Late Payment Surcharge Dispute – Request for payment of Rs.1376.35 crore as LPS by Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL) from Rajasthan Discoms under PPA-2010 – Applicant relies on Article 8.3.5 of the PPA-2010 – Main appeal related to additional payment claims under PPA-2010 due to change in law was previously disposed of [Paras 2, 4].

Judicial History – The Supreme Court's 2020 judgment in the main appeal held APRL entitled to compensation due to change in law but capped interest for late payment surcharge at 9% per annum – Contempt proceedings in 2022 led to direction for payment of principal amount with capped interest, without addressing LPS specifically [Paras 3-7, 67].

Application Dismissed – The Court ruled that the Miscellaneous Application for LPS is not maintainable as the main judgment had conclusively dealt with issues around LPS – Emphasized on the improper use of Miscellaneous Applications to alter or modify concluded judgments – Costs imposed on the applicant for multiple hearings [Paras 8-23].

Electricity Act, 2003 - Payment of Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) - The Supreme Court deliberated on the claim of Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL) for a Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) from the Rajasthan Discoms, as per the Power Purchase Agreement dated 28.01.2010. The main issue revolved around the non-payment of LPS by the Rajasthan Discoms, following a change in law clause under the agreement.

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and Late Payment Surcharge – Discussion – The Court focused on the interpretation of Article 8.3.5 of the PPA and its application, considering the context of late payment for electricity supplied by APRL under changed conditions due to non-availability of domestic coal and subsequent reliance on imported coal. [Para 3, 4, 66, 67]

Judicial Review and Interpretation – Limited Scope – The Court reiterated its limited scope in reviewing and interpreting contractual obligations under a Power Purchase Agreement, emphasizing on the specific clauses and the context of their execution. The court also reviewed previous judgments and APTEL's findings on the matter. [Para 5, 6, 14, 20]

Decision – Dismissal of Application – The Court dismissed the application filed by APRL seeking LPS, noting that the issue had been addressed in the earlier judgment, and no grounds for review or reinterpretation were established. The Court further imposed costs on APRL for the miscellaneous application. [Para 23]

Decision – Imposition of Costs – The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the applicant (APRL) to be remitted to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, citing the multiple listings of the application and the need to discourage such repetitive and non-meritorious litigation. [Para 23]

Civil Law – Adverse Possession – Inadequate Pleadings and Proof –Court, in this case, clarified the legal principles governing the claim of adverse possession. The Court emphasized that such a claim requires adequate pleadings and proof, including the establishment of continuous, peaceful, and open possession adverse to the true owner for over twelve years. [Para 9, 12-16]

Evidence – Adverse Possession – Necessity of Specific Pleadings and Clear Proof – It was held that for a successful claim of adverse possession, the claimant must specifically plead and prove certain essential elements. These include demonstrating the exact time from which possession commenced, that it was known to the true owner, and that it was open and uninterrupted. The Court found that the appellant failed to establish these crucial facts. [Para 13, 16]

Probate and Letters of Administration – Importance in Claiming Rights Based on Wills – The Court discussed the necessity of obtaining probate or letters of administration to claim rights based on wills, particularly in Chennai. The judgment underscored the legal requirement of these formalities to establish rights under a will. [Para 8, 16]

Dismissal of Appeals and Extended Time for Vacating Property – Court dismissed the appeals due to failure to establish adverse possession but granted the appellant until 31st March 2025 to vacate the property, conditional on filing undertakings on oath by the appellant and his adult family members [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Acquittal – The Supreme Court overturned the convictions for murder under Section 302 and attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants, Periyasamy (A1) and R. Manoharan (A2), were acquitted of all charges. The Court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies, absence of independent witnesses, delay in filing the FIR, lapses in the police investigation, and lack of corroborative medical and scientific evidence. [Para 48, 49, 50]

Evidence – Testimony of Injured and Interested Witnesses – The Court held that the testimonies of the injured witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) and the Investigating Officer (PW-22) were not credible. The Court observed that despite being in a crowded area, no independent witnesses were examined, and the investigation failed to meet the standard of scrutiny applied in criminal proceedings. [Para 31, 33, 36, 43, 47]

Faulty Police Investigation – The Court criticized the police investigation for its casual and callous approach, noting the absence of scientific investigation at the crime scene, non-examination of critical medical personnel, and failure to provide a clear sequence of events leading to the arrests. [Para 22, 43, 44, 47]

Right of Private Defence – Although raised as a secondary argument by A-1, the Court did not delve into the question of the right of private defence due to the acquittal based on the primary arguments. [Para 49]

Decision – Acquittal – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions of A-1 and A-2, directing their immediate release unless required in any other case. The Court underscored the principle that criminal convictions must be based on evidence that meets the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met in this case. [Para 50]

Bail - Criminal Law – Money Laundering – Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Involvement in Money Laundering – The Supreme Court examined the involvement of the appellants in the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA. The bench evaluated evidence, including statements and documents submitted under Section 50 of the Act, revealing the appellants' roles in acquiring and controlling proceeds of crime through various companies. [Para 22-28]

Definition and Scope of Money Laundering – Clarified – The Court elucidated the definition of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA, emphasizing its broad scope that encapsulates every activity related to dealing with the proceeds of crime. The Court clarified that mere possession of undisclosed income, irrespective of its volume, does not automatically attract the definition of 'proceeds of crime' unless linked to a scheduled offence. [Para 21, 22]

Beneficial Ownership – Involvement in Money Laundering – The Court found that the appellant Satyendar Kumar Jain, by virtue of being the beneficial owner of the companies involved, was responsible for orchestrating accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 4.81 crores, indicating his direct involvement in money laundering activities. [Para 25, 26]

Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) – Misrepresentation of Facts – The appellants, Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, were found to have made false declarations under IDS, misleading the Income Tax authorities to shield the primary appellant, Satyendar Kumar Jain. This act was linked to assisting in money laundering under the PMLA. [Para 26-29]

Decision – Dismissal of Bail Applications – The Court dismissed the appeals, finding the appellants prima facie guilty of the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of PMLA. The appellants failed to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA for grant of bail. [Para 30-34]

Judgment: Bail Denied – The Supreme Court denied bail to the appellants, reaffirming their prima facie involvement in money laundering and the seriousness of the allegations under PMLA. The Court underscored the necessity to meet stringent conditions for bail under special laws like PMLA. [Para 32-34]

Decision: Appeals of Satyendar Kumar Jain, Ankush Jain, and Vaibhav Jain dismissed – Denial of bail upheld by the Supreme Court – Appellants failed to satisfy conditions for bail under Section 45 of PMLA – Satyendar Kumar Jain directed to surrender forthwith. [Paras 30-34]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 143A – Exercise of Power – Discretionary nature – Held, the exercise of power under Section 143A(1) is discretionary, not mandatory. The Court must engage in a prima facie evaluation of the merits of the case and consider the accused’s financial distress and other relevant factors before directing payment of interim compensation. The word ‘may’ in the provision cannot be read as ‘shall’. [Para 19(a)]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 143A – Factors for Consideration – In determining whether to grant interim compensation, the Court should evaluate the merits of the complaint, the strength of the defence, the nature of the transaction, and the relationship between the parties. The Court must record reasons for its decision, considering all relevant factors, including financial distress of the accused. [Para 19(b), (c)]

Decision – Directive for Reconsideration of Interim Compensation – The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the lower courts for lack of proper application of mind to relevant factors and directed the Trial Court to reconsider the application for interim compensation afresh in line with the principles laid down. [Para 18, 19]

Decision – Partly Allowed Appeal – The appeal was partly allowed, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion and consideration of various factors in granting interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. [Para 20]

Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction- Identification of Accused – Faulty Procedure – Supreme Court examines the validity of the identification process in a criminal case, specifically addressing the impact of lack of proper identification parade. The Court scrutinizes the manner in which the appellant was identified by the key witness and the implications of the absence of a formal identification parade. [Para 5-6]

Identification Parades – Necessity and Impact on Criminal Trials – held – emphasizes the crucial role of identification parades in criminal trials, especially in cases where the accused is identified by a witness for the first time in court. The Court discusses the reliability of such identification in the absence of a formal identification parade. [Para 6-7]

Evidence – Reliability of Witness Identification – The Supreme Court re-evaluates the reliability of the key witness's identification of the appellant in court, considering that the identification was influenced by prior exposure to the accused by police, without an official identification parade. [Para 5-6]

Acquittal on Grounds of Unreliable Identification – The Supreme Court, upon finding the primary evidence against the appellant, i.e., witness identification, to be unreliable and tainted by improper procedure, sets aside the judgments of the lower courts. The appellant is acquitted of the charges due to the insufficiency and doubtful nature of the evidence presented. [Para 8-10]

Decision – Acquittal of the Appellant – The Supreme Court allows the appeal, acquitting the appellant of all charges, on the basis that the identification process was flawed and the evidence presented was not credible enough to sustain a conviction. [Para 9-10]

Bail Amount Reduction –  Challenging High Court's decision maintaining high surety for bail – Petitioner, a retired office clerk, unable to furnish Rs 10 lakhs surety as ordered by High Court and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj – Supreme Court finds high bail amount infringes Article 21, right to life and personal liberty – Surety reduced to Rs 25,000. [Paras 1-7]

Bail and Right to Personal Liberty – Analysis – Held – Setting unreasonably high bail amount contradicts the purpose of bail and infringes constitutional rights – Supreme Court emphasizes reasonableness in setting surety, especially considering petitioner's economic status and inability to pay high amount. [Para 4-5]

Decision – Reduction of Bail Amount – Supreme Court orders reduction of surety and personal bond from Rs 10 lakhs to Rs 25,000 – Emphasizes fair and reasonable interpretation of bail conditions in alignment with the principles of personal liberty under the Constitution. Special Leave Petition disposed with modified terms of bail and surety. [Paras 6-8]

Pensionary Benefits – Judicial Service – Inclusion of Service as High Court Judge – issue of including the service period of a former District Judge, later appointed as a High Court Judge, for the computation of pensionary benefits. The court examined whether the break in service between her tenure as District Judge and High Court Judge affects her pension entitlements under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. [Para 4, 14, 27-28]

Article 217 and 221, Constitution of India – Judicial Appointments and Pension Rights – The Court interpreted Articles 217 and 221 of the Constitution concerning the eligibility for appointment as a High Court Judge and the provision regarding salaries, allowances, and pensions of High Court Judges, respectively. The statutory framework of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 was scrutinized in this context. [Para 6-9, 11-13]

High Court Judge – Interpretation of Pensionable Service – The Supreme Court interpreted the relevant provisions of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, especially Sections 14 and 15, to determine the computation of pensionary benefits for a Judge who has served both as a District Judge and a High Court Judge. The court focused on the inclusion of service periods and the impact of any service break. [Para 21-23, 26-27]

Decision – Entitlement to Pension Based on Total Service Including as High Court Judge – The Supreme Court held that the service period of the respondent as a High Court Judge should be included with her service as a District Judge for calculating pension. It was ruled that the break in service should not adversely impact the pension computation. The pension was to be computed based on her last drawn salary as a High Court Judge. [Para 31-32]

Decision – Non-Discrimination in Pension Calculation for Judges – Emphasizing the principle of non-discrimination, the Court observed that Judges, irrespective of being elevated from the district judiciary or the bar, should be accorded equal treatment in the computation of pension. [Para 29-30]

Customs Law – Valuation of Imported Goods – Assessment and Penalties – The Supreme Court addressed the dispute over the valuation of imported camera stabilizer devices and the applicability of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court scrutinized the adjudication process, the comparison of the imported goods with previous imports, and the determination of assessable value under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. [Para 1-4, 8-9]

Validity of Valuation by Customs Authorities – upheld – The Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which had restored the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority. It was held that the imported goods were correctly assessed as being identical/similar to previously imported goods, thereby justifying the rejection of the declared transaction value and the revised assessment. [Para 8-9]

Challenge of Limitation Period for Appeal – considered – The Court discussed the issue of whether the appeal by the Revenue was barred by limitation, considering the time taken by the Committee of Commissioners to exercise their power under Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act. It was held that the decision was taken within a reasonable time frame, given the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. [Para 7]

Imposition of Penalties – justified – The Supreme Court found no error in the imposition of penalties on the appellant under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act for misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported goods. [Para 10]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of M/s Global Technologies and Research, affirming the decisions of the CESTAT and the adjudicating authority in assessing the value of the imported goods and imposing penalties. [Para 10]