Interest Pendente Lite – Inclusion in Awarded Sum – The appeal addresses whether the "sum" awarded under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, includes interest pendente lite. The Court held that the sum awarded under this provision does include such interest unless there is an agreement to the contrary between the parties [Paras 10-13].

Agreement Between Parties – Binding Nature – The Court emphasized that where there is an agreement between the parties regarding interest, the Arbitral Tribunal must adhere to this agreement, as specified in the phrase "unless otherwise agreed by the parties" in Section 31(7)(a). The Tribunal does not have discretion in such cases and must follow the terms of the agreement [Paras 14-22].

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited Case – Interpretation – The Court referred to the majority judgment in Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited v. Governor State of Orissa (2015) 2 SCC 189, which established that the sum awarded may include principal and interest for the pre-award period. This decision was upheld in the current context, reaffirming that post-award interest is calculated on the total sum, including pre-award interest, unless otherwise agreed by the parties [Paras 11-13].

Contractual Provisions – Enforcement – The Court examined the Concession Agreement between DAMEPL and DMRC, specifically Article 29.8, which detailed interest on termination payments. The Tribunal correctly followed the contractual terms, awarding interest as stipulated in the agreement, thus binding the parties to their pre-determined terms [Paras 25-28].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and the Tribunal's award, which adhered to the specific agreement between the parties regarding interest. The ruling emphasized that the Tribunal's discretion is curtailed by any existing agreements between the parties [Paras 36-38].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Money Laundering – Proceedings initiated under PMLA against appellant following seizure of cash and gold by Income Tax Department – Appellant contended no evidence of scheduled offence – High Court dismissed quashing petition – Supreme Court analyzed evidence and procedural lapses, including failure to identify involved bank officials – Proceedings quashed – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-20].

Procedure under Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court’s failure to consider all material evidence – Supreme Court emphasized requirement of strong evidence for continuation of PMLA proceedings – Proceedings quashed due to lack of incriminating material [Paras 14-19].

Evidence – Lack of Identification of Bank Officials – Adjudicating Authority’s observation on absence of identification of bank officials involved in alleged money laundering – Supreme Court found lack of material evidence to support continuation of proceedings under PMLA [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Proceedings under PMLA against appellant quashed – Supreme Court set aside High Court’s order dismissing quashing petition – Emphasized that until allegations are substantiated, appellant is presumed innocent [Para 20].

Land Reforms – Pre-emption Application – Compliance with Section 9 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act – Pre-emptors must deposit entire sale consideration with additional 10% before further enquiry – Non-compliance renders pre-emption application not maintainable [Paras 1-9].

Deposit Requirement – Mandatory Condition – Failure to deposit full sale consideration with additional 10% – Pre-emption application liable to be rejected – High Court erred in allowing deposit of balance consideration at a later stage [Paras 3-9].

Statutory Interpretation – Strict Construction – Right of pre-emption considered a weak right – Provisions enforcing pre-emption must be strictly construed – Compliance with statutory conditions mandatory [Paras 6.1-6.3].

Pre-emption Right – Consideration and Time-frame – Deposit of sale consideration and additional amount is sacrosanct – Inquiry into consideration amount can occur only after initial deposit is made [Paras 24-33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Held – High Court and First Appellate Court orders set aside – Pre-emption application dismissed – Respondents permitted to withdraw deposited amounts – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Determination – Applicability of Section 24 of 2013 Act – Compensation determined as per circle rate applicable to commercial properties – Award passed in violation of interim stay by Supreme Court – Additional penal interest awarded for delayed payment [Paras 1-33].

Compensation and Interest – Circle Rate for Commercial Properties – Deduction of Development Charges – Compensation to be calculated based on circle rate of Rs. 110,000/- per sq. meter for commercial land – High Court’s deduction of 50% towards development charges set aside [Paras 22-33].

Statutory and Penal Interest – Delay in Payment – Compensation to include statutory interest under Section 34 of 1894 Act and additional 3% penal interest for delay – Total compensation to be paid within six weeks [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Held – Compensation to be determined based on circle rate of Rs. 110,000/- per sq. meter – No deduction towards development charges – Statutory interest and additional 3% penal interest awarded – Amount to be paid within six weeks [Paras 33].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Concurrent List – Subject of Arbitration falls under Entry 13 of List III – State Legislature can enact law on arbitration subject to President's assent – State Act reserved for and received President's assent prevails over Central law – State Act within legislative competence of State Legislature [Paras 1-9].

Arbitration – Revocation and Reopening of Awards – State Act – State Act cancelling arbitration clauses and revoking arbitrator’s authority – Provides for suit filing and appeal by State Government against awards – Enactment not arbitrary or discriminatory – Law impacts only specific project agreements [Paras 10-40].

Separation of Powers – Judicial Encroachment – State Act alleged to interfere with judicial power by revoking arbitration clauses – Supreme Court held no encroachment on judicial function – State Act provides for judicial determination of disputes post-revocation [Paras 41-49].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Held – Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 upheld as constitutional – Legislative competence affirmed – No violation of separation of powers doctrine – Awards under the Act subject to judicial scrutiny [Paras 50-57].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a conclusive chain of circumstances – The last seen theory, arrest of the accused, recovery of material objects, and call details do not conclusively establish guilt – Conviction based on probabilities and inferences drawn from call records inadmissible without proper certification [Paras 1-23].

Motive and Last Seen Theory – Inconsistent Testimonies – High Court's reliance on call records to establish motive and last seen theory rejected due to inconsistencies and lack of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act [Paras 10-22].

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Certification Requirement – Call records produced without the mandatory certification under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act held inadmissible – Oral evidence in place of certification insufficient [Para 20-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Held – Conviction of Ravinder Singh @ Kaku under Sections 302 and 364 IPC set aside due to inconclusive circumstantial evidence and inadmissible electronic evidence – Acquittal of co-accused upheld – Ravinder Singh @ Kaku to be released immediately unless required in any other case – Appeals filed by the State dismissed [Paras 22-23].

Registration of Documents – Duties of Registering Officer – Role of Registering Officer is not merely mechanical – Required to independently verify statutory compliance – Failure to verify powers of attorney and other statutory requirements can invalidate registration [Paras 1-9, 58].

Judicial Review – High Court's Jurisdiction – Under Article 226 – High Court can review actions of Registering Authority to ensure statutory duties are performed – Review is permissible even if other civil remedies are available [Paras 10-54].

Powers of Attorney – Authentication vs. Registration – Distinction clarified – PoA must be authenticated, not necessarily registered – Registering Officer must ensure PoA's compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 13-24, 46].

Civil vs. Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Challenge – Execution of document to be challenged in civil court – Procedural lapses by Registering Authority can be challenged via writ petition [Paras 53-55].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Held – Registration of sale deed by the Registering Authority set aside due to failure to adhere to statutory duties – Order of the Division Bench reversed – Order of the Single Judge restored [Paras 59].

Income Tax – Reassessment Notices – Transition to New Provisions – High Courts quashed reassessment notices issued under unamended Section 148 after 01.04.2021 – Supreme Court converted such notices into those issued under Section 148A (new provisions) – Directed Revenue to comply with new procedural requirements – Notices deemed to be issued under amended Act to protect public exchequer and reduce litigation [Paras 1-11].

Statutory Interpretation – Finance Act, 2021 – Amendments to Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act – New provisions remedial and benevolent – Ensure compliance and reduce litigation – New provisions apply to notices issued after 01.04.2021 [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Review – Article 142 of the Constitution – Supreme Court exercised power to provide relief to Revenue and assessees – Avoid multiplicity of proceedings – PAN INDIA application to similar judgments and orders of High Courts [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – Held – Reassessment notices issued under unamended Section 148 deemed to have been issued under Section 148A (new provisions) – Assessing Officers to follow new procedure within stipulated time – High Court orders modified to this extent – Present order applicable PAN INDIA to similar cases and pending writ petitions [Paras 10-12].

Service Law – Recovery of Excess Payments – Misrepresentation and Error – Recovery of increments granted to appellant after ten years of retirement held unjustified – Excess amounts not paid due to any misrepresentation or fraud by appellant – Payments made due to error in interpreting Kerala Service Rules – Equity and judicial discretion favor relief from recovery [Paras 1-16].

Recovery of Benefits – Judicial Precedents – Various precedents affirming that recovery of excess payments not resulting from misrepresentation or fraud is inequitable – Relief against recovery granted in several cases where payments were made due to administrative errors [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Held – Recovery of increments after ten years of retirement unjustified – High Court's judgment and recovery notice set aside – No costs awarded [Paras 15-16].