Bail Under UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Stringency and Prolonged Incarceration – Appellant denied bail under Section 439 CrPC – Held, UAPA’s Section 43D(5) conditions less stringent than NDPS Act – Appellant in custody for nearly 8 years – Trial progress slow with only 6 of 109 witnesses examined – Prolonged incarceration considered significant – Bail granted with conditions set by the trial court – Observations limited to bail application purposes [Paras 1-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order denying bail set aside – Appellant to be released on bail subject to conditions set by the trial court [Para 11].

Suspension of Sentence – Pendency of Appeal – Sections 354, 363 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act – Appellant convicted for kidnapping and outraging the modesty of a 9-year-old – Trial Court awarded concurrent sentences under IPC and POCSO Act – High Court denied suspension of sentence – Supreme Court allowed appeal noting maximum sentence of three years and delay in hearing appeal – Recognized that prolonged incarceration during appeal pendency without consideration for sentence length and hearing delay can cause irreparable injury [Paras 1-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Execution of remaining part of the sentence suspended – Appellant to be released on bail on terms set by Trial Court [Paras 18].

Permission for Medical Courses – Requirements Under Central Council Act – Regulatory Compliance – CCIM denied permission to respondent medical colleges for postgraduate admissions for 2018-19 due to lack of Central Research Laboratory and Animal House – Karnataka High Court allowed admissions relying on subsequent permission for 2019-20 – Supreme Court held that each academic year requires independent compliance – Deficiencies for 2018-19 cannot be overlooked due to compliance in subsequent years – High Court’s decision flawed as it did not consider legislative scheme of Section 13A of the Act [Paras 1-41].

Non-Recognition of Qualifications – Section 13B – Medical qualifications granted without proper permissions not recognized – Ensures adherence to standards prescribed by the Act – Essential for maintaining educational standards [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgments set aside – Writ petitions by Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College and others dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 40-41].

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].