Compromise Decree – Legal Validity – The compromise decree dated 20.08.1984 was contested on the grounds that no written compromise signed by the parties was presented, thus failing the requirements under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – The Supreme Court held that mere statements by parties do not satisfy the legal mandate of a written and signed compromise – Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC requires a lawful agreement in writing, without which the decree cannot be considered valid [Paras 12-23].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Applicability – The Court analyzed the effect of the sale deed executed on 22.08.1983 during the pendency of the appeal – Held that the sale deed is not affected by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the TP Act as the statements by parties indicated collusive conduct – The purchaser's rights were upheld despite the pending litigation, as the sale deed was not challenged [Paras 17-18].

Compromise and Agreement – Requirements under CPC – Emphasized that a compromise decree must be based on a written agreement signed by the parties and proven before the Court – The lack of such a document rendered the alleged compromise in the first appeal invalid [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court and first Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s judgment dismissing the suit confirmed – Reiterated the necessity of strict adherence to procedural requirements for compromises under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC [Paras 24-25].

Constitutional Law – Scheduled Castes – Authority to Amend – The State Government of Bihar's resolution to merge the caste "Tanti-Tantwa" with 'Pan/Sawasi' in the Scheduled Castes list was challenged – Held, the State Government lacks the authority to amend or alter the Scheduled Castes list, which can only be done by Parliament through legislation – The resolution was found to be unconstitutional and was quashed [Paras 1-25].

Judicial Review – Competence of State Government – The Court emphasized that the competence to modify the Scheduled Castes list lies solely with Parliament under Article 341 – State Government's action was beyond its jurisdiction and deemed mala fide – High Court's support of the State's resolution was erroneous [Paras 12-36].

Impact on Beneficiaries – Posts filled under the impugned resolution – Directed that the posts under Scheduled Castes quota filled by "Tanti-Tantwa" members be returned to Scheduled Castes category – The affected members to be accommodated under their original category of Extremely Backward Classes [Paras 39-42].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Resolution dated 01.07.2015 quashed – Posts to be reallocated appropriately.

Pay Scale Revision – Historical Context – Controversy centered on the pay scale revisions of SDI/ABSA and DBSA compared to Headmasters following the Fifth Central Pay Commission's recommendations – The 2001 Order revised Headmasters' pay scales but not SDI/ABSA and DBSA, leading to perceived discrepancies [Paras 4-10].

Doctrine of Merger – Application – The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's judgment dated 06.05.2002 merged with its own order dated 08.12.2010 – High Court's assumption that its decision remained enforceable was erroneous [Paras 39-44].

Equitable Relief – Recovery of Excess Payment – The Supreme Court upheld the Single Judge's direction against recovering excess payments made to retired SDI/ABSA and DBSA, adhering to the principles in State of Punjab v. Rafique Masih [Para 47].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Observed that forfeiture of the entire security deposit for a bona fide error was punitive and disproportionate – Directed the appellant to pay Rs 3 crore instead, balancing state and private interests [Paras 23-25].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – 2011 Order approved – Respondents entitled to the pay scale as per the 2011 Order, with no recovery of excess payments – Arrears to be paid with 7% interest per annum [Paras 60-61].

Exemption from Fees – Market Fee vs. Rural Development Fee – Appeal against the denial of exemption from Rural Development Fee under the 2003 Industrial Policy – Respondent sought exemption, claiming similarity with other industries granted such benefits – High Court dismissed initial writ and subsequent modification application – Supreme Court finds both fees distinct under separate statutes – Policy only explicitly exempts Market Fee, not Rural Development Fee – Exemption from Market Fee does not imply exemption from Rural Development Fee [Paras 7-30].

Interpretation of Industrial Policy, 2003 – Distinction between fees levied under different statutes – High Court’s non-adjudication on merits regarding the exemption – Supreme Court emphasizes clear separation of statutory provisions and objectives of the two Acts – Respondent’s assumption of combined exemption deemed overreaching policy’s scope [Paras 21-24].

Effect of State Communications – Analysis of various notes and letters relied upon by Respondent – Supreme Court notes withdrawal of key letters and clarifies non-application of exemptions – Subsequent clarifications reinforce separate consideration for exemptions under Market Fee and Rural Development Fee [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders dated 27.01.2010 and 24.09.2010 set aside – High Court’s dismissal of Civil W.P. No. 14847 of 2009 upheld – No exemption from Rural Development Fee granted – Pending applications disposed of [Para 30-31].

Overcharging – Recovery Powers – The NPPA issued demand notices for overcharging on the drug Roscilox, requiring the appellant to deposit both the overcharged principal amount and the interest – The NPPA's authority to recover overcharged amounts is rooted in Paragraph 13 of the DPCO, which empowers the government to recover amounts accrued from charging prices higher than those fixed or notified under the DPCO [Paras 4-5].

Definitions – Dealer and Distributor – The DPCO definitions of 'dealer,' 'distributor,' and 'wholesaler' show overlapping roles – A 'distributor' includes any stockist appointed by a manufacturer, which encompasses roles performed by 'dealers' – The appellant's dual role as a 'distributor' and 'dealer' does not exempt it from the ambit of Paragraph 13 of the DPCO [Paras 6, 10-11].

Judicial Review – Scope of Appeal – The appellant's attempt to question the validity of the demand and the computation under Paragraph 19 of the DPCO was not entertained by the Supreme Court, as these issues were not properly raised before the Delhi High Court – The Court restricted its review to whether the appellant falls within the reach of Paragraph 13 [Paras 7-8].

Corporate Veil – Piercing the Corporate Veil – The High Court's exercise of piercing the corporate veil to find overlapping identities between the appellant and its group companies was acknowledged but not re-evaluated by the Supreme Court – The appellant's own admissions in its replies to the NPPA confirmed its direct contact with the manufacturer [Paras 9-10].

Laudable Objective – Price Control – The DPCO aims to control drug prices to ensure affordability for the common man – The Court emphasized the importance of not restricting the interpretation of the DPCO's provisions, which are intended to prevent overcharging by those involved in the manufacture and marketing of drugs [Para 11].

Inconsistent Versions – Lack of Documentation – The appellant's inconsistent versions and failure to provide firm documentation about its arrangements with manufacturers undermined its claim of being merely a 'dealer' – The appellant could not establish a clear factual foundation to support its exemption from Paragraph 13 [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's rejection of the appellant's claim – The Court upheld the NPPA's demand notices and vacated the status quo order previously granted [Paras 14-15].

Discharge Application – Scope and Consideration – The Supreme Court reiterated that the scope of consideration under Section 227, Cr.PC, is confined to the 'record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' by the prosecution – Defence materials cannot be considered at this stage – The court must determine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused based on prosecution materials alone [Paras 3-4, 12].

Legal Interpretation – Record of the Case – Emphasized that 'record of the case' under Section 227, Cr.PC, refers only to prosecution materials and not any defence materials – Highlighted the decision in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi that clarified this legal position [Paras 3-4].

Criminal Conspiracy – Ingredients and Proof – For a charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, IPC, there must be prima facie evidence of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act – Mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient – The materials on record did not support an accusation of conspiracy against the appellant – Referred to R. Venkatakrishnan v. CBI and Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India & Ors. for defining the essential ingredients of conspiracy [Paras 25-28].

Evaluation of Evidence – Limited Scope – The court must only sift the evidence to determine whether a prima facie case exists – It should not engage in a detailed evaluation of the evidence, which is the function of the trial – The decision to frame charges should be based on a strong suspicion arising from the prosecution's materials – Cited Yogesh alias Sachin Jagadish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra and State of Tamil Nadu v. N Suresh Rajan & Ors. for these principles [Paras 15-16, 19].

Procedure – Obligations of the Court – The court has an obligation to apply its judicial mind to the prosecution's materials to determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding – The decision to discharge must be reasoned, especially when rejecting a discharge application, to facilitate appellate review [Paras 21-23].

Custodial Death – Lack of Evidence – In this case, the materials on record did not provide sufficient ground to proceed against the appellant for the custodial death – There was no evidence of his involvement in the alleged torture or conspiracy – The Trial Court's suspicion was not based on concrete evidence but on conjectures [Paras 22-23, 30].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dismissing the application under Section 482, Cr.PC, and the trial court's order rejecting the discharge application – The appellant was discharged from the case as there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against him based on the prosecution's materials – The court clarified that its observations were specific to the appellant and not applicable to the other accused in the case [Paras 35-36].

Judicial Delay and Political Influence – Withdrawal of Prosecution – Case involving accused, including a politically influential individual, facing trial for double murder – Accused successfully delayed trial for nearly three decades through repeated adjournments – Trial Court allowed withdrawal of prosecution against one accused (Chhote Singh) citing good public image – High Court's repeated adjournments criticized – Supreme Court highlights misuse of political power to evade justice – Order of Trial Court allowing withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh set aside – Directions for expeditious trial [Paras 1-18].

Withdrawal of Prosecution under Section 321, CrPC – Trial Court's order criticized for relying on accused's political standing rather than merits of the case – Withdrawal cannot be granted solely on good public image, especially in serious crimes – Need for strict scrutiny in cases involving influential individuals to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11-12].

Prolonged Pendency of Criminal Revisions – High Court's multiple adjournments allowing dilatory tactics – Supreme Court directs High Court to expedite hearing of remaining criminal revisions and trial – Original Trial Court record to be sent back for timely conclusion of trial [Paras 13-18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Criminal Revision No. 2107 of 2012 before Allahabad High Court allowed – Trial Court's order dated 19.05.2012 set aside with respect to Respondent No.2 (Chhote Singh) – High Court directed to re-evaluate pending revisions [Paras 16-18].

Foreigners Act – Burden of Proof – Appellant declared a foreigner for failing to discharge the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act – Tribunal’s finding based on insufficient evidence and improper procedural handling – Supreme Court emphasized the need for authorities to have concrete material before alleging a person’s foreigner status – Miscarriage of justice identified due to lack of initial evidence and procedural errors by authorities – Appellant’s consistent documentation of residence in India before the cut-off date considered significant [Paras 1-38].

Citizenship – Proof of Nationality – Appellant presented voter lists and certificates showing his and his parents’ residence in India prior to 1971 – Tribunal dismissed these documents based on minor discrepancies – Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies in names and dates in voter lists and other documents are not sufficient grounds to dismiss claims of citizenship – Emphasis on careful consideration of evidence in cases with severe consequences like deportation [Paras 39-45].

Procedure – Natural Justice – Tribunal and authorities failed to provide sufficient material and grounds to appellant at the inception of the proceedings – Violation of natural justice principles – Supreme Court stressed the necessity of sharing material with the accused to allow for a fair defense – Tribunal’s actions deemed procedurally flawed and unjust [Paras 36-42].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Tribunal’s and High Court’s decisions set aside – Appellant declared an Indian citizen – Authorities directed to issue necessary documentation confirming appellant’s citizenship [Para 45-48].

Misuse of Criminal Proceedings in Commercial Dispute – Appeal against frivolous criminal proceedings initiated for personal vengeance in a civil matter – Accusations of cheating and forgery in a financial transaction between corporate entities – Abusing legal system by disguising a commercial dispute as a criminal case, leading to unnecessary litigation and misuse of judicial resources [Paras 2, 14, 32-34].

False Claims and Jurisdiction Manipulation – Manipulation of jurisdiction by providing misleading addresses – Complainant filed case in an inappropriate forum with false addresses, demonstrating a malicious attempt to harass and abuse the legal process [Paras 22-24, 27, 33].

Investment and Shareholding Dispute – Dispute over investment and shareholding in private companies – Decision of the complainant to invest in equity misrepresented as a loan transaction – Shareholding affected by merger and amalgamation of companies, a subject of civil law [Paras 4-7, 27-30, 35].

Delayed Legal Recourse and Arbitration Proceedings – Delay in taking legal steps for recovery of alleged dues – Dispute referred to arbitration by Delhi High Court, highlighting its civil nature [Paras 15, 32, 35].

Decision and Imposition of Costs – Appeals allowed, FIR and subsequent proceedings against appellants quashed – Imposition of costs on the complainant for misuse of legal system and false litigation, to be deposited for the benefit of legal community [Paras 36-39].