Section 40(a)(iib) – Surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax not considered as 'fee' or 'charge' under Section 40(a)(iib), disallowance of these amounts rightly set aside by High Court [Paras 14-16].

Statutory Interpretation – Fee vs. Tax – Distinction between 'fee' and 'tax' maintained in Section 40 – Surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax are outside scope of Section 40(a)(iib) – Principle of ejusdem generis applied to interpret scope of 'fee' or 'charge' [Para 14.3-14.5].

Legislative Intent – Section 40(a)(iib) – Intended to prevent diversion of profits from State-owned undertakings to State treasury under guise of fees and charges – Levy considered exclusive if imposed on State-owned undertakings irrespective of number of entities holding licences [Para 14.1-14.2].

Decision – Appeals filed by the revenue partly allowed – Appeal filed by appellant dismissed – Assessments for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 to be revised as per directions – Assessing officer to pass revised orders within two months from receipt of judgment [Paras 16-17].