Electricity Act, 2003 – Imposition of Reliability Charges – Validity – Appeal against Tribunal’s order setting aside reliability charges imposed on bulk consumers by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. – Tribunal held that continuous process industries like the 1st respondent, which were already paying higher tariffs, could not be subjected to additional reliability charges – Supreme Court upholds Tribunal’s decision, finding no statutory basis for reliability charges under the Act or Regulations – Appeal dismissed.

Imposition of Reliability Charges – Continuous Process Industries – Tribunal noted higher tariff rates for continuous process industries on express feeders, compared to non-continuous industries – Held that additional reliability charges were unjustified – Tribunal’s findings confirmed by Supreme Court. [Paras 6-11]

Statutory Appeal – Section 111 of Electricity Act, 2003 – Entitlement to Appeal – Tribunal noted that the 1st respondent, directly affected by the levy, was entitled to appeal despite not participating in the public hearing – Supreme Court agrees, holding that non-participation does not bar statutory appeals. [Para 8]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court finds no merit in the appeal and dismisses it, confirming the Tribunal's order to set aside the reliability charges imposed on the 1st respondent. [Para 12]

Labour Law – Coverage under Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Appeal against High Court decision exempting Nagar Nigam Allahabad from coverage under ESI Act – Appellant Corporation contended that the workshop run by Nagar Nigam engaged in repairs and maintenance of vehicles is a 'factory' under the Act – High Court quashed recovery notice issued by ESI Corporation – Supreme Court held that the workshop is indeed a factory under the Act – Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside – Respondent directed to approach the Insurance Court for resolution. [Paras 1-28]

Definition of ‘Factory’ – Applicability – Held – Workshop carrying out repairs and maintenance of vehicles with more than 10 employees is a ‘factory’ under Section 2(12) of the ESI Act – Respondent’s failure to comply with ESI contributions from 1978 onwards without seeking exemption under Section 90 of the Act – Supreme Court observed that respondent’s participation in prior statutory contributions affirmed the applicability of the Act. [Paras 19-23]

Judicial Review – Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Supreme Court found High Court erred in entertaining writ petition without directing respondent to seek remedy before Insurance Court – Extraordinary writ jurisdiction not justified where factual disputes require examination by Insurance Court. [Paras 24-25]

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order quashed – Respondent directed to seek remedy under Section 75 of the ESI Act – Pending applications disposed of. [Paras 26-28]

Criminal Law - Compliance with Procedural Requirements - Appeal against High Court's decision confirming partial cognizance by Special Judge, NIA - High Court found that the complaint was in accordance with Section 4(1)(e) of CrPC, 1989 and that Section 196-B did not mandate a preliminary investigation - Held that Special Judge, NIA erred in concluding non-compliance with Section 196-A of CrPC, 1989 regarding authorization for prosecution under Section 120-B of RPC, 1989 - High Court's decision on non-cognizance under Sections 121, 121-A, and 122 of RPC, 1989 upheld - Directions given to comply with Section 196-A for proper authorization - Liberty given to appellant to seek appropriate authorization - Appeal allowed in part. [Paras 1-36]

Application of Procedural Law - Retrospective vs. Prospective Application - Act, 2019 and CrPC, 1973 application from appointed day - Held that CrPC, 1973 cannot be applied retrospectively to cure non-compliance under CrPC, 1989 - Continuation of investigation under CrPC, 1989 permissible but cognizance to follow CrPC, 1973 only post appointed day - Emphasized mandatory compliance with Section 196-A of CrPC, 1989 for prosecution authorization. [Paras 18-26, 30-33]

Curable Procedural Defect - Special Judge, NIA's decision to not take cognizance under Section 120-B of RPC, 1989 due to procedural non-compliance - High Court correctly interpreted mandatory nature of authorization - Procedural defect identified as curable, enabling appellant to rectify by obtaining proper authorization. [Paras 34-35]

Decision: Appeal was allowed in part, with specific directions to comply with the procedural mandate of Section 196-A of CrPC, 1989, for appropriate authorization. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Corporate Law - Renewal of Mining Leases - Civil appeals against High Court orders regarding the renewal of mining leases originally granted to Bird and Company Limited, subsequently vested in Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (BPMEL), now in liquidation - Central Government and State of Odisha opposed the renewal of leases - High Court at Calcutta directed the formation of a High-Powered Committee to decide on renewal, which was challenged by the Government of Odisha and TGP Equity Management Private Limited.

Corporate Liquidation - Role of Official Liquidator and Creditor Rights - Analysis - Held - No practical or feasible benefit in renewing leases for a defunct company with substantial liabilities - Power of attorney given to OMDC terminated upon liquidation of BPMEL - TGP, as an assignee of UCO Bank, entitled to pursue claims in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956 - Workers' dues to be settled per statutory provisions. [Paras 31-37]

Decision - Appeals by State of Odisha allowed, and High Court’s order for a High-Powered Committee set aside - TGP's appeals dismissed - Applications for renewal of mining leases treated as rejected or dismissed - Proceedings to continue in Company Court for settlement of dues as per law. [Paras 38-39]

Criminal Law – SC/ST Act – Appeal against the order directing registration of FIR and prosecution of public servant – Complaint by Respondent No. 2 alleging caste-based insults at an equestrian training academy – High Court directed registration of FIR and prosecution of the SHO for not acting on the complaint – Supreme Court quashed the FIR and set aside the prosecution order – Held that allegations did not meet the public view requirement under the SC/ST Act – Complaint did not disclose cognizable offense under the Act – Order for prosecution of public servant without administrative enquiry recommendation invalid – FIR and consequent orders quashed. [Paras 1-29]

Public View Requirement – Analysis – Held – Intentional insult or intimidation must occur within public view – Allegations did not specify the public context required under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act – WhatsApp group chats and private settings not sufficient to meet the public view standard. [Para 20-21]

Prosecution of Public Servant – Section 4 of SC/ST Act – Held – Proviso to Section 4 requires administrative enquiry and recommendation for prosecution – High Court order bypassing this requirement is unsustainable – Protection for public servants in performing duties under the Act is crucial to avoid frivolous complaints. [Para 13-16]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and prosecution order – Supreme Court quashes the FIR and the order directing prosecution of the SHO – Complaint against appellants does not constitute offenses under the SC/ST Act – High Court's orders set aside. [Paras 27-29]

Termination of Dealership - Procedural Compliance - Appeal against High Court order affirming the quashing of dealership termination for violation of procedural norms during sample collection - Appellants contended that the dealership was terminated due to violations of the dealership agreement clauses and that SGS India, the agency appointed for sample collection, was authorized under Marketing Discipline Guidelines - Respondent challenged the validity of the sample collection process by SGS India, arguing it violated Clause 7 of the Control Order, which mandates sample collection by specific authorized officers - Single Judge and Division Bench upheld the respondent's contention, finding procedural lapses in sample collection and testing.

Procedural Lapses - Clause 7 of Control Order - The High Court found that SGS India lacked authority under Clause 7 of the Control Order to collect samples and the entire process was flawed as the required authorized officers were not involved - The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision, emphasizing the need for compliance with statutory procedures.

Sample Collection Authority - The appellants argued that the Marketing Discipline Guidelines permitted third-party agencies to collect samples - Supreme Court held that while the guidelines allowed administrative convenience, they could not override statutory provisions - The respondent was not prosecuted under the Control Order, rather the dealership was terminated for breach of contractual terms.

Judicial Discipline - Supreme Court noted adherence to principles laid down in prior judgments - Held that dealership termination must strictly comply with procedural rules and guidelines - Following the precedent in R.M. Service Centre, termination was justified if based solely on contractual breaches without violating statutory procedures.

Decision - Appeals allowed - Supreme Court found the dealership termination valid as per the terms of the agreement and procedural compliance under Marketing Discipline Guidelines - Noted no prosecutable offense under the Control Order, thus adherence to its procedural requirements was unnecessary for this case.

Specific Performance – Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell land – Appellant/plaintiff entered agreement with respondent no. 4, the Power of Attorney holder of other respondents, for purchase of land – Initial agreement dated 26.09.1995 with earnest money paid and extensions granted – Sale deed executed in favor of other respondents during the extension period – Plaintiff sued for specific performance after discovering the sale – Trial Court decreed in favor of plaintiff – High Court reversed, dismissing the suit – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision.

Agreement Validity – Assessment – Held – Initial agreement not executed by all co-owners – Defendant no. 1 signed as Power of Attorney holder but the agreement did not specify this role clearly – Power of Attorney not produced or proved in Trial Court – High Court correctly found that agreement was not binding on all co-owners. [Paras 6-7]

Plaintiff's Non-Appearance – Legal Implication – Held – Plaintiff did not appear as a witness, instead Power of Attorney holder deposed – Legal position prohibits Power of Attorney holder from testifying on matters requiring principal's personal knowledge and cross-examination – Non-appearance of plaintiff in specific performance suits seen as detrimental – High Court rightly disallowed deposition of Power of Attorney holder in place of plaintiff. [Paras 8-13]

Delay and Limitation – Suit for specific performance filed on last day of limitation – Cited legal precedents stress prompt action in specific performance suits – Delays viewed unfavorably – Supreme Court found suit was filed with unreasonable delay despite knowledge of adverse sale – Specific performance denied. [Paras 14-18]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment and decree upheld – Suit for specific performance denied due to lack of valid agreement by all co-owners, plaintiff's non-appearance, and delay in filing suit. [Paras 19-20]

Electricity Law – Deemed Distribution Licensee Status for SEZ Developer – Appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Appellant SEZ developer challenges orders requiring additional capital infusion for deemed distribution licensee status – Court held that SEZ developers automatically gain deemed distribution licensee status under 2010 Notification, without needing further application – Additional capital infusion requirement imposed by TSERC and upheld by APTEL found unjustified and contrary to statutory scheme – Condition for capital infusion excluded – Appeal partly allowed. [Paras 1-38].

Statutory Interpretation – Applicability of Capital Adequacy Rules to Deemed Licensees – Court held that 2005 Rules and regulation 12 of the 2013 Regulations do not apply to SEZ developers deemed to be distribution licensees under the 2010 Notification – Emphasized that reading up of regulation 12 to include deemed licensees is impermissible – Distinction maintained between regular applicants and deemed licensees. [Paras 26-36].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – TSERC and APTEL's orders are set aside to the extent they require additional capital infusion by appellant – TSERC’s grant of deemed licensee status to appellant upheld, excluding condition of additional capital infusion – Appeal allowed in these terms. [Paras 37-38].

Criminal Law – Trial Court Procedures and Judicial Conduct – Examination of procedural violations in trial court proceedings leading to death sentence under Section 376AB IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 – Accused's rights to fair trial compromised due to expedited process without adequate representation and consultation – High Court set aside conviction and sentence, ordering de novo trial due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards [Paras 43-50, 55-58].

Sentencing Guidelines – Comparative analysis of sentencing policies from Canada, New Zealand, and UK – Supreme Court's recommendation for a distinct sentencing policy in India – Urges Government of India to consider establishing a Sentencing Commission to develop comprehensive sentencing guidelines – Directs Union of India to file an affidavit on feasibility within six months [Paras 39-42, 58].

Evidence Evaluation – Procedural Flaws – Examination of trial court’s handling of evidence and witness protection – Trial court failed to comply with Sections 207, 226, 227, and 230 of CrPC, 1973, and Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 – High Court's detailed review revealed serious lapses affecting accused’s ability to defend [Paras 45-48, 55-57].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – Appeals by informant and trial judge dismissed – High Court's decision upheld due to significant procedural violations affecting fair trial – Directions issued for expeditious and compliant retrial under POCSO Act, 2012 – Government of India to explore introduction of sentencing guidelines [Paras 58-60].