Education Law – Affiliation for B. Pharma Course – Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) approval – State Government's conditional affiliation – Petitioners' right to affiliation upheld – Respondent University directed to grant affiliation and permit students to participate in examinations – Petition allowed [Paras 1-12].

Affiliation Process – Conditional Affiliation – PCI granted approval to petitioner colleges with intake capacities of 100 and 60 students respectively – State Government's policy restricting number of pharmacy colleges per district challenged and set aside – Conditional affiliation granted by State Government after considering recommendations of the Affiliation Committee [Paras 2-10].

Judicial Precedent – Prevailing Law – Supreme Court in Dr. S.K. Toshiwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy case held that Pharmacy Act prevails in matters of pharmacy education and PCI norms must be followed – Applied in present case to uphold petitioners' affiliation rights [Para 9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Respondent University directed to grant affiliation for academic year 2020-21 and permit students to participate in special examinations as per notification dated 19th March 2021 [Paras 11-12].

Limitation Act – Section 18 – Acknowledgement of Debt – Balance Sheets – Entries in balance sheets can amount to an acknowledgement of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act – Such entries, if signed by the party, can extend the limitation period – Supreme Court refers to several precedents affirming this interpretation [Paras 1-23].

Corporate Law – Companies Act Compliance – Filing balance sheets under compulsion of law does not negate the effect of entries as acknowledgements of debt – Courts to examine whether entries are unequivocal or caveated – Acknowledgement in balance sheets must indicate a subsisting jural relationship of debtor and creditor [Paras 21-22].

Judicial Precedents – Application of Section 18 of Limitation Act – Reaffirms applicability of Section 18 to proceedings under IBC – References to previous judgments like Bengal Silk Mills Co. and Shapoor Fredoom Mazda to support the position [Paras 9-17].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The matter remitted to NCLAT for reconsideration in light of the legal principles established regarding acknowledgements in balance sheets extending the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Interim Orders – "No Coercive Steps" – High Court shall not pass order of "no coercive steps" during investigation or till final report/charge-sheet is filed while dismissing/disposing of a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or Article 226 of the Constitution – Police has statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences – Interim protection from arrest not to be granted mechanically without recording reasons [Paras 1-26].

Investigation – Judicial Interference – Courts should not interfere with police investigations unless exceptional circumstances exist – Interim orders restraining arrest or investigation impede police functions – Proper remedy is to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC – Parameters for quashing FIR/complaint reiterated [Paras 7-9, 17-20].

Legal Precedent – Established Principles – Reaffirmation of principles from cases like R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, and Khwaja Nazir Ahmad – Guidelines for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution of India provided [Paras 10-16, 21-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Direction issued that High Courts should not pass interim orders restraining arrest or investigation during the pendency of quashing petitions without substantial reasons – High Court directed to decide the quashing petition on merits expeditiously [Paras 25-26].

Arbitration Law – Seat of Arbitration – Change of Venue – Mutual Agreement – Supreme Court held that by mutual agreement of the parties, the venue of arbitration can be changed, and this change constitutes a change in the seat of arbitration – Once the seat is designated, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, vesting exclusive jurisdiction with the courts at the seat – Ahmedabad courts vested with exclusive jurisdiction as the seat of arbitration was shifted from Jaipur to Ahmedabad by mutual agreement [Paras 1-19].

Commercial Courts Jurisdiction – Implications of Seat Change – Supreme Court clarified that once the seat of arbitration is changed by mutual agreement, the exclusive jurisdiction of courts follows the new seat – Previous designations of jurisdiction based on the former seat become inapplicable – The decision reaffirms the principles laid down in BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Limited (2020) [Paras 12-18].

Legal Precedent – Applicability – The case distinguished from Videocon Industries Limited v. Union of India (2011) which required written agreement for changing the seat, as no such specific amendment clause was present in the current agreement – Principles from Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v. Datawind Innovations Private Limited (2017) applied to support the shift in seat by mutual agreement without requiring written amendment [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Jurisdiction vested in Ahmedabad courts following the mutually agreed change of the seat of arbitration – Section 34 petition to be resolved by the courts at Ahmedabad – Interim stay on execution proceedings to continue till disposal of the Section 34 petition by the appropriate forum at Ahmedabad [Paras 18-21].

Judiciary – Conspiracy to Destabilize – Enquiry Directions – The High Court directed an enquiry into the authenticity of a phone conversation implicating a conspiracy against the judiciary. The petitioner admitted to the conversation and submitted a corrected transcript. The Supreme Court found no reason to continue the enquiry as directed by the High Court since the authenticity of the conversation was admitted to the extent contained in the corrected transcript [Paras 1-13].

Procedural Fairness – Notice and Opportunity – The High Court's order directing the enquiry was made without issuing notice to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to respond before the enquiry was directed. The Supreme Court emphasized that any reference to the transcript in the writ petition must be done only after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard [Paras 10-15].

Maintainability of PIL – Preliminary Objections – The High Court was directed to focus on the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The enquiry into the conversation was limited to the extent of addressing the allegations made in the preliminary counter affidavit. The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court should decide on the maintainability of the PIL after hearing the arguments reserved on this point [Paras 13-16].

Decision- Special Leave Petition disposed of. The High Court's direction for an enquiry into the conversation by Justice R.V. Raveendran (Retd.) was set aside. The High Court to proceed with the writ petition and decide on its maintainability after providing an opportunity for a hearing [Paras 17].

Tender Process – Labour Licence Requirement – Judicial Review – The Supreme Court held that the High Court overstepped the bounds of judicial review by second-guessing the authority's requirement of a labour licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, as per the Tender Call Notice (TCN). A registration certificate under Section 4 of the Orissa Shops and Commercial Establishments Act cannot replace a valid labour licence issued by the labour department [Paras 1-16].

Interpretation of Tender Conditions – Authority’s Discretion – The Supreme Court emphasized that the authority inviting the tender is best placed to understand and interpret its requirements. Courts should defer to this interpretation unless it is arbitrary, perverse, or mala fide. The High Court erred in substituting its own interpretation for that of the authority, which had a reasonable basis for requiring a labour licence under the Contract Labour Act [Paras 10-14].

Mala Fides Allegation – Insufficient Grounds – The plea of mala fide made by the respondent was not substantiated with sufficient evidence. The High Court's finding of mala fide was questioned by the Supreme Court, which noted that merely incanting the expression 'mala fide' is insufficient without factual basis [Paras 16-17].

Decision- Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Appellant to be reinstated within one week to complete performance under the agreement dated 27.11.2020 [Paras 17].

Right to Professional Education – Article 32 – Admission Delays – The Supreme Court addressed the issue of delayed admissions for students from Ladakh nominated under the central pool seats for MBBS courses. The Court underscored that access to professional education is not a governmental largesse but an affirmative obligation of the State. The State must ensure access to education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds [Paras 1-9].

Fundamental Rights – Access to Education – Non-Discrimination – The Court emphasized the importance of non-discrimination and economic accessibility in education. Disparities in educational opportunities based on geographic location can constitute discrimination. The Court directed the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MHFW) and the Directorate of Health Services, Ladakh (DHSL) to coordinate and facilitate the admission process to avoid hardship for students [Paras 10-12].

Systemic Directions – Nodal Officer Appointment – To ensure smooth admissions, the Court recommended the appointment of a nodal officer to assist students allocated central pool seats. The nodal officer would serve as a single point of contact, helping students secure their rightful admission and addressing any difficulties they may face [Para 12].

Decision- Petitions allowed. Directions issued for immediate completion of admission formalities for the petitioners at Lady Hardinge Medical College (LHMC) and Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC). All students referred to in the notification dated February 19, 2021, to be granted admissions if not already done. Copy of the order to be forwarded to the concerned institutions for compliance [Paras 8-15].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Determination – Appeal concerning valuation of lands acquired for setting up Industrial Model Township – High Court relied on sale deeds and assessments from previous cases – Supreme Court upheld High Court's methodology and market value determination – Rejected reliance on cumulative annual increase beyond safe periods due to potential inaccuracies [Paras 1-12].

Valuation Method – Sale Deeds and Annual Increase – Sale deed evidence considered safer for market value determination – Court rejected annual increase method for periods beyond four to five years, citing potential for drastic changes in land value trends [Paras 10-11].

Market Value – Comparable Sales – High Court’s reliance on sale deed of village Lakhnoula and related assessments upheld – Supreme Court agreed with deduction for development costs and adjustment based on proximity to highway [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's determination of market value

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Excess Payment – Applications seeking clarification on previous judgment on compensation – Supreme Court upheld compensation rate of Rs.29,773,333/- per acre – Noted excess compensation paid due to earlier interim orders – Held that landholders need not return excess amounts considering authorities recovered more from subsequent allottees – Orders modified under Article 142 to relieve landholders of repayment obligation [Paras 1-13].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Use of inherent powers to modify orders – Exercised to prevent hardship to landholders who received excess compensation – Directed that no further recovery needed from landholders [Paras 11-12].

Compensation Adjustment – Burden on Subsequent Allottees – Court acknowledged that authorities passed on excess burden to allottees – Considered appropriate to prevent recovery from landholders [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Applications allowed – Excess compensation received by landholders not to be recovered – Orders modified to this effect [Para 13].