Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Petitions filed for appointing a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from three agreements executed between the parties – Supreme Court held that the arbitration agreement is enforceable despite pending payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract – Mr. Suresh C. Gupte appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes in a single arbitration [Paras 1-18].

Stamp Duty – Enforceability of Arbitration Agreement – Pending payment of stamp duty on substantive contracts does not impede enforceability of arbitration agreement – Doctrine of separability and kompetenz-kompetenz upheld – Supreme Court emphasized the need for arbitration matters to proceed without delay even if stamp duty issues are unresolved [Paras 10-11, 16].

Doctrine of Separability – Arbitration Clause Independent of Main Contract – Arbitration agreement treated as separate from substantive contract – Validity of arbitration agreement maintained irrespective of issues in the main contract [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Precedents – Consideration of Earlier Decisions – Supreme Court referred to N.N. Global Mercantile case and Inter-continental Hotels Group case to justify proceeding with arbitration despite unresolved stamp duty issues – Consistency with prior judgments and ongoing consideration by Constitution Bench noted [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Petitions allowed – Mr. Suresh C. Gupte, former Judge of the Bombay High Court, appointed as sole arbitrator – Arbitration to proceed as per agreed

Land Acquisition – Compensation Enhancement – Appeal against High Court’s decision reducing compensation for land acquired for Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant – Supreme Court held that lands acquired for both Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant and Arawali Power Company Private Limited are similarly situated – Compensation should reflect parity and fairness – High Court erred in not following precedent set in Arawali Power Company case – Appeal allowed, compensation enhanced [Paras 1-10].

Comparison of Acquired Lands – Lands acquired for both projects situated on either side of Bahu Road – No justification for different compensation rates for similar lands – Supreme Court emphasized the principle of fair and just compensation for landowners [Paras 6-7].

Precedent and Context – Consideration of sale exemplars and previous judgments – Observations made in Arawali Power Company case to be considered in context – Supreme Court clarified that fair compensation should be awarded based on factual similarity and equity [Paras 7-8].

Compensation Rate – Fair Compensation – Supreme Court determined Rs. 22,00,000 per acre as just and reasonable compensation for lands acquired for Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant – This rate aligns with compensation awarded for similar lands in previous cases [Para 8].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment modified – Landowners entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 22,00,000 per acre – Landowners also entitled to statutory benefits including interest under the Act – Appeals allowed to the extent indicated, no order as to costs [Paras 10-11].

Municipal Corporations – Standing Committee – Tenure and Continuance – High Court dismissed the writ petition asserting that the Standing Committee does not continue after the term of the Corporation expires – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision – The Standing Committee cannot function beyond the tenure of the Corporation as per the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10-17].

Administrator Appointment – Authority – The appointment of an Administrator by the Government upon the expiry of the Corporation's term does not contravene Article 243U of the Constitution or the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Standing Committee ceases to exist along with the Corporation – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The order appointing the Administrator upheld – The Standing Committee's functions cannot extend beyond the Corporation's tenure.

Election Law – Amendment of Petition – Corrupt Practices – High Court allowed amendment to include allegations of non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in the nomination affidavit – Supreme Court held amendment permissible as it did not introduce a new cause of action but related to improper acceptance of nomination – Appeal dismissed – High Court order upheld [Paras 8-10, 18-19].

Representation of the People Act – Non-Disclosure of Criminal Cases – Affidavit – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision allowing the amendment to include averments regarding the appellant's non-disclosure of criminal cases in his nomination affidavit – Amendment did not alter the nature of the election petition – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's order allowing amendment upheld – Merits of the case not commented upon.

Preventive Detention – Right to Representation – Legibility of Documents – High Court set aside the detention orders on grounds of failure to supply legible copies of documents relied upon by the detaining authority – Supreme Court upheld that this failure violated the detenu's fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution – Appeal dismissed – Orders upheld [Paras 7-10, 16-17, 21-23].

Article 22(5) – Fundamental Right – Representation – Detention order quashed due to non-supply of legible documents needed for effective representation – Fundamental right to make representation under Article 22(5) emphasized – High Court's decisions upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 17-19, 21-24].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court judgments upheld – Orders of preventive detention declared illegal and set aside.

Commercial Courts – Jurisdiction – Arbitration – High Court held the State Government's notification to confer jurisdiction on Civil Judge (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts is in line with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision – Sections 3 and 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, prevail over Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appeals dismissed [Paras 10-12].

Arbitration Proceedings – Principal Civil Court – Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction for arbitration matters under the Arbitration Act, 1996, shall lie with the Commercial Courts established under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and not exclusively with the Principal Civil Court – Legislative intent for speedy disposal of commercial disputes upheld [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Notification by State of Odisha deemed valid.

Advocates Act – GPA Holder – Legal Representation – High Court held the appellant’s wife, as his GPA holder, cannot represent him despite being an advocate – Supreme Court held Section 32 of Advocates Act, 1961 permits non-advocates to appear with court’s permission – No bar for GPA holder if enrolled as an advocate – Previous High Court orders permitting representation by appellant’s wife as GPA holder upheld – Appeal allowed [Paras 3-5, 14, 16, 17].

Res Judicata – Previous Orders – High Court’s previous orders allowing appellant’s wife to represent as GPA holder found binding – Supreme Court held that principles of res judicata apply, barring re-litigation of the issue – Appeal allowed [Paras 6-11, 15].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's order set aside – Previous permission for appellant’s wife to represent as GPA holder reinstated.

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation – Enhancement – The appellant sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident leading to lifelong disabilities – Tribunal dismissed the claim on technical grounds – High Court awarded Rs. 13,34,000/- – Appellant sought enhancement – Supreme Court considered severity of injuries, disabilities, and future needs – Enhanced compensation to Rs. 24,90,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition – Directions issued for investment and disbursement of compensation amount [Paras 3-6, 10-15].

Permanent Disability – Attender Charges – High Court granted a lump sum of Rs. 1 Lakh for attender charges – Supreme Court enhanced to Rs. 17 Lakhs considering lifelong need for two attendants – Application of multiplier method upheld [Paras 10.1.1-10.1.4].

Pain and Suffering – Loss of Amenities – High Court awarded Rs. 3 Lakhs – Supreme Court enhanced to Rs. 6 Lakhs following precedents for over 90% disability cases [Paras 2, 10.1.4].

Marriage Prospects – No compensation awarded by High Court – Supreme Court granted Rs. 3 Lakhs considering impact on appellant’s prospects due to physical condition [Paras 10, 10.1.4].

Future Medical Treatment – High Court awarded Rs. 1 Lakh – Supreme Court enhanced by an additional Rs. 1 Lakh recognizing the ongoing medical needs [Paras 10, 10.1.4].

Special Diet – Supreme Court granted an additional Rs. 90,000/- for special dietary needs [Paras 10, 10.1.4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment modified – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 24,90,000/- – Directions for investment and periodic release of funds for appellant’s care and future needs.

Tariff Orders – Truing Up – Amendment Not Permissible – High Court held that it is not permissible to amend the tariff order made under Section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003, during the truing up exercise – A tariff order is quasi-judicial in nature and becomes final and binding unless amended or revoked under Section 64(6) or set aside by the Appellate Authority – At the stage of truing up, the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) cannot change the rules or methodology used in the initial tariff determination by altering the basic principles and issues involved in the initial projection of ARR – Appeals allowed – Orders of the APTEL set aside [Paras 51, 55].

Truing Up – Principles – The DERC at the stage of truing up cannot rethink de novo on the basic principles, premises, and issues involved in the initial projections of revenue requirement – The truing up stage cannot be used to retrospectively change the methodology/principles of tariff determination – Appeals allowed – Orders of the APTEL set aside [Paras 53, 66].

Interest on Consumer Security Deposits – Disallowance – DERC disallowed interest on consumer security deposits retained by DPCL – High Court held that interest on consumer security deposits is a legitimate expense – Appeals allowed – Orders of the APTEL set aside – Directions issued to DERC to allow interest on consumer security deposits [Paras 71-72].

Enforcement Sales – Assessment – High Court held that the assessed energy has to be considered as supply by the appellants in enforcement cases – Appeals allowed – Orders of the APTEL set aside – Directions issued to DERC to consider assessed energy for calculation of enforcement sales and allow the impact of the same along with carrying costs [Paras 79-80].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of the APTEL and DERC set aside – Directions issued for fresh assessment based on clarified principles.