Judicial Review of Commercial Decisions – Supreme Court's power under Article 226 to issue writs – High Court's discretion to entertain a writ petition – Restrictions and exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy – Considerations of natural justice, jurisdiction, and fundamental rights – Assessment of public interest in issuing a mandamus. [Paras 7, 97-110]

Electricity Act and Bidding Guidelines – Interpretation and application of Section 63 and Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act – Role of State Commission in adopting tariffs determined through a transparent bidding process – Guidelines for bidding and evaluation of tariffs – Right to reject price bids if not aligned with market prices. [Paras 39, 66-75, 84-88]

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 63 – Determination of Tariff by Bidding Process – scope of Section 63, emphasizing that the appropriate Commission does not "determine" tariff but only "adopts" it, provided the tariff has been determined through a transparent process of bidding in accordance with guidelines issued by the Central Government. The Court held that the Commission is not merely a post office and must ensure compliance with the guidelines. [Para 66-68, 70]

Electricity – Tariff – Competitive Bidding – Market Alignment –held that the evaluation committee under the Bidding Guidelines has the authority to reject all price bids if the rates quoted are not aligned with prevailing market prices. The Court emphasized that procurers are not bound to accept all bids in a competitive bidding process without considering market alignment. The decision-making process must be in the consumers' interest and public interest. [Para 73-74, 77-78, 90-92]

Judicial Review – Commercial Transactions – Court asserted that while the decision to award a contract is primarily a commercial one, the State and its instrumentalities must adhere to the norms, standards, and procedures they have set. The judiciary can review the decision-making process, but it should not interfere unless it finds evidence of arbitrariness, irrationality, or malfeasance. [Para 101-104]

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternate Remedy – Delay and Laches – The High Court should not have entertained the writ petition due to the availability of an alternate remedy under the Electricity Act, which is a complete code. Additionally, the significant delay in filing the writ petition after the relevant developments also warranted dismissal on the grounds of delay and laches. [Para 93, 98-99, 106]

Decision – Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the High Court's order which had mandated procurement of electricity from MB Power at certain rates. The Court directed MB Power to pay costs to the appellants. [Para 106-110]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC – Life Imprisonment

– Appellant’s conviction by Session Court upheld by High Court – Appeals by

appellants in Supreme Court. [Para 2-4]

Murder Incident – Occurrence in 2007 – Death of Pappu alias Rajendra Yadav

– Alleged assault by four accused including the appellant, resulting in death.

[Para 5]

Dying Declaration – Oral declaration by deceased to family members

implicating accused – Reliability and corroboration of such declarations

examined. [Para 7-8, 16]

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability of eyewitness Rahul Yadav (PW-13)

questioned due to criminal background and absence at the scene in initial

accounts. [Para 9-12]

Inconsistencies in Prosecution’s Case – Testimonies of other eyewitnesses

declared hostile – Doubts raised about the presence and reliability of said

witnesses. [Para 13-14]

Medical Evidence – Analysis of the deceased’s injuries and their severity –

Doubts regarding the possibility of making a dying declaration in such a

medical state. [Para 15, 16]

Appellate Review – Supreme Court’s role in reassessing evidence when the

guilt of the accused is not established beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 17]

Acquittal – Supreme Court acquits appellants by granting benefit of doubt due

to inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence in the prosecution’s

case. [Para 18]

Judgment – Appeals allowed, appellants acquitted and set free, bail bonds

discharged. [Para 19]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal in Murder Case – Circumstantial Evidence Insufficient to Establish Guilt – Appellant acquitted by the Supreme Court due to inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution’s evidence. [Para 30-32]

Murder Conviction – Inadequate Evidence – Appellant’s conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder by Trial Court and High Court set aside due to unreliable witness testimonies and lack of concrete circumstantial evidence. [Para 10, 11, 29]

Circumstantial Evidence – Reliability and Completeness – Essential for circumstantial evidence to form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused; In this case, evidence was inconsistent and did not exclude all other hypotheses but the guilt of the accused. [Para 28, 29]

Witness Testimony – Evaluation of Witness Credibility – Testimonies of key witnesses (PW-10, 11, 12, 16) found unreliable and inconsistent, leading to doubts about the prosecution’s version of events. [Para 14-17, 18-19, 20-22, 23-24]

Extra-Judicial Confession – Reliability Questioned – High Court’s reliance on extra-judicial confession disregarded due to inconsistencies and contradictions in witness statements. [Para 15-17]

Forensic Evidence – Limitations in Establishing Guilt – FSL report’s findings on blood type and recovered items deemed insufficient to conclusively link appellant to the crime. [Para 25-26]

Decision – Supreme Court’s Acquittal of Appellant – Based on the principles governing circumstantial evidence, the appellant is acquitted of all charges, underscoring the necessity of indisputable evidence to convict in a circumstantial case. [Para 30-32]

Challenge of High Court Order - Appeal against order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the criminal revision challenging summoning of appellant, Inspector Gurdev Singh Bhalla, under Section 319 CrPC. [Para 2]

Misappropriation Case and Alleged Corruption - FIR against Devraj Miglani for paddy misappropriation. Subsequent allegations of police corruption involving the appellant and others during the investigation. [Paras 3.1, 3.2, 3.3]

Informant's Allegations - Informant Puneet Miglani's allegations of extortion by police, including the appellant, demanding money from his family. [Paras 3.2, 3.3, 9]

Trial Court Proceedings - Initial rejection and subsequent allowance of Section 319 CrPC application by trial court to summon appellant and other officials. [Paras 4, 5]

Appellant's Arguments - Appellant's contention on lack of evidence, improper application of Section 319 CrPC, and allegations being a counterblast. [Paras 6, 10-12]

State's Counterarguments - State and complainant's assertion of proper evidence and procedure followed in summoning the appellant. [Para 7]

Supreme Court Analysis - Examination of evidence and statements, finding prima facie case against the appellant. Parameters of Hardeep Singh case satisfied. [Paras 8, 13, 14]

Decision - Appeal dismissed. Court refrains from influencing trial court and allows trial to proceed uninfluenced by this judgment. [Paras 14, 15]

Circumstantial Evidence and Presence at Crime Scene – Murder of Amrik Kaur by poisoning – Appellant Darshan Singh convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the presence of appellant at the scene – Evidence of appellant's presence and opportunity to commit the crime critical in the case. [Paras 1-5, 10-13, 17, 21-25, 29-31, 34-37]

Testimony of Witnesses – PW3 and PW4's testimonies crucial for establishing appellant's presence at the crime scene – Cross-examination revealed significant omissions and inconsistencies – Testimony of PW5 (a chance witness) not reliable enough to confirm appellant's presence – Overall, the evidence of presence was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. [Paras 18-25, 29]

Suicide Versus Homicide – Defence suggested deceased committed suicide – Prosecution failed to conclusively negate this possibility – Doubts about the mode of administration of poison – No forceful administration indicated due to lack of injury marks – Circumstances do not definitively point to homicide over suicide. [Paras 30, 34-37]

Benefit of Doubt and Acquittal – Co-accused Rani Kaur acquitted, raising doubts about appellant's presence and participation – Inconsistent application of the benefit of doubt by the High Court in appellant's case – Acquittal of appellant due to failure to establish his presence at the scene and the possibility of suicide not being conclusively negated. [Paras 34-38]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction of appellant Darshan Singh set aside due to gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence and failure to conclusively establish his presence at the crime scene, along with unresolved ambiguities regarding the possibility of suicide.

Detention Order Validity - Detention under Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act following arrest due to possession of gold and foreign currencies - Detention order challenged by brother-in-law of detenue on grounds of improper service of detention grounds and denial of right to representation - High Court of Calcutta upheld the detention order. [Paras 2-5]

Detenue's Refusal to Receive Grounds - Detenue refused to accept the grounds of detention multiple times - Grounds finally accepted on a later date - Detenue's refusal to accept grounds recorded in a panchnama, undermining his claim of not being informed of his right to representation. [Paras 4-5, 9, 16]

Legal Principles of Detention - Importance of communicating grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue - Article 22(5) of the Constitution requires informing detenue of their right to make a representation against detention - Detenue must have effective knowledge of grounds for meaningful representation. [Paras 10-14]

Adequate Compliance by Authorities - Authorities made several attempts to serve the detention grounds in both English and Bengali - Detenue eventually read the grounds and documents - Authorities fulfilled their duty under Article 22(5) by providing sufficient opportunity for representation. [Paras 16, 18]

Dismissal of Appeal - Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal - No error in procedure adopted by respondents - Detenue's knowledge of English evident, diminishing his claim of ignorance - Appeal dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision. [Paras 16-19]

Arbitral Award Modification & Judicial Intervention - Challenge to the High Court's judgment confirming the Senior Civil Judge's decision to modify the arbitral award - The issue concerns judicial intervention under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the scope of such intervention in arbitral awards. [Paras 1, 11-12, 14-15, 28-32, 37-43]

Contractor's Claims for Delay in Construction - S.V. Samudram, a contractor, claimed financial losses due to delays in construction work caused by the State's failure in timely site handover, supply of materials, and payment clearances. The Arbitrator found the State liable and awarded compensation. [Paras 2-3, 5-6]

Court's Assessment of Arbitrator's Decision - The Civil Judge modified the Arbitrator's decision, reducing the compensation amount and interest rate. The High Court affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court scrutinized the appropriateness of such judicial intervention under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. [Paras 7-10, 13, 28-32, 37-43]

Restoration of Arbitral Award - The Supreme Court found the lower courts' intervention inappropriate, restoring the original Arbitrator's award. The judgment highlights the limited scope of judicial review in arbitral awards and reaffirms the sanctity of arbitration as an alternate dispute resolution mechanism. [Paras 47-48]

Right to Claim Set-Off in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Examining the applicability of set-off during the resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Bharti Airtel Limited’s claim for set-off rejected by Resolution Professional and subsequently by the Adjudicating Authority. [Paras 1, 11, 30-34]

Interpretation of Set-Off – Different types of set-off including contractual, statutory/legal, equitable, and insolvency set-off discussed – Emphasis on the legal preference and principles of set-off in economic terms, litigation reduction, and natural equity. [Paras 3-10, 16-22]

Analysis of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Distinction between Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and liquidation process – No recognition of the right to set-off in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Code. [Paras 12-14, 26-31]

Set-Off and Insolvency Process – Discussion on the United Kingdom's insolvency law for insolvency set-off – Requirement of mutuality and prohibition of set-off post commencement of insolvency process. [Paras 17-19]

Application of Set-Off Principles to the Case – Bharti Airtel's claim for set-off based on contractual obligations and spectrum trading agreements with Aircel entities – Set-off not permissible post commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. [Paras 23-25, 35-37, 50]

Conclusion – Appeals of Bharti Airtel Limited and another dismissed – No merit found in the appeals against the decision of the Resolution Professional and the Adjudicating Authority. [Para 51]

Title and Possession of Property – Ownership Claim through Sale Deed Validated – Plaintiff appellant’s ownership of disputed land established through registered sale deed dated 21.01.1966 from erstwhile Zamindar. Attempt to construct on land led to dispute in 1975. Trial Court and First Appellate Court's findings upheld, decreeing suit for possession in plaintiff's favor. High Court's dismissal on grounds of limitation, based on adverse possession claim by defendants, set aside. [Paras 1-9.6]

Adverse Possession – Incorrect Application by High Court – High Court erred in applying concept of adverse possession. First, plaintiff's ownership was not disputed; second, the defendants' possession, originating from tenancy, could not be adverse to the Zamindars or the subsequent owner, plaintiff appellant. The suit filed in 1975 was within 12 years of the sale deed, negating adverse possession claim. [Paras 9-9.5]

Non-Agricultural Land – Relevance in Zamindari Abolition – First Appellate Court found the disputed land to be non-agricultural, negating defendants' claim of ownership through Zamindari abolition. This finding, not disturbed by the High Court, supported the plaintiff’s title claim. [Para 9.6]

Decision – High Court's Judgment Set Aside, First Appellate Court’s Decree Upheld – Supreme Court allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment on limitation grounds. Upholds the First Appellate Court's decree for possession in favor of the plaintiff appellant. [Para 10]