Tax Exemption Withdrawal – Sick Industrial Companies Act – Section 19(3) – Exemption Withdrawal – Appellant revived a sick unit and received tax exemption as per the Kerala Government's 2004 order – Supreme Court held that the exemption granted under Section 19(3) is binding on the State – Government's withdrawal of exemption through the 2006 order was improper – Exemptions granted under BIFR schemes are binding and cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by the State – Emphasis on fairness and adherence to statutory provisions [Paras 1-21].

Promissory Estoppel – State's Obligation – Promissory estoppel cannot compel the State to act against statutory provisions – Exemption provided to a single unit under Section 19(3) was binding and could not be withdrawn arbitrarily [Paras 22-31].

Legislative Interpretation – Strict Compliance – Exemption Provisions – Exemptions must be interpreted strictly as per legislative intent – Withdrawal of exemption without a clear statutory basis is invalid – Supreme Court reiterated the need for legislative adherence and non-arbitrariness in tax exemptions [Paras 14-20, 32-44].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Withdrawal of tax exemption declared invalid – State directed to comply with the original exemption granted under the 2004 order as per BIFR scheme [Paras 40-44].

Dam Safety – Mullaperiyar Dam – Interim Supervisory Committee – Court orders the continuation and strengthening of the Supervisory Committee constituted under the 2014 judgment until the National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA) is fully operational – The Supervisory Committee to function as the NDSA and be accountable for all matters relating to the dam's safety, including functions specified in Section 9 of the 2021 Act – States directed to nominate technical experts to the Committee and provide necessary support [Paras 1-22].

Supervisory Committee – Functions and Powers – Until the NDSA is established, the reconstituted Supervisory Committee to discharge all functions and powers of the NDSA under the 2021 Act – The Supervisory Committee to review the safety of the Mullaperiyar Dam and frame terms of reference as per the 2021 Act – All concerned authorities to comply with directions issued by the Supervisory Committee, and any failure to do so may invite legal consequences [Paras 6-20].

State Cooperation – Responsibilities of States – The States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala to nominate technical experts to the Supervisory Committee and ensure all directions for the dam's maintenance and safety are executed promptly – Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India, to provide logistical support to the Supervisory Committee [Paras 9, 13, 15, 16].

Decision – Interim Arrangement – Supervisory Committee to continue as per the 2014 judgment with additional responsibilities under the 2021 Act until NDSA is functional – Regular NDSA to be established at the earliest to ensure the dam's safety [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Appeal against the High Court's reduction of the sentence of Banwari Lal, convicted under Section 307 IPC, from three years' rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone (44 days) – High Court's order reducing sentence held unsustainable due to lack of consideration of the gravity of the offense and the nature of injuries – Supreme Court restored the trial court's sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment [Paras 1-88].

Section 307 IPC – Attempt to murder – High Court's reduction of sentence based on the long duration of the trial and the accused's age at the time of the offense – Supreme Court emphasized that merely the passage of time cannot justify a disproportionate and inadequate sentence – Importance of considering the seriousness of the offense and the injuries caused [Paras 6-10].

Probation – Benefit granted to co-accused Mohan Lal under Section 360 Cr.P.C. – High Court's decision not challenged by the State at that level – Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the order granting probation, as it was not contested earlier by the State [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Sentence of Banwari Lal restored to three years' rigorous imprisonment – Banwari Lal directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence – Appeal against Mohan Lal dismissed [Paras 12].

Payment of Gratuity – Meaning of "Wages" – Ad hoc payments made to workers pursuant to interim orders of the Supreme Court – Held, such ad hoc payments do not form part of "wages" under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as they were not earned by the employee in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment – Interim benefits cease upon final adverse judgment – Supreme Court clarifies that "wages" includes only basic wages and Dearness Allowance [Paras 1-22].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of High Court, Controlling Authority, and Appellate Authority under the Act set aside – Management directed not to recover amounts already paid to employees or their families due to passage of time and circumstances [Paras 21-22].

Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction of Consumer Courts – Failure to deliver possession of apartment – Refund and Compensation – The Consumer Protection Act empowers Consumer Courts to direct refund of amounts paid by consumers with interest and to compensate for deficiencies in service. This includes cases where developers fail to deliver possession as per the terms of the Apartment Buyers Agreement [Paras 1-22].

Section 2(g) – Deficiency in Service – Defined as any shortcoming or inadequacy in performance undertaken by a person in pursuance of a contract – Courts can direct refunds and compensation [Paras 6-20].

Decision – Appeals upheld – Developer directed to refund the amount paid by the consumer with interest at 9% p.a. for delay in possession – Commission's order upheld [Paras 20-25].

Eviction – Bona fide Requirement – Section 14(1)(e) – Eviction for personal necessity – The requirement must be genuine, and there must be no other reasonably suitable accommodation – The Rent Controller must be satisfied on both counts before granting eviction [Paras 1-22].

Leave to Defend – Section 25B(5) – The tenant must disclose facts that could disprove the landlord’s bona fide need – Mere assertions are insufficient; substantial material is needed to raise triable issues – The quality of adjudication lies between moonshine and adequate material [Paras 15-22].

High Court's Revisional Power – Proviso to Section 25B(8) – The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and limited to ensuring the order is according to law – The High Court should not act as an appellate court by reassessing and reappraising evidence [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Rent Controller’s order restored – Eviction granted [Paras 22-30].

Civil Procedure – Order 41 Rule 33 – Extraordinary Powers of Appellate Court – The High Court invoked Order 41 Rule 33 to stay the dismissal of the respondent from service until the conclusion of the pending criminal case – Supreme Court held that Order 41 Rule 33 confers extraordinary power, to be used sparingly and in special cases – The power is not meant to be applied broadly across all appeals, particularly where the order under challenge is not specifically before the appellate court [Paras 13-14].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Parallel Criminal Proceedings – It is not generally desirable to delay disciplinary proceedings due to pending criminal cases – The principle that an employee should not disclose his defense in disciplinary proceedings if it may prejudice the criminal case does not apply uniformly – Each case must be assessed on its facts [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Disciplinary proceedings and the resulting dismissal of the respondent are upheld – Respondent's rights to challenge the disciplinary proceedings in a competent forum are preserved [Paras 14].

Education Law – UGC Regulations – Applicability to State Universities – UGC Regulations 2010 are mandatory for Central universities and colleges, but directory for State universities and colleges – State Government has discretion to adopt and implement UGC Regulations for its institutions [Paras 1-22].

Pay Scale and Qualifications – Distinction between Teaching and Administrative Posts – The qualifications and pay scales for Registrars in State universities are governed by State-specific rules – Temporary assignments do not alter the inherent classification between administrative and teaching roles [Paras 14-22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – The State Government's decision regarding pay scales for Registrars is upheld – The writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed [Paras 21-22].

Waqf Board – Composition and Term of Office – Section 14 and Section 15 – Appointments to the Waqf Board can be by election or nomination, as per the Waqf Act – The term of office for both elected and nominated members is prescribed as five years – The State Government has the authority to nominate members and also to cancel such nominations [Paras 1-12].

Nomination vs. Election – State’s Discretion – Nomination of members stands on a different footing compared to election – The State Government retains discretionary power over nominated members, allowing for the possibility of removal before the completion of the prescribed term [Paras 11-12].

High Court’s Jurisdiction – Arbitrariness and Procedural Lapses – The High Court’s intervention was based on perceived arbitrariness and procedural lapses by the State Government in cancelling the nomination – The Supreme Court found no factual basis for such arbitrariness and upheld the State’s discretionary powers [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – The appointment cancellation by the State Government upheld – Respondent’s writ petition dismissed [Paras 17].