Electricity Law – Captive Consumers – Additional Surcharge – Captive consumers/users are not liable to pay additional surcharge under Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 9 permits captive generation and distribution to captive users without State Commission's permission – Appellate Tribunal's decision upheld [Paras 1-15].

Statutory Interpretation – Sections 9 and 42 of Electricity Act – Captive generation and use are statutorily provided and do not require State Commission's permission – Additional surcharge under Section 42(4) applicable only to consumers receiving supply with State Commission’s permission – Captive consumers form a distinct class, exempt from additional surcharge [Paras 9-14].

Refund of Additional Surcharge – Distribution licensee directed to adjust additional surcharge recovered from captive consumers against future wheeling charges – Avoids imposing immediate financial burden on the distribution licensee [Para 16].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Captive consumers exempt from additional surcharge – Distribution licensee to adjust previously recovered surcharge in future bills [Paras 15-17].

Employment Law – Wrongful Termination – Reinstatement without Back Wages – High Court ordered reinstatement but denied back wages – Supreme Court addresses whether denial of back wages was justified – Back wages are generally awarded in cases of wrongful termination unless specific circumstances justify otherwise [Paras 1-11].

Burden of Proof – Gainful Employment – Burden of proof on employer to show gainful employment of the employee during the period of wrongful termination – Appellant stated he was not gainfully employed; burden shifts to employer to prove otherwise [Paras 6-10].

Quantum of Back Wages – Considering partial earnings of the appellant during the period of termination – Court balances interest of justice by awarding a reasonable amount as back wages [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Appellant awarded Rs. 80 lakhs as back wages – Amount to be paid within six weeks – No order as to costs [Paras 12-13].

Succession Law – Will Execution – Validity – Execution of will (Ex-P1) by testator E. Srinivasa Pillai questioned – Appellants argue will is concocted, testator was paralyzed and bedridden before death – Respondents fail to prove will to Court’s satisfaction – Division Bench reverses Trial Court judgment without detailed reasoning [Paras 1-23].

Proof of Will – Legal Requirements – Sections 63 and 68 – Propounder must prove the will's execution by examining attesting witnesses – Suspicious circumstances must be removed – Will’s validity questioned due to testator's health, lack of registration, and unexplained delay in probate proceedings [Paras 25-29].

Judicial Approach – Appellate Court’s Duty – Reversal of Trial Court’s decision requires detailed reasoning – Division Bench failed to provide adequate reasons for setting aside Trial Court's findings – Reversal without proper scrutiny of evidence not sustainable [Paras 30-44].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Division Bench judgment set aside – Trial Court’s judgment restored – Parties to bear their respective costs [Paras 43-44].

Consumer Protection – Deficiency in Service – Mediclaim policy – Insurer failed to disclose changes in policy conditions at the time of renewal – Duty to inform policyholders about limitations being imposed in the renewed policy – Failure resulted in deficiency of service – NCDRC's order set aside; District Forum's order restored [Paras 1-12, 16-17, 23-28].

Insurance Contracts – Duty of Disclosure – Principle of uberrima fides (utmost good faith) – Insurer's duty to disclose material changes in policy terms at renewal stage – Consumer Protection Act recognizes non-disclosure as a deficiency in service – Renewal of policy implies continuation of previous terms unless specifically informed of changes [Paras 24-28].

Judicial Review – Error in NCDRC's Findings – High Court and NCDRC failed to appreciate the insurer's duty to inform the insured about policy changes – Appellant entitled to relief due to insurer's failure to disclose – Costs imposed on the respondent for the deficiency in service [Paras 35-40].

Decision – Appeal allowed – NCDRC and State Commission orders set aside – District Forum's order restored – Insurer directed to pay Rs. 175,000/- as balance amount with Rs. 50,000/- costs [Paras 40-41].

Environmental Law – Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance – Central Government's power to grant ex post facto EC under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Generally disfavored but permissible in specific circumstances with strict compliance to environmental norms – High Court's decision vacating interim orders allowing operation set aside – Emphasizes balance between environmental protection and economic consequences [Paras 1-28, 83-94].

Judicial Review – Proportionality Principle – Assessment of the economic impact on livelihoods and operation of the plant against the procedural violation of environmental clearances – High Court’s discontinuation of interim relief not proportionate to potential harm to economy and employment [Paras 88-94].

Economic Considerations – Impact on Employment – Court considers broader implications on employment and economy due to immediate cessation of plant operations – Importance of compliance with environmental norms balanced with potential socioeconomic repercussions [Paras 82-84, 88-94].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s order vacated – Interim orders restored – Central Government to decide on the application for revised EC within three months – Plant operations not to be interfered with pending decision [Paras 95].

Service Tax – Banking and Financial Services – Interchange Fee – Whether the interchange fee received by the issuing bank (Citi Bank) from the acquiring bank in credit card transactions is subject to service tax – Tribunal relied on the decision in M/s ABN Amro Bank NV v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Noida, holding interchange fee not liable to service tax – Principal Commissioner’s contrary findings rejected [Paras 1-40].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 65(33a) Finance Act, 1994 – Defines credit card, debit card, charge card, or other payment card service – Includes services related to settlement of amounts transacted through such cards – Interchange fee deemed consideration for service rendered by issuing bank in settlement process – Tribunal's reliance on ABN Amro Bank decision found misplaced; interpretation of law upheld by Principal Commissioner [Paras 33-38].

Double Taxation – Respondent’s contention that interchange fee is part of Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) already taxed in hands of acquiring bank – Argument of double taxation rejected – Separate consideration for service rendered by issuing bank and acquiring bank – Each liable to pay tax on respective earnings [Paras 40-41].

Judicial Review – Scope of Tribunal's Decision – Tribunal’s failure to appreciate inclusive definition in Section 65(33a) – Principal Commissioner's comprehensive analysis upheld – Tribunal’s order set aside – Service tax, penalty, and interest reinstated [Paras 42-43].

Decision – Appeals allowed – CESTAT orders set aside – Principal Commissioner’s order restored – Service tax, penalty, and interest on interchange fee confirmed [Paras 44-46].

Consumer Protection – Amendment of Complaint – Insurer's repudiation of claim after complaint filed – Whether appellant can be compelled to amend complaint to challenge repudiation – Appellant contends relief sought includes payment of due amount, making amendment unnecessary – NCDRC erred in directing amendment and allowing written statement – Appellant should decide on amendment, continuation, or withdrawal of complaint [Paras 1-13].

Dominus Litis – Right to Amend Pleadings – Plaintiff/complainant’s prerogative to amend pleadings – Appellant cannot be forced to amend complaint against their decision – NCDRC’s order deprives appellant of rights under existing complaint [Paras 9-13].

Constitution Bench Judgment – Reference to Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (2020) 5 SCC 757 – Written statement not filed within statutory period – NCDRC order contravenes mandatory timelines for filing written statements under Consumer Protection Act – Rights and options available to appellant clarified [Paras 7-14].

Decision – NCDRC order set aside – Appellant has options: pursue current complaint, amend complaint, or withdraw and file fresh complaint – Respondent's right to file written statement preserved depending on appellant's choice [Paras 14-16].

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentence – Gruesome murder of two siblings and one nephew – Conviction under Sections 201, 302, and 506-B IPC upheld – Death sentence converted to life imprisonment for 30 years considering the appellant's rural and economically poor background, lack of criminal antecedents, and possibility of reformation [Paras 1-47].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Considerations for imposing death penalty include brutality of crime and possibility of reformation – Appellant's conduct in jail satisfactory – Lack of evidence from State showing no possibility of reformation – Emphasis on balancing crime and criminal, considering socio-economic background [Paras 41-44].

Judicial Review – Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances – Courts must consider both crime and criminal – Sentencing process requires a balance sheet of mitigating and aggravating circumstances – Trial and High Courts erred in focusing only on the crime [Paras 43-44].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Death sentence converted to life imprisonment for 30 years – Conviction under Sections 201, 302, and 506-B IPC affirmed – Recognition of the need for social reintegration and possibility of reformation of the appellant [Paras 45-47].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Abetment – Respondent accused of abetting and conspiring with a senior government official (A-1) in the income tax department to accumulate disproportionate assets – High Court quashed charge sheet due to lack of evidence directly linking the respondent to the offense – Suspicion alone insufficient for framing charges [Paras 1-27].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Disproportionate Assets – Respondent, not a public servant, cannot be charged under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) – No evidence showing respondent received monetary benefit or held property for A-1 – Allegations did not meet threshold for criminal conspiracy or abetment [Paras 23-26].

Judicial Review – Quashing of Charges – Courts must examine whether prima facie evidence supports charges – Allegations and material presented did not implicate respondent in the crime – Chargesheet and final report did not connect respondent with money trail or property transaction – High Court's decision upheld [Paras 20-33].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's order quashing charges against respondent affirmed – Insufficient evidence to support charges of conspiracy and abetment [Para 33].