Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellants accused of purchasing property alleged to have been attached due to prior financial misconduct by co-accused – Main allegations against co-accused for misappropriation in 1998-1999 – Appellants bona fide purchasers in 2019, with no registered attachment at purchase time – No prima facie case established against appellants under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC – High Court erred in not exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 1-7].

Misappropriation Allegations – Evidence and Procedural Requirements – Allegations stemmed from co-accused's earlier financial misconduct – Property in question purchased by appellants years after alleged misconduct – Lack of direct involvement or conspiracy by appellants with co-accused – Emphasis on lack of material evidence against appellants [Paras 2.1-6].

Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Continuation of criminal proceedings against appellants deemed abuse of process and unnecessary harassment – Supreme Court underscores importance of judicial discretion to prevent misuse of legal processes [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court judgment and order quashed – Criminal proceedings and charge sheet under Case Crime No. 48 of 2019 quashed against appellants – High Court's failure to exercise discretion under Section 482 CrPC corrected [Para 7].

Electricity Law – Withdrawal of Petition – Appellants-DISCOMS sought to withdraw the petition for the approval of PPA – Decision impacted significant investments by HNPCL – Appellants could not be permitted to change decisions whimsically, especially when contrary to public interest – APTEL held DISCOMS’ withdrawal of the petition as impermissible, upholding the need for stability and commitment in public utility agreements [Paras 1-88].

Legal Malice – Definition and Application – State must act without ill will or malice – Legal malice refers to acts done wrongfully without reasonable cause, not necessarily with spite – State actions impacting third parties must be devoid of oblique motives or indirect objectives – Legal malice applies when statutory power is used for unintended purposes, causing harm to others’ rights [Paras B-60].

Public Interest – Public Utility and Investments – Decisions by State entities should prioritize public good – Sudden withdrawal by DISCOMS would waste HNPCL’s investments and public resources – Court emphasizes State’s duty to maintain contractual commitments in public interest [Paras 3-6].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – APTEL’s decision upheld – Withdrawal of PPA petition not allowed – Directions to Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to proceed with determining the capital cost and tariff for the project as originally intended [Para 7].

Public Employment – Eligibility Criteria – Advertisement required applicants to possess Rajasthan State Certificate in Information Technology (RSCIT) by the last date of application submission – Respondent did not possess RSCIT by the extended deadline and was subsequently rejected – Acquired RSCIT in 2014, after stipulated period – Recruitment resumed in 2017 under original advertisement terms – Respondent’s application rejected again based on initial eligibility criteria – Court upholds rejection, emphasizing necessity to meet stipulated qualifications by specified deadlines [Paras 1-10].

Rule 266-A of the 1996 Rules – Applicability and Scope – Rule 266-A provides regularization for widows/divorcees appointed as teachers after relaxing qualifications of B.S.T.C/B.Ed – Not applicable to non-teaching posts or qualifications like RSCIT – Court clarifies Rule 266-A does not entitle unqualified candidates for appointments, only allows regularization post-appointment – Respondent not appointed under original terms, making Rule 266-A inapplicable [Paras 9-11].

Article 15 – Constitutional Rights and Sympathetic Consideration – Court acknowledges respondent’s hardship as a widow but emphasizes adherence to legal requirements for public employment – Sympathy cannot override statutory qualifications and rules – Court asserts duty to uphold legal standards in public employment despite individual circumstances [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgments of Single and Division Bench set aside – Respondent’s writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 14].

Service Law – Pension Fixation – Respondent retired as a selection grade Lecturer on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.7.2006 – Initial pension fixation errors corrected by High Court, confirming pre-revised pension at Rs. 8907 – Revised pension fixed at Rs. 19334 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 following High Court directions – Appellant challenged revised fixation citing leave without allowances period – Court upheld fixation based on average emoluments as if uninterrupted service – Account General's pension fixation upheld [Paras 1-10].

Average Emoluments Calculation – Kerala Service Rules – Circulars G.O.(P) No. 211/2011/Fin dated 7.5.2011 and G.O.(P) No. 230/2012/Fin dated 19.4.2012 – Clarified computation of average emoluments over 10 months preceding retirement, considering notional pay adjustments during leave without allowances – Court emphasized correct application of rule and circulars in pension fixation [Paras 5-9].

Legal Interpretation – Service Rules and Pension – Circulars must be read to provide equitable pension calculations ensuring uninterrupted service emoluments – Employee's pension to reflect potential earnings without penalizing for leave without allowances – Rule interpretation supported by High Court directions [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment confirming Accountant General's pension fixation upheld – No costs awarded [Para 10].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction of Court-Martial vs. Criminal Courts – Concurrent jurisdiction exists for court-martial and ordinary criminal courts in cases involving army personnel charged with civil offences – Section 125 of the Army Act grants discretion to the designated officer to decide the trial forum – Designated officer's decision not to exercise this discretion implies default to ordinary criminal court jurisdiction – High Court erred in holding that only court-martial had jurisdiction – Sessions Judge’s competence affirmed, trial to proceed in criminal court [Paras 1-48].

Sections 69 and 125 of the Army Act – Interpretation – Section 69 subjects army personnel to Army Act for civil offences unless Section 70 applies – Section 125 provides discretion to the designated officer to opt for court-martial – No inherent ouster of criminal court jurisdiction without designated officer's decision for court-martial – Conjunctive requirement under Section 125 necessitates an explicit decision for court-martial jurisdiction [Paras 14-45].

Procedural Compliance – Section 475 CrPC and 1978 Rules – Magistrate required to issue notice to commanding officer to decide trial forum – However, established cooperation of army authorities and deferral to criminal court proceedings indicated compliance – High Court’s insistence on certified decision documents misplaced, given factual cooperation and evidence during criminal trial [Paras 46-48].

Punishment under Army Act vs. IPC – Concurrent jurisdiction ensures no preferential treatment in sentencing – Army Act provides for lesser punishment in certain offences, not for serious offences like murder – Interpretation confirms no legislative intent to favor military personnel over ordinary law application for grave crimes [Para 49-50].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Sessions Judge’s jurisdiction affirmed – Trial to resume from stage of interruption by jurisdictional decision – Accused transferred from military to civil custody for trial conclusion [Paras 51-52].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Conviction – Appellant convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act – No evidence establishing appellant fired a gun at police – Disparity in FSL report indicating no use of the gun seized from appellant – Conviction for attempt to murder and under Section 27 Arms Act set aside – Conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) Arms Act upheld [Paras 1-8].

Evidence and Proof – Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report – FSL report did not match cartridges with appellant’s gun – Testimonies of police personnel did not establish appellant’s intent or act of firing – Lack of independent witnesses further weakens prosecution’s case – Conviction under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act unsustainable [Paras 2-8].

Defense Argument – False Implication – Appellant argued false implication by police after surrendering son – Proceedings prepared at police station, not on spot – Reasonable doubt established regarding appellant's guilt [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act set aside – Appellant acquitted of these charges – Conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) Arms Act sustained – Appellant to be released if not required in any other case [Para 9].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction of Arbitrator – Lease and dealership agreements are distinct – Arbitration clause in dealership agreement invoked for dispute – Arbitrator appointed under dealership agreement adjudicated lease agreement issues – Held, arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction – Award on lease rent and term set aside [Paras 1-61].

Contractual Interpretation – Arbitrator’s Power – Arbitrator bound to act within terms of the contract – Misinterpretation vs. Ignoring terms – Arbitrator cannot alter lease agreement terms unless expressly permitted – Award increasing lease rent and altering lease term against contract and public policy [Paras 44-48].

Public Policy – Fundamental Principles – Award contradicting contract terms shocks conscience of the court – Arbitrator’s deviation from contract violates public policy – Lease rent increase and lease term reduction not permissible under existing agreement [Paras 49-51].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – District Court judgment partly set aside – Arbitral award modified to exclude increased lease rent and reduced lease term – Lease agreement terms restored [Paras 60-61].

Civil Procedure – Contempt Jurisdiction – Order 39 Rule 2A CPC – Contempt for wilful disobedience requires proof of intentional, conscious, and deliberate violation of court orders – Mere disobedience insufficient for contempt – Court must exercise contempt powers cautiously, requiring evidence of bad purpose or stubborn, obstinate actions – Casual, accidental, bona fide, or unintentional acts excluded from "wilful" category [Paras 1-7].

Arbitration – Emergency Arbitrator’s Award – Enforceability – Emergency Arbitrator’s award under SIAC Rules can be enforced under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Interim orders of Emergency Arbitrator considered valid and enforceable by Indian courts – Orders must be treated as orders of the court under Section 17(2) for enforcement [Paras 8-19].

Natural Justice – Procedural Compliance – Fair Hearing – Parties must be given sufficient opportunity to file responses and raise defenses – Orders passed without affording opportunity violate principles of natural justice – Courts must ensure procedural fairness, especially in commercial matters impacting economy and employment [Paras 33-38].

Interim Orders and Balance of Convenience – Courts must ensure interim orders do not disrupt ongoing proceedings unless necessary to protect rights – Courts should avoid substantive observations on merits during interim stages – Interim orders must balance interests without causing undue prejudice to parties [Paras 43-44].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned orders dated 02.02.2021 and 18.03.2021 in OMP (ENF)(Comm.) No. 17 of 2021 set aside for procedural irregularities and lack of opportunity to appellants – Impugned order dated 29.10.2021 in Arb. A. (Comm.) No. 64 and 63 of 2021 set aside – Matters remitted for reconsideration on merits – Courts to ensure compliance with natural justice and procedural fairness in subsequent hearings [Para 47].

Hindu Succession Act – Absolute Property – Section 14(1) – Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property – Objective is to convert limited interest of a wife into absolute ownership if the property was acquired in lieu of maintenance – A Hindu male can create a limited estate in a will for his wife, but it will mature into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) if for maintenance [Paras 1-18].

Will Interpretation – Limited vs. Absolute Ownership – Testamentary disposition by Tulsi Ram bequeathed limited ownership to wife Ram Devi for maintenance, to become absolute estate of appellant after her lifetime – Limited estate does not convert to absolute under Section 14(2) if created by will with restricted terms, unless it confirms a pre-existing right [Paras 19-31].

Res Judicata – Binding Precedent – Previous litigation adjudicated limited ownership of Ram Devi up to Supreme Court – Purchasers from Ram Devi cannot inherit better title – Transactions during litigation not bona fide, reflect attempt to undermine appellant’s rightful inheritance [Paras 32-34].

Legal Precedent – Shakuntla Devi Case – Not applicable as it dealt with pre-1956 will – Distinguishing factor that the rights were adjudicated in previous litigation with finality up to Supreme Court – No change in law applicable to current case [Paras 34-35].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court judgment set aside – Trial court judgment dated 13.8.2009 and first appellate court judgment dated 7.10.2010 reaffirmed – Respondents’ sales deeds declared unsustainable – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 35-36].