Arbitration – Interference with Arbitral Award – Scope of Jurisdiction – The High Court’s interference with the arbitral award based on an alternative view was not justified – The Appellate Court correctly held that the learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by questioning the interpretation of the Implementation Agreement clauses given by the Sole Arbitrator – Arbitration award restored [Paras 1-21].

Interest on Arbitral Award – Compound Interest – The decision of the Division Bench to award only simple interest based on a misinterpreted precedent was reversed – Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. case affirmed the arbitrator's authority to award compound interest [Paras 4-6].

Merger of Agreements – Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Implementation Agreement – The MoU dated February 10, 1992, merged with the Implementation Agreement dated August 22, 1997 – The disputes under both documents were referable to arbitration under the Implementation Agreement [Paras 8-11].

Termination of Agreement – Premature Termination – The State prematurely terminated the Implementation Agreement before the stipulated period, misinterpreting Clause 4 – The Sole Arbitrator's interpretation upheld as it was logical and reasonable [Paras 12-22].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 10341 of 2011 partly allowed – Civil Appeal No. 10342 of 2011 dismissed – Findings on interest component and premature termination upheld – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 23].

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – High Court reversed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Fast-Track Court – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting substantial contradictions in the prosecution's case and testimonies – Emphasis on cautious approach by appellate courts in interfering with orders of acquittal – Judgment of High Court justified [Paras 1-54].

Prosecution Witnesses – Credibility – Evidence of prosecution witnesses found inconsistent and unreliable – Key witness, the informant, did not support the prosecution's case during the trial – Evidence reappraised, revealing significant discrepancies and unsubstantiated allegations against the accused [Paras 48-56].

Perjury Proceedings – High Court's Direction – High Court directed initiation of perjury proceedings against the informant (PW-7) – Supreme Court set aside this portion of the judgment, noting the overall context and the informant's unreliable testimony [Paras 57].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Judgment of acquittal by the High Court upheld – Direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the appellant set aside – Other parts of the High Court's judgment affirmed [Para 58].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – The Supreme Court held that mere common intention per se does not attract Section 34 IPC sans an action in furtherance of that intention – It was emphasized that a person may withdraw from a common intention – High Court and trial court judgments examined for proper application of Section 34 IPC [Paras 18-36].

Prosecution Witnesses – Credibility – Significant contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses – Key witness (PW6) improved his version during the trial, leading to doubts about his credibility – Evidence insufficient to implicate A3 and A4 under Section 34 IPC [Paras 32-34].

Applicability of Section 34 IPC – Misapplication in Trial – The court noted that A3 and A4's statements did not suffice to attract Section 34 IPC – The evidence did not support the conclusion that A3 and A4 were aware A1 had a gun – Trial court’s reasoning found flawed regarding Section 34 IPC [Paras 34-36].

Decision: Appeals by A3 and A4 allowed – Conviction under Section 34 IPC set aside – Judgment of the High Court confirming the trial court's decision reversed as to A3 and A4 – Appeal by the de facto complainant dismissed – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 37].

Tax Law – Electricity Duty – Exemption Provisions – The Supreme Court held that charitable educational institutions are not exempt from electricity duty under the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016 – The omission of Section 3(2)(iiia) from the 1958 Act in the 2016 Act indicates the legislative intent to exclude such exemptions – High Court's interpretation leading to an absurd result was rejected – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-15].

Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Strict Interpretation – Taxing statutes, particularly exemption provisions, must be interpreted strictly and literally – Ambiguities in exemption provisions are resolved in favor of the revenue – Changes in statutory language between the 1958 and 2016 Acts signify a deliberate legislative shift [Paras 9-11].

Legislative Intent – Clear Language – The clear and unambiguous language of Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act does not support the exemption for charitable educational institutions – The Court emphasized that legislative intent is reflected in the plain meaning of the statute's words [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment exempting the respondent charitable educational institutions from paying electricity duty set aside – It is held that such institutions are not exempt from electricity duty under the 2016 Act – No order as to costs [Paras 14-15].

Education – Admission – Reservation Policy – The Supreme Court addressed challenges to the reservation policy in the AIQ seats under NEET for OBC and EWS categories – Upheld the 27% reservation for OBC and 10% for EWS in AIQ seats – Directed the commencement of counseling based on the existing criteria, with future applicability subject to final adjudication [Paras 1-8].

Reservation in AIQ Seats – NEET-PG and NEET-UG – Validity of OBC and EWS Reservation – Court accepted the Pandey Committee’s recommendation to retain the existing EWS criteria for the current admission year to avoid dislocation of the admission process – Counselling to proceed under the existing notification dated 29 July 2021 [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Review – Interim Measures – Court emphasized the need for a detailed interim order on EWS criteria while maintaining the urgency of commencing the counseling process – The decision on the prospective validity of EWS criteria to be subject to final hearing [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Writ petitions partly allowed – 27% reservation for OBC and 10% for EWS in AIQ seats upheld – Counselling to proceed with existing EWS criteria for the 2021-2022 admission year – Validity of EWS criteria for future admissions subject to final hearing in March 2022 [Para 7].

Administrative Law – Jurisdiction – Transfer of Cases – The Supreme Court held that any challenge to an order of transfer of an Original Application from one Bench of the CAT to another under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court where the Tribunal passing the order is situated – High Court at Calcutta lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the transfer order by the Principal Bench of CAT at New Delhi – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-19].

Jurisdiction of High Courts – Power of Judicial Review – The High Court's power of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is inviolable, but such power must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction where the Tribunal passing the impugned order is situated – Decision of the Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 emphasized [Paras 15-17].

Disparaging Remarks – Expunction – Supreme Court ordered the expunction of unwarranted and uncalled-for remarks made by the High Court against the Chairman of the CAT – Emphasized judicial restraint and the need to avoid intemperate language [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Writ petition dismissed with liberty to file before the jurisdictional High Court – Remarks against the Chairman of the Tribunal expunged [Paras 18-19].

Reservation in Educational Institutions – Amendment to Reservation Act – The Supreme Court upheld the Manipur University’s adoption of reservation norms as 2% for SC, 31% for ST, and 17% for OBC candidates following the amendment to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, by the Amendment Act of 2012 – The university was correct in reverting to the reservation quotas that were in place immediately before the commencement of the Reservation Act [Paras 1-33].

Legislative Intent – Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting the second proviso to Section 3 of the Reservation Act inserted by the Amendment Act in a manner that ensures the norms for SC, ST, and OBC reservations are derived from the same source to avoid inconsistency and uncertainty – Any other interpretation would make the proviso unworkable and redundant [Paras 33].

Application of Reservation Act – Norms for Specified North Eastern Region – For Central Educational Institutions in the specified North Eastern region, the reservation norms must be aligned with the second proviso to Section 3, ensuring that the reservation for SC and ST candidates is based on the percentages existing prior to the enactment of the Reservation Act [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The reservation norms of 2% for SC, 31% for ST, and 17% for OBC candidates in Manipur University upheld as being in accordance with the Amendment Act – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 34-35].

Insolvency Law – Resolution Professional Fees – Reasonableness and Basis – The Supreme Court held that both the adjudicating authority (NCLT) and the appellate authority (NCLAT) must consider the basis and reasonableness of the fees and expenses claimed by the Resolution Professional (RP) – Orders passed in an ad hoc manner without providing reasons for determining the fees are not sustainable – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-33].

Jurisdiction – Exercise of Jurisdiction – The Court emphasized that the adjudicating authority must scrutinize and verify the factual position before determining the fees and expenses payable to the RP – An arbitrary fixation of fees without assessing the reasonableness of the claim constitutes an abdication of jurisdiction [Paras 16-17].

Adjudicating Authority’s Role – Detailed Assessment – The NCLT and NCLAT orders were set aside due to the lack of detailed assessment and reasoning – The case was remanded to the NCLT for a fresh decision with specific instructions to expedite the process [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of the NCLT and NCLAT set aside – Matter remanded to the NCLT for a fresh decision on the application for fees and expenses of the RP – NCLT directed to expedite the disposal within one month from the receipt of the certified copy of this order [Para 17].

Land Law – Scheduled Caste Land Transactions – Applicability of Local Laws – The Supreme Court held that an individual who is a Scheduled Caste member in Punjab cannot claim the benefit of Scheduled Caste status in Rajasthan for the purpose of purchasing land allotted to a Scheduled Caste person in Rajasthan – The sale transaction was in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Inter-State Migration – Scheduled Caste Status – The Court reiterated that a Scheduled Caste individual from one state cannot automatically claim Scheduled Caste status in another state upon migration – This principle ensures that local protections and benefits for Scheduled Castes are not diluted by inter-state migrations [Paras 7-9].

Regularization of Illegal Transactions – Board of Revenue’s Power – The Court found that the Board of Revenue erred in permitting the compounding and regularization of the transaction under Section 13(A)(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 – The compounding provision applies only when the transferee is in possession, which was not the case here – The order was contrary to the statutory provisions [Paras 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The land transaction in favor of the appellant was void and in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 – The High Court’s decision was upheld – No order as to costs [Para 12].