Economic Regulation – Aeronautical Tariffs – AERA’s Determination – Appeals by airport operators challenging tariff orders by AERA – Key issues include treatment of Fuel Throughput Charges (FTC) as aeronautical revenue, calculation of Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB), and methodology for applying CPI-X formula for tariff determination – Supreme Court upholds AERA’s approach, emphasizing deference to regulatory expertise and consistency with contractual and legislative frameworks [Paras 21-84].

Fuel Throughput Charges (FTC) – Aeronautical Service – FTC collected by airport operators from oil marketing companies – AERA and TDSAT classified FTC as aeronautical revenue – Supreme Court concurs, noting FTC’s role in the supply chain for aircraft fuel and alignment with statutory definitions and schedules under the AERA Act and OMDA [Paras 21-45].

Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB) – Calculation Methodology – Dispute over inclusion of costs related to aeronautical services – Supreme Court supports AERA’s interpretation that components like prevailing tariff, revenue, and costs pertain to aeronautical services, rejecting arguments for broader inclusion of non-aeronautical revenue [Paras 46-60].

CPI-X Methodology – Sequential Application – Controversy over correct application of CPI-X formula for tariff escalation – Supreme Court finds AERA’s method consistent with contractual terms and algebraic principles, rejecting attempts to re-engineer the formula for higher tariffs [Paras 66-84].

Penal Code 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302/34 and 392 – Murder and Robbery – Conviction based on witness identification in court without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) – FIR cannot be an encyclopedia, but the first version of the complainant in the FIR is crucial when no TIP is conducted – The complainant did not provide a description of the accused in the FIR – Court held it unsafe to convict the accused based solely on in-court identification – Convictions set aside [Paras 1-13].

Identification of Accused – No Test Identification Parade – Witnesses identified the accused for the first time in court – Court emphasized the need for TIP when the accused were not known to the witnesses previously – Identification in court alone, without TIP, found insufficient for conviction [Paras 6.2-6.7].

Recovery of Cash – Insufficient Proof – Recovery of Rs. 1 lakh from each accused alleged to be part of the looted amount – Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution's claim that Rs. 5 lakhs was in the dicky of the scooter – Without establishing the presence of Rs. 5 lakhs, recovery of Rs. 1 lakh each from the accused is insignificant [Paras 6.1].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Convictions under Sections 302/34 and 392 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 8].

Employment Law – Regularization of Services – Deceased Employee – Respondent’s claim for regularization of her deceased husband’s services after 12 years from his death – High Court directed State to regularize services one day prior to death for pensionary benefits – Supreme Court held deceased was not entitled to regularization at the time of death due to lower seniority – Regularization policy required seniority-based regularization as per vacancy – High Court’s direction deemed unsustainable [Paras 2-5].

Pensionary Benefits – Entitlement Posthumously – Claim for family pension based on posthumous regularization – Supreme Court emphasized that entitlement to regularization and consequent pensionary benefits must adhere to policy and seniority rules – Regularization not feasible after death if not eligible during lifetime – Appeal allowed setting aside High Court’s judgment [Para 4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment directing regularization one day prior to death and awarding family pension set aside – Original writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 5].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Removal from Service – Branch Manager issued an insurance cover note without collecting premium – Subsequent claim led to financial loss for the company – Disciplinary authority ordered removal without disqualification for future employment – High Court upheld the decision – Supreme Court found punishment disproportionate given appellant’s unblemished 20-year service record – Remitted to disciplinary authority for lesser punishment [Paras 3-4].

Misconduct – Failure to Cancel Cover Note – Appellant relied on assurance for premium payment – Issued a second cover note after the first bounced cheque – Failure to cancel the first cover note led to financial loss – Supreme Court noted that while misconduct occurred, integrity was not compromised – Directed imposition of lesser punishment [Paras 2-4].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Order of removal quashed – Matter remitted to disciplinary authority to impose lesser punishment – Exercise to be completed within three months – No order as to costs [Para 4].

Consumer Protection – Educational Institution – Policy Decision – Respondent sought admission to MBBS course in the Philippines through the appellant – Republic of Philippines abolished the MBBS program after admission – Appellant offered alternative course, which respondent declined – Consumer Fora directed appellant to refund fees and pay compensation – Supreme Court held appellant not liable for policy decisions of the foreign government – Orders set aside, complaint dismissed [Paras 7-14].

Facilitator Role – Liability Limitation – Appellant acted as a facilitator for admission to the College in the Philippines – Policy decision by the Republic of Philippines led to abolition of MBBS program – Supreme Court noted appellant had no control over the policy decision – Appellant’s role limited to securing admission, which was fulfilled – No vicarious liability for changes made by foreign government [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Consumer Fora set aside – Complaint dismissed – No costs ordered [Para 14].

Consumer Law – Delay in Delivery of Possession – Builder delayed delivery of possession of the flat due to delayed regulatory clearance – Appellant (allottee) entitled to compensation for delay from March 2011 till fresh offer of possession – Modification of contractual terms regarding compensation upheld – National Commission's modification of compensation to 6% p.a. set aside; State Commission's direction of Rs.10 per sq. ft. per month restored [Paras 22-27, 29(iv)].

Maintenance Charges – Liability and Payment – Direction to allottee to pay maintenance charges held erroneous as the entity entitled to receive such charges was not a party to the proceedings – Declaratory relief cannot be given in vacuum – Orders of the National and State Commissions directing payment of maintenance charges set aside [Paras 15-19, 29(i)-(ii)].

Offer of Possession – Validity and Conditions – Letter dated 10th June 2013 offering possession deemed invalid due to conditional nature and illegal demand – Proper fresh offer of possession to be issued within eight weeks from date of judgement – Execution of Deed to follow within specified period [Paras 28-29(iii)].

Decision – Appeals disposed of in specified terms – Directions for compensation and issuance of fresh offer of possession upheld – Erroneous direction for maintenance charges payment set aside [Paras 30-31].

Civil Procedure – Striking Off Defense – Defendant tenant failed to deposit due rent despite requirements under Order XV Rule 5 CPC – Trial Court and Revisional Court struck off defense for non-payment – High Court reversed this decision, granting indulgence to the tenant – Supreme Court held that mere denial of landlord-tenant relationship does not absolve tenant from depositing due rent – High Court's order set aside; defense struck off as per lower courts' orders [Paras 11.1, 12, 15, 18].

Eviction Suit – Denial of Title – Defendant's denial of plaintiff's title and landlord-tenant relationship deemed insufficient to avoid compliance with Order XV Rule 5 CPC – Supreme Court emphasized that tenant must deposit rent unless able to show lawful payment [Paras 13-14].

Discretionary Power – Application – High Court's discretionary power to strike off defense must be exercised with great circumspection – Discretionary power is not meant for routine relaxation but to address bonafide situations; not applicable in this case of deliberate non-performance by tenant [Paras 10.1, 10.3, 17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Trial Court's order striking off defense restored – Suit to proceed with reasonable priority for expeditious disposal [Paras 22-23].

Sales Tax – Classification of Product – 'KADIPROL' sold by the respondent categorized by Deputy Commissioner as 'Drug and Medicine' under Entry 26(1) of Schedule II Part A of the GST Act – Tribunal upheld this classification – High Court reversed and categorized it as 'Poultry Feed' under Entry 25 of Schedule I – Supreme Court found merit in Revenue’s contention that the product should be classified as a drug due to its medicinal properties and primary use in preventing infections in poultry – However, as issue was deemed academic with no revenue implication, proceedings were closed without a definitive ruling on classification [Paras 2, 4-8].

Common Parlance Test – Application in Tax Law – Supreme Court noted the importance of the common parlance test in determining the classification of goods for tax purposes – High Court’s reliance on previous decisions without detailed examination critiqued – Issue of applying common parlance test left open for consideration in future cases [Paras 5.6, 7-8].

Decision – Appeal disposed of on grounds of academic interest – No tax dues or revenue implication – Larger question on common parlance test kept open for future consideration [Paras 7-8].

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Respondents failed to deposit shortfall amount to maintain USD 60 million in Corporation Bank account despite Supreme Court’s orders – Defence of insufficient funds and inability to comply rejected – Conduct amounted to deliberate and wilful disobedience – Respondents liable for punishment under Contempt of Courts Act [Paras 10-12].

Execution of Court Orders – Contempt vs. Execution – Contempt proceedings maintainable even if the order is executable – Contempt proceedings and execution proceedings are separate remedies and can be invoked simultaneously – Supreme Court emphasized the need to maintain rule of law and judicial authority [Paras 8-9].

Legal Principles – Non-Compliance – Mere non-compliance due to lack of funds not a valid defence – Repeated failure to comply with court orders despite opportunities considered wilful disobedience – Supreme Court’s directions must be followed to uphold the authority of the judiciary [Paras 7, 10-11].

Decision – Respondents held guilty of contempt – Further opportunity given to comply with the order within four weeks – Matter adjourned for consideration of punishment [Paras 12].