Arbitration Law – Seat of Arbitration – Change of Venue – Mutual Agreement – Supreme Court held that by mutual agreement of the parties, the venue of arbitration can be changed, and this change constitutes a change in the seat of arbitration – Once the seat is designated, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, vesting exclusive jurisdiction with the courts at the seat – Ahmedabad courts vested with exclusive jurisdiction as the seat of arbitration was shifted from Jaipur to Ahmedabad by mutual agreement [Paras 1-19].

Commercial Courts Jurisdiction – Implications of Seat Change – Supreme Court clarified that once the seat of arbitration is changed by mutual agreement, the exclusive jurisdiction of courts follows the new seat – Previous designations of jurisdiction based on the former seat become inapplicable – The decision reaffirms the principles laid down in BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Limited (2020) [Paras 12-18].

Legal Precedent – Applicability – The case distinguished from Videocon Industries Limited v. Union of India (2011) which required written agreement for changing the seat, as no such specific amendment clause was present in the current agreement – Principles from Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v. Datawind Innovations Private Limited (2017) applied to support the shift in seat by mutual agreement without requiring written amendment [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Jurisdiction vested in Ahmedabad courts following the mutually agreed change of the seat of arbitration – Section 34 petition to be resolved by the courts at Ahmedabad – Interim stay on execution proceedings to continue till disposal of the Section 34 petition by the appropriate forum at Ahmedabad [Paras 18-21].

Judiciary – Conspiracy to Destabilize – Enquiry Directions – The High Court directed an enquiry into the authenticity of a phone conversation implicating a conspiracy against the judiciary. The petitioner admitted to the conversation and submitted a corrected transcript. The Supreme Court found no reason to continue the enquiry as directed by the High Court since the authenticity of the conversation was admitted to the extent contained in the corrected transcript [Paras 1-13].

Procedural Fairness – Notice and Opportunity – The High Court's order directing the enquiry was made without issuing notice to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to respond before the enquiry was directed. The Supreme Court emphasized that any reference to the transcript in the writ petition must be done only after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard [Paras 10-15].

Maintainability of PIL – Preliminary Objections – The High Court was directed to focus on the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The enquiry into the conversation was limited to the extent of addressing the allegations made in the preliminary counter affidavit. The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court should decide on the maintainability of the PIL after hearing the arguments reserved on this point [Paras 13-16].

Decision- Special Leave Petition disposed of. The High Court's direction for an enquiry into the conversation by Justice R.V. Raveendran (Retd.) was set aside. The High Court to proceed with the writ petition and decide on its maintainability after providing an opportunity for a hearing [Paras 17].

Tender Process – Labour Licence Requirement – Judicial Review – The Supreme Court held that the High Court overstepped the bounds of judicial review by second-guessing the authority's requirement of a labour licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, as per the Tender Call Notice (TCN). A registration certificate under Section 4 of the Orissa Shops and Commercial Establishments Act cannot replace a valid labour licence issued by the labour department [Paras 1-16].

Interpretation of Tender Conditions – Authority’s Discretion – The Supreme Court emphasized that the authority inviting the tender is best placed to understand and interpret its requirements. Courts should defer to this interpretation unless it is arbitrary, perverse, or mala fide. The High Court erred in substituting its own interpretation for that of the authority, which had a reasonable basis for requiring a labour licence under the Contract Labour Act [Paras 10-14].

Mala Fides Allegation – Insufficient Grounds – The plea of mala fide made by the respondent was not substantiated with sufficient evidence. The High Court's finding of mala fide was questioned by the Supreme Court, which noted that merely incanting the expression 'mala fide' is insufficient without factual basis [Paras 16-17].

Decision- Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Appellant to be reinstated within one week to complete performance under the agreement dated 27.11.2020 [Paras 17].

Right to Professional Education – Article 32 – Admission Delays – The Supreme Court addressed the issue of delayed admissions for students from Ladakh nominated under the central pool seats for MBBS courses. The Court underscored that access to professional education is not a governmental largesse but an affirmative obligation of the State. The State must ensure access to education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds [Paras 1-9].

Fundamental Rights – Access to Education – Non-Discrimination – The Court emphasized the importance of non-discrimination and economic accessibility in education. Disparities in educational opportunities based on geographic location can constitute discrimination. The Court directed the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MHFW) and the Directorate of Health Services, Ladakh (DHSL) to coordinate and facilitate the admission process to avoid hardship for students [Paras 10-12].

Systemic Directions – Nodal Officer Appointment – To ensure smooth admissions, the Court recommended the appointment of a nodal officer to assist students allocated central pool seats. The nodal officer would serve as a single point of contact, helping students secure their rightful admission and addressing any difficulties they may face [Para 12].

Decision- Petitions allowed. Directions issued for immediate completion of admission formalities for the petitioners at Lady Hardinge Medical College (LHMC) and Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC). All students referred to in the notification dated February 19, 2021, to be granted admissions if not already done. Copy of the order to be forwarded to the concerned institutions for compliance [Paras 8-15].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Determination – Appeal concerning valuation of lands acquired for setting up Industrial Model Township – High Court relied on sale deeds and assessments from previous cases – Supreme Court upheld High Court's methodology and market value determination – Rejected reliance on cumulative annual increase beyond safe periods due to potential inaccuracies [Paras 1-12].

Valuation Method – Sale Deeds and Annual Increase – Sale deed evidence considered safer for market value determination – Court rejected annual increase method for periods beyond four to five years, citing potential for drastic changes in land value trends [Paras 10-11].

Market Value – Comparable Sales – High Court’s reliance on sale deed of village Lakhnoula and related assessments upheld – Supreme Court agreed with deduction for development costs and adjustment based on proximity to highway [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's determination of market value

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Excess Payment – Applications seeking clarification on previous judgment on compensation – Supreme Court upheld compensation rate of Rs.29,773,333/- per acre – Noted excess compensation paid due to earlier interim orders – Held that landholders need not return excess amounts considering authorities recovered more from subsequent allottees – Orders modified under Article 142 to relieve landholders of repayment obligation [Paras 1-13].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Use of inherent powers to modify orders – Exercised to prevent hardship to landholders who received excess compensation – Directed that no further recovery needed from landholders [Paras 11-12].

Compensation Adjustment – Burden on Subsequent Allottees – Court acknowledged that authorities passed on excess burden to allottees – Considered appropriate to prevent recovery from landholders [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Applications allowed – Excess compensation received by landholders not to be recovered – Orders modified to this effect [Para 13].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Enhancement – Lands acquired for Industrial Model Township – High Court granted flat 8% increase over market value – Supreme Court affirmed increase – Considered potential development due to proximity to Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway – Sale deed of 28.04.2004 not relied upon due to additional factors in valuation – Appeals partly allowed, compensation increased to Rs.47,105 per acre from Rs.43,614 per acre [Paras 1-16].

Valuation of Land – Pre- and Post-Acquisition Sale Deeds – Court rejected reliance on post-acquisition sale deeds – Sale deed dated 28.04.2004 excluded due to inclusion of constructed area and machinery in price – Pre-acquisition sale deed dated 17.08.2003 used for valuation – Methodology of cumulative increase not applicable beyond four to five years gap [Paras 9-11].

Market Value – Factors Affecting Increase – Court considered situational and developmental factors – Land being away from highway but closer to potential development due to Expressway – Following principle in ONGC case for rural and semi-urban areas [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.47,105 per acre – Appellants entitled to statutory benefits [Para 16].

Service Law – Recruitment – Qualification – Degree Holders – Interpretation of "minimum" qualifications for Junior Engineer (Electrical) – Whether degree in Electrical Engineering is considered higher than diploma and if degree holders are eligible – Supreme Court held that recruitment rules allowed for interpretation including degree holders – Amendment in 2020 clarified this inclusion retroactively – Appeals by degree holders allowed, directing HPSEB to process all applications including degree holders based on merit [Paras 1-39].

Recruitment Rules – Interpretation – Higher Qualification – Court emphasized that "minimum" qualifications include higher qualifications in the same discipline unless expressly excluded – Degree in Electrical Engineering considered presupposing diploma qualification – HPSEB directed to follow amended rules including degree holders in selection process [Paras 6-12, 18-39].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – HPSEB directed to process applications of degree holders and finalize selection based on merits [Para 39].

Income Tax – Stay Orders – Constitutional Validity – Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) – Appeal challenging the validity of the proviso which prevents extension of stay orders beyond 365 days irrespective of the assessee’s responsibility for delay – Supreme Court held that the proviso violates Article 14 of the Constitution by treating unequals equally – Proviso found to be arbitrary as it did not differentiate between delays caused by the assessee and those caused by the tribunal or revenue – The court read down the proviso to ensure that stay orders will only be vacated if the delay is attributable to the assessee [Paras 1-25].

Article 14 – Discrimination and Arbitrariness – Unequal Treatment – Court found the third proviso discriminatory as it clubbed assessees who delay proceedings with those who do not – Arbitrary provision violates right to equality by imposing same consequences regardless of fault [Paras 17-24].

Interpretation of Tax Statutes – Manifest Arbitrariness – Supreme Court reiterated that even tax legislation must not be arbitrary or discriminatory – Applied principles from past judgments to invalidate the proviso [Paras 16-25].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Third proviso to Section 254(2A) read down to exclude the words "even" and "is not" – Stay orders will vacate only if the delay is attributable to the assessee [Para 25].