Supreme Court of India Judgements

Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61(d), Section 62, Section 125 — Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2011 — Regulation 6.32, Regulation 4.1 — Capital Cost Recovery — Depreciation — Consumers’ Interest — The Electricity Act mandates that tariff determination must safeguard consumer interests and allow reasonable cost recovery — Depreciation recovery for a power plant cannot extend beyond the period for which electricity was actually supplied to consumers or the approved operational period under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), even if the plant has a longer technical useful life Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) — Engagement of para-teachers on contract basis — Part of Government of India’s flagship program for universal elementary education — Aimed to address human resource gaps in employing teachers — Jharkhand Education Project Council responsible for implementation in Jharkhand — Para-teachers engaged since 2002 — Primarily vehicle for Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 — Applicability — Interpretation of delay in initiating proceedings — While delay is generally discouraged, it may not be fatal in cases of beneficial legislation aimed at protecting Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lands, especially when parties to the original transaction are privy to the proceedings. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Privity of Contract — Collaborator invoked arbitration clause — High Court rejected petition claiming no privity of contract — Supreme Court granted leave and held Collaborator as veritable party with joint and several liability. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 498A — Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband — For the conviction under Section 498A, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused mental or physical cruelty to the woman. In this case, the evidence presented by the prosecution regarding dowry demands and cruelty was found to be contradictory and uncorroborated by independent witnesses. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC was set aside.