Excise Revenue – Interest on Arrears – Respondent granted license for retail sale of country liquor – Surrendered license and disputed balance fee – High Court stayed recovery of license fee – Respondent eventually paid balance without interest – Supreme Court held that interim stay does not quash the demand, but merely suspends it – Once proceedings are dismissed, interim orders end and interest on unpaid amounts must be paid – [Paras 1-27].

Restitution Principle – Stay Order Impact – Interim stay orders do not extinguish underlying obligations – Dismissal of main proceedings revives suspended liabilities – Interest on arrears of excise revenue to be paid from due date, as per statutory provisions – [Paras 18-23].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Respondent liable to pay interest on arrears of excise revenue for the period covered by the interim stay – Liberty granted to respondent to apply under one-time settlement scheme for concessions on interest dues – [Paras 26-27].

Environmental Law – Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance – Supreme Court holds that ex post facto EC should not ordinarily be granted and certainly not for the asking – However, rigid application of procedural requirements without considering the consequences of shutting down operational units contributing to the economy and providing livelihoods is impractical – Court emphasizes the need for a balanced approach – Units found complying with environmental norms can be granted ex post facto EC in exceptional cases – [Paras 54-67].

Economic and Social Impact – Court recognizes the significant economic and social impact of closing down manufacturing units employing a large workforce – Stresses the need for authorities to consider these factors while ensuring compliance with environmental regulations – Penal measures like heavy fines and environmental restoration costs suggested for deviant industries – [Paras 56-63].

Decision – Appeals allowed – NGT order set aside – Respondents directed to decide on the applications for EC within one month – Pending decision, operation of the units shall not be interfered with – [Paras 67-70].

Securities Law – Scope of Appeal – SEBI Act, 1992 – Section 15Z – Supreme Court's jurisdiction confined to questions of law arising from decisions of the Tribunal – Court will exercise jurisdiction only on erroneous construction of statutory provisions or general legal principles – Not every interpretation qualifies as a question of law – Tribunal’s findings based on factual inferences not interfered with unless they raise substantial questions of law – [Paras 12-21].

Advertisements – Misleading and Defrauding Investors – SEBI’s allegations of misleading advertisements by the company reversed by Tribunal – Tribunal found announcements related to normal business activities supported by evidence – Supreme Court affirms Tribunal's fact-based conclusions, finding no substantial question of law – [Paras 22-26].

Market Manipulation – Share Price and Accounts – Tribunal concluded SEBI’s allegations of share price manipulation and inflated profits lacked evidence – Tribunal’s inferences based on material on record do not give rise to questions of law – Supreme Court upholds Tribunal's findings – [Paras 27-29].

Right to Cross-Examine – SEBI’s reliance on a letter from stockbroker contradicted company’s defense – Tribunal held principles of natural justice violated due to lack of cross-examination opportunity – Supreme Court acknowledges right to disclosure of material but notes this right is not absolute – Issue of cross-examination left open for future determination – Tribunal’s general observation on right to cross-examine set aside – [Paras 30-38].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Tribunal's decision upheld except for general observation on right to cross-examine – Parties to bear their own costs – [Paras 38-39].

Service Law – Regularization – Lecturer Post – Appellant appointed as Guest Lecturer in 'Karm Kand' – Teaching for nearly 16 years – High Court dismissed writ petition challenging Chancellor’s order rejecting appointment – Supreme Court finds no specific qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer in 'Karm Kand' – Appellant holds a Master's degree in relevant subject as determined by the original Selection Committee – [Paras 1-17].

Qualifications and Subject Expertise – Academic Council's Role – Under Section 25(1)(c) of U.P. University Act, Academic Council advises on qualifications for teaching specific subjects – Academic Council’s recommendation supports appellant’s qualifications – High Court overlooked these critical details – [Paras 18-19].

Procedural Irregularities – Conflict Between Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor – Initial objections based on non-inclusion of subject experts in Selection Committee – High Court remanded matter to Chancellor to ascertain availability of experts – Chancellor’s subsequent expansion of objections was erroneous – Supreme Court corrects procedural missteps – [Paras 6-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Writ petition allowed – University directed to regularize appellant's services as Lecturer in 'Karm Kand' – No order as to costs – [Para 20].

MSME Act – Jurisdiction – Applicability – Agreement dated 24.08.2020 between appellant and respondent – Appellant registered as MSME on 28.08.2020 – Dispute arose post-registration – Agreement governed by laws prevailing at the time of execution – MSME Act not applicable as appellant was not MSME at the time of contract – Council lacks jurisdiction under Section 18 of MSME Act – [Paras 1-8].

Choice of Law – Contractual Terms – Agreement specifies governing law as prevailing laws of India at the time of execution – Registration of appellant as MSME post-execution does not confer MSME Council jurisdiction – [Paras 8.1-8.2].

Larger Legal Questions – Applicability of MSME Act to foreign buyers availing services in India and post-execution MSME registration kept open for future consideration – Reference to relevant judgments of Supreme Court – [Paras 8.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment affirmed – MSME Council has no jurisdiction over disputes between appellant and respondent – No order as to costs – [Paras 8.3-9].

Service Law – Temporary Employment – Absorption and Regularisation – Respondents appointed on a fixed term for a specific project ("Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme") – High Court directed State to consider their regularisation after 17 years of service – Supreme Court finds respondents were appointed in a temporary unit and not on sanctioned posts in regular establishment – High Court's direction to create supernumerary posts for regularisation held unsustainable – [Paras 1-6].

Interim Orders – Continuation of Service – Respondents continued in service due to High Court's interim orders – Period of service under interim orders not to be considered for regularisation – High Court's consideration of continued service as basis for regularisation flawed – [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Precedent – Directions Not to Be Treated as Precedent – High Court's order to create supernumerary posts not to be treated as precedent – Supreme Court holds no such direction can be issued under Article 226 – [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order quashed – Order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition restored – No costs – [Paras 11-12].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Section 11(6) – Application for appointment of arbitrator cannot be made in any High Court irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction – Section 11(6) must be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e) – High Court must have supervisory jurisdiction over a court which would have jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e) – [Paras 27-28].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Development Agreement executed and registered in Bihar – Property situated in Muzaffarpur, Bihar – No part of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court – High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 11(6) – [Paras 20-21].

Seat of Arbitration – Agreement specifying Kolkata as the venue for arbitration sittings does not confer exclusive jurisdiction to the Calcutta High Court – Venue of arbitration sittings distinct from the seat of arbitration – [Paras 33-46].

Previous Applications – Section 42 of the Arbitration Act – Once an application under Part I is made in a court, that court alone has jurisdiction over subsequent applications – Not applicable if initial application not made in a High Court – [Paras 29-32].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of the Calcutta High Court appointing an arbitrator and dismissing the review application set aside – Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya appointed as Sole Arbitrator – Status quo regarding property to be maintained for 15 days to allow parties to seek interim relief from the Arbitrator – [Paras 49-51].

Land Acquisition – Reservation Lapse – Statutory Timelines – Land reserved in Development Plan for playground in 2002 – No acquisition within ten years – Landowner issued purchase notice under Section 127 in 2016 – High Court declared reservation lapsed but granted one additional year for acquisition – Supreme Court holds additional period not contemplated by statute – Reservation lapsed as no acquisition within statutory period – [Paras 1-7].

Public Purpose and Use of Land – Statutory Restrictions – Land reserved for public purpose restricts landowner's use for other purposes – Once ten-year period plus one-year notice period lapses without acquisition, landowner cannot be deprived of use indefinitely – [Paras 7-9].

Judicial Precedent – Directions Not Binding Precedent – Directions for acquisition in previous cases not binding as law – Case-specific directions under Article 142 not general precedent – Statutory timelines must be adhered to – [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's direction for additional period of acquisition set aside – Land reservation declared lapsed as per statutory timelines – [Paras 8-9].

Military Law – General Court Martial – Sentence Reduction: The Armed Forces Tribunal reduced the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and cashiering to dismissal from service. The Supreme Court evaluates the tribunal's decision, considering the procedural and evidentiary aspects, including the proper constitution of the GCM and the alleged acts of the respondent [Paras 1-47].

Jurisdiction and Procedure – Composition of GCM: Respondent contended that GCM was improperly constituted as members were of lower rank. Supreme Court found that reasons recorded by the convening officer regarding the unavailability of officers of the respondent’s rank were valid under Rule 40(2) of Army Rules. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to checking for arbitrariness, irrationality, or unreasonableness [Paras 21-23].

Charges and Evidence – Standard of Proof: Supreme Court scrutinizes charges related to procurement decisions and alleged fraud. Tribunal found no evidence of actual fraud or wrongful gain, despite inference of attempts to cause wrongful gain. The court concludes that findings were based on conjectures and that the respondent did not commit any act resulting in actual loss or wrongful gain [Paras 24-45].

Decision:- Appeal dismissed.- Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2017: Allowed. GCM’s order dated 18th February 2011 and AFT’s order dated 10th October 2013 set aside. Respondent acquitted of all charges. Entitled to all pensionary and consequential benefits with arrears to be computed and paid within three months [Paras 46-47].