Electricity Law – Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) – Change in Law – Adani Power entitled to carrying cost with compound interest – Dispute arose from a Change in Law event requiring Adani Power to install Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) unit – Appellants contested compound interest on carrying cost, arguing for simple interest – Supreme Court upheld compound interest, emphasizing restitutionary principles and time value for money [Paras 1-20].

Restitutionary Principles – Compound Interest – Carrying Cost – Appellate Tribunal correctly applied compound interest to carrying cost – Supreme Court affirmed that restitution required full compensation for interest paid by Adani Power to banks – Restitutionary principle embedded in Article 13 of the PPA applied for compensating affected party to original economic position as if Change in Law event had not occurred [Paras 12-19].

Statutory Interpretation – No explicit prohibition on compound interest in Electricity Act, 2003 or PPAs – Supreme Court rejected argument that compound interest was not covered – Emphasized interpretation aligned with restitution and fair compensation principles [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Appellate Tribunal's decision upheld – Adani Power entitled to compound interest on carrying cost from the date of Change in Law event (29th January 2014) until actual payment [Paras 20].

Consumer Law – Refund and Interest – State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission directed refund of Rs. 21.18 lakhs with 9% simple interest per annum due to incomplete construction – National Commission reduced the refund amount to Rs. 16.18 lakhs – Supreme Court found National Commission's partial reversal erroneous – Order of State Commission restored – Respondent directed to comply within two months if not already refunded [Paras 1-6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of National Commission set aside – Order of State Commission dated 15.10.2020 restored – Respondent to refund Rs. 21.18 lakhs with 9% simple interest per annum from 19.01.2015 till realization and Rs. 5000 as litigation expenses within two months from today if not already refunded [Paras 4-6].

Pension – Financial Constraints – Revision of Pension – High Court struck down Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 as arbitrary – Rule allowed revision of pension notionally from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008, with actual payment from 01.01.2009 due to financial constraints – Supreme Court found High Court erred in its decision – Financial constraints valid ground for cut-off date – Rule 3(3) upheld [Paras 1-7].

Policy Decision – Judicial Review – Financial Constraint – Government justified in setting cut-off date for pension revision due to financial constraints – Policy decision not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 – High Court's interference in policy decision unwarranted [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashing Rule 3(3) set aside – Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 upheld – No recovery from respondent despite interim relief [Paras 6-7].

FERA – Limitation – Reasonable Period – Show cause notices issued in 2002 for transactions from 1992-1993 – Supreme Court held such delay unreasonable – Proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable period when no statutory period is prescribed – Eight-year record preservation limit under Banking Companies Rules supports unreasonableness of delayed notices – High Court's setting aside of proceedings upheld [Paras 18-27].

Administrative Law – Policy and Procedure – Reasonable Time – Proceedings initiated under statute without prescribed limitation period must be within reasonable time – Cited cases emphasize necessity of timeliness in administrative actions to ensure fairness – Delays beyond standard record-keeping durations viewed as unreasonable [Paras 19-23, 25-27].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgments upheld – Show cause notices and proceedings initiated under FERA after long delays declared invalid [Paras 28-29].

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Private Unaided Minority Institution – High Court held writ petition maintainable against termination order by private unaided minority institution – Supreme Court found High Court erred – Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 maintainable only if public duty element present – Service disputes of private nature without statutory backing not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Education Law – Service Contracts – CBSE Affiliation Byelaws – Dispute between private educational institution and employee purely contractual – Terms of service governed by CBSE Byelaws lack statutory force – Remedy for breach of service contract lies in civil suits, not writ petitions.

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Remedy lies in approaching appropriate civil forum.

Service Tax – Consulting Engineer vs. Works Contract – Services such as erection, installation, and commissioning of goods at customer sites cannot be classified as consulting engineer services – Tribunal correctly held that such services fall under works contract and are not liable for service tax as consulting engineering – Revenue's appeal dismissed [Paras 2-4].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal's decision upheld – No service tax liability on works contract for the period in question – No order as to costs [Paras 4-4.1].

Criminal Law – MCOCA – Organized Crime – Confession – Appellants challenged validity of confessions recorded by an Additional Superintendent of Police (Addl. SP) under MCOCA – Supreme Court held that Addl. SPs are not of the same rank as SPs – Confessions recorded by Addl. SPs not admissible under Section 18 MCOCA – High Court's dismissal of writ petitions set aside – FIRs and proceedings quashed.

Statutory Interpretation – Rank of Police Officers – Section 18 MCOCA requires confessions to be recorded by officers not below the rank of SP – Addl. SPs not considered to be of the same rank as SPs under MCOCA – Police Manual and state government notifications cannot override statutory requirements of MCOCA.

Organized Crime – Definition and Scope – MCOCA's applicability limited to activities of organized crime syndicates involving violence or threat of violence – Illegal gambling by itself does not constitute organized crime under MCOCA – Invocation of MCOCA in the present case held inappropriate.

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – FIRs and proceedings quashed – Confessions recorded by Addl. SPs not admissible under Section 18 MCOCA – Respondents directed to comply with this judgment.

Penal Code – Murder by Poisoning – Appellant convicted for murdering wife of informant by mixing poison in milk – Chemical Examiner reports and investigation revealed procedural lapses – Evidence indicated potential tampering with samples and lack of direct proof linking appellant to possession and administration of poison – Supreme Court found prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1-49].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Evidence – Inconsistent and missing links in evidence chain – Established principles for circumstantial evidence not met – Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and must not merely rest on suspicion [Paras 35-39, 41-49].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Trial Court judgments set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged [Paras 49].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Appeal against dismissal of discharge application – Allegations of corruption and fraud against an Executive Engineer (EE) in Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) – No prima facie evidence of entrustment of funds, fraudulent or dishonest intent, or illegal gratification – Appellant's actions were based on instructions and approvals from senior officials and the Advocate General – High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition – Appellant discharged [Paras 1-19].

Prima Facie Case – At the stage of framing charges, the court must apply its judicial mind to the material on record and determine if there is sufficient ground to proceed – Limited scope of inquiry – Ingredients of alleged offences must be prima facie established – No evidence of misappropriation or disproportionate assets found against the appellant [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Appellant discharged from criminal proceedings – No prima facie case made out against the appellant [Para 19].