Factual Allegations – Alleged house trespass and looting by appellants (husband and wife), resulting in FIR under Sections 448, 454, and 380 IPC. Accusations involve locking a tenant's shop, looting various items including wheat, sale money, and a two-wheeler. [Para 3]

Appellants' Submissions – Challenging FIR’s legitimacy, asserting property ownership, and highlighting discrepancies in R2’s tenancy claim. Foregrounding a court’s order recognizing forged documents submitted by R2, including a tenancy agreement with an anachronistic currency symbol (₹), introduced in 2010, but claimed to be from 2005. Arguing FIR was intended to frustrate appellants from enjoying their property rights. [Paras 4-10]

Legal Scrutiny of Charges – Comprehensive examination of the evidence and allegations. Recognition of the ₹ symbol’s introduction in 2010 as undermining R2’s tenancy claim, casting doubt on his possession of the property. Analysis of the legal framework for discharge in criminal cases, referencing pertinent case laws. [Paras 14-23]

Decision – Appeal allowed, appellants discharged due to lack of strong suspicion against them. Emphasis on preventing unwarranted criminal prosecution and unnecessary trials. The High Court’s judgment and trial court’s order set aside. Observations on the role of High Courts in protecting individuals from vexatious litigation. [Paras 24]

Teacher Qualification – Diploma in Elementary Education – Validity of 18 Months Diploma from NIOS for Assistant Teacher Post in Uttarakhand – High Court Verdict Set Aside – Supreme Court Rules that 18 Months Diploma is Not Equivalent to 2 Years Diploma Prescribed by NCTE. [Para 4.1-4.15, 29, 32, 41]

Recognition of D.El.Ed. through ODL - Challenge to High Court's approval of 18-month D.El.Ed. by NIOS for Assistant Teacher posts. High Court found it equivalent to 2-year regular D.El.Ed. programs. [Paras 2, 15, 29, 41]

NCTE's Role and Notifications - NCTE's authority under RTE Act to prescribe minimum qualifications for teachers. Clarifications regarding the specific intent of the 18-month ODL program for in-service teachers. [Paras 4.2, 4.3, 27, 29]

Statutory Rules and Administrative Instructions – Inconsistency Between Statutory Rules and Administrative Instructions – Supreme Court Clarifies Government Cannot Supersede Statutory Rules by Administrative Instructions – 18 Months Diploma by NIOS Not in Line with Uttarakhand’s 2012 Service Rules. [Para 34, 35, 38]

Equalization of Qualifications – High Court’s Error in Equating 18 Months and 2 Years Diplomas – Supreme Court Emphasizes the Role of Expert Bodies in Determining Equivalence – NCTE’s Role in Prescribing Minimum Qualifications Upheld. [Para 40-42]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court's Order Quashing Uttarakhand Government's Refusal to Recognize 18 Months Diploma from NIOS Overturned – Original Writ Petitions Dismissed. [Para 43]

Factual Background and Lower Court's Decision – Nababuddin, along with two co-accused, convicted for possessing 205 kg of poppy straw under Section 15 of NDPS Act – Conviction based on possession of railway receipt and confirmed by High Court. [Para 1]

Prosecution's Case – Accused deemed in conscious possession due to holding railway receipt for parcels containing poppy straw – Contraband intercepted at railway station, and accused arrested following a police operation. [Paras 2, 5]

Appellant's Defense – Nababuddin claimed he was a rickshaw puller and had no involvement with the parcels – Alleged procedural flaws in trial, including insufficient examination under Section 313 of CrPC. [Paras 3, 7-8]

Supreme Court's Detailed Consideration:

Evaluation of Evidence and Witness Testimonies – The court scrutinized testimonies of key witnesses, notably the station supervisor and police officials, finding inconsistencies in attributing possession of the railway receipt to Nababuddin. [Paras 5-6]

Critical Analysis of Section 313 CrPC Examination – Identified a significant procedural lapse; key accusations against Nababuddin were not put forth during his examination under Section 313 of CrPC, violating principles of fair trial and defense rights. [Paras 7-10]

Legal Precedents and Principles – Referenced the judgment of Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), emphasizing the mandatory nature of putting each material circumstance to the accused distinctly and specifically under Section 313 of CrPC. [Para 11]

Impact of Procedural Irregularities – Acknowledged that not putting material circumstances to the accused caused serious prejudice to Nababuddin's defense, leading to the conclusion that these omissions were materially and legally significant. [Paras 12-13]

Final Decision – Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Nababuddin due to noted procedural irregularities in the trial process, leading to his acquittal after serving five and a half years of incarceration. [Paras 13-15]

Insurance Claim Dispute – Fire incident at insured warehouse led to a claim of Rs. 6,57,55,155/- with 9% interest – NCDRC's partial allowance of the claim contested in the Supreme Court – Issues revolved around the cause of the fire, whether the location was covered under the insurance policy, and interpretations of policy terms. [Paras 2-5, 14-17, 30-41, 48-50, 56-59]

Fire Cause – Multiple Investigative Reports – Discrepancies in reports regarding the fire's cause – Majority reports indicated electrical short-circuit, while a few pointed towards negligence due to welding work – Supreme Court favored the majority view of electrical short-circuit, dismissing the notion of insured's negligence. [Paras 38-41, 48-50]

Policy Coverage Affirmed – Analysis of policy documents, agreements, and communications from various authorities confirmed that the fire-affected area was covered under the insurance policy, contrary to the appellant's claim. [Paras 34-35]

Clause 3(a) of Insurance Policy – The repair work on the warehouse roof, intended to prevent water leakage, did not constitute an 'alteration' that increased the risk of fire – Supreme Court upheld NCDRC's view that the repair work was not in violation of policy conditions. [Paras 36-37]

Surveyor's Report and its Value – The surveyor's report, although a prerequisite for claim settlement, is not absolute and may be challenged with other evidence – Supreme Court found the surveyor's report inconclusive and sided with other evidence indicating electrical short-circuit as the fire cause. [Paras 42-47]

Customs Duty and Unjust Enrichment – The argument that compensating for customs duty would lead to unjust enrichment was rejected – Supreme Court directed that the customs duty component of the claim be paid directly to the Customs Department. [Paras 51-55, 58]

Final Decision – The appeal by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. was dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's order in favor of the respondent, M/s. Mudit Roadways – The decision affirmed the insurance claim, with the parties bearing their own costs. [Para 59]

FIR Quashing Request – Appellants sought quashing of FIR for offences under IPC and EC Act – High Court dismissed petition – Appeal to Supreme Court. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Allegations of adulterating fuel with hydrocarbons, appearing as petrol and diesel – Appellants arrested, samples collected, but no conclusive report on nature of seized liquid. [Paras 2, 5-6]

Supreme Court’s Analysis – Critically evaluated evidence in charge sheet and FIR – Observed absence of expert report on nature of seized liquid, crucial to establishing the prosecution's case – Noted inordinate delay in obtaining expert report, undermining the prosecution's foundation – Recognized reliance on BPCL Quality Assurance Laboratory report confirming sample conformity, which prosecution did not counter – Acknowledged an adverse inference against the respondent due to failure in producing the report – Concluded that continuation of prosecution without substantial evidence would be an abuse of the legal process. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Supreme Court allows appeal – Impugned judgment and FIR No. 727 dated 14th October 2021, along with the charge sheet, quashed – Prosecution against appellants discontinued due to lack of conclusive evidence and procedural lapses. [Paras 9-10]

Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority – Limited Scope in Approval of Resolution Plan – NCLT's authority confined to whether the Resolution Plan fulfills Section 30(2) of the Code requirements – Inability to intervene in commercial decisions of the Committee of Creditors unless found capricious, arbitrary, irrational, or contravening the Code's provisions. [Paras 27, 32-33]

Valuation of Corporate Debtor's Assets – Commercial Wisdom of Committee of Creditors Supreme – CoC's decision-making process in approving Resolution Plans not subject to judicial scrutiny – Valuation aimed at aiding CoC's decision, not a mandatory benchmark for resolution applicant's bid. [Paras 11, 27-28]

Role of Official Liquidator in Valuation – Not Contemplated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Involvement of Official Liquidator for re-valuation not aligned with the Code's framework, which stipulates a specific mechanism for valuation under CIRP Regulations. [Paras 17, 29]

Avoidance Transactions – No Impact on Approval of Resolution Plan – Avoidance transactions during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process do not affect the approval of the Resolution Plan – Proceeds from such transactions to be distributed as per the Plan's provisions. [Paras 14, 26]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of NCLT and NCLAT set aside – NCLT directed to pass appropriate orders on the Resolution Plan within three weeks from the judgment date. [Para 34]

Income Tax – Gains from Foreign Exchange Fluctuations – Non-inclusion under Section 80HHC Deduction – Gains from foreign exchange fluctuations in EEFC account not considered as income derived from export business – EEFC account gains not directly related to the business of export of goods, hence cannot be included in deduction under Section 80HHC of Income Tax Act. [Paras 2, 6, 6.2, 7, 7.1, 7.2, 10, 12, 13]

Foreign Exchange Earnings – EEFC Account – Nature and Purpose – EEFC account recognized as an enabling facility for exporters under FERA, not a mandatory requirement for export business – Gains from EEFC account seen as independent of export activity, falling outside the scope of Section 80HHC deduction. [Paras 5, 7, 7.1]

Interpretation of ‘Derived from’ in Income Tax Act – Strict interpretation of the term ‘derived from’ in the context of Section 80HHC – Income to be considered under this section must have a direct nexus with the export of goods and not just attributable to it. [Paras 10, 10.1, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 12, 12.1, 12.2]

Decision – Appeals of Shah Originals dismissed – Judgment of High Court upheld, disallowing deduction under Section 80HHC for gains from foreign exchange fluctuations in EEFC account. [Para 14]

Murder Conviction Upheld – Involvement in Fatal Shooting: Conviction of appellant Nanhe under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Saddam Hussain and injury to Mahendra in a market area incident on 30.05.2007. Appellant's appeal against the High Court's affirmation of trial court’s conviction and sentencing is considered. [Paras 2-4, 26]

Intent in Murder – Doctrine of Transfer of Malice: Application of Section 301 IPC and the doctrine of transfer of malice. Even though the appellant's intended target was Mahendra, the accidental killing of Saddam Hussain was held under the same criminal liability due to transferred intent. [Paras 10, 12-16]

Intoxication and Criminal Responsibility: Examination of the appellant's state of intoxication. Section 86 IPC considered, determining that voluntary intoxication not rendering the appellant incapable of understanding his actions does not mitigate the offence to a lower degree under Section 304 IPC. [Paras 17-25]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal: The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, finding no illegality in the High Court's judgment. The appellant is advised to apply for remission as per the state's policy. [Para 27]

Juvenility Assessment in Criminal Proceedings – Appellant Pawan Kumar's claim of being a juvenile at the time of the alleged crime on 01.12.1995. Plea initially dismissed by Trial Court and High Court. Subsequent acceptance of juvenility based on school certificates indicating date of birth as 05.07.1980, making him 15 years, 4 months, and 26 days old at the time of the incident. [Paras 4, 6, 9, 13, 17, 27, 32]

School Certificates and Age Determination – Reliance on school certificates from Primary School Bhatgawan and transfer certificates from High School, Kamela, and National Inter College for determining age. Consistent recording of date of birth as 05.07.1980 across all educational records. [Paras 27, 28]

Legal Provisions and Amendments – Application of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Consideration of Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules for age determination. Importance given to school certificates over Panchayat Register and medical reports for age assessment. [Paras 19-22, 25-26]

Discrepancies in Age Determination – Challenges in determining precise age, including discrepancies in family register and medical reports (Bone Ossification Test). Application of Rule 12(3)(b) of the 2007 Rules, giving benefit of doubt in age determination. [Paras 29-32]

Decision – Conviction of appellant Pawan Kumar under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC upheld, but sentences quashed due to his juvenility. Appellant declared a juvenile and ordered to be released forthwith, having already served more than the maximum detention period for a juvenile. [Paras 33-34]