(B) Criminal - Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 20 and 21 - Investigation into a criminal offence - Held, investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive - Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed u/arts. 20 and 21 of the Constitution - Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law - Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner - Appeals disposed of.

(B) Carriers & Transportation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, s. 166 - Determination of compensation payable - Deceased, wife of appellant no.1 and mother of appellant no. 2 died in a road accident - Appellants filed a petition u/s. 166 of the Act for award of compensation by asserting that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck which was owned by respondent no.2 and was insured with respondent no.1 - Tribunal held that in view of clause 6 of Second Schedule of the Act, the income of the deceased could be assessed at Rs.5,000 per month and after making deduction of Rs.20,000 towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.6 lacs - However, instead of awarding that amount as compensation, the Tribunal reduced the same to Rs.2,50,000 - Appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed - Hence, present appeal - Held, appellant no.1 stated that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000 per annum by paintings and handicrafts, the respondents did not lead any evidence to controvert the same - Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal and the HC altogether ignored the income of the deceased - Further, reasons assigned by the Tribunal for reducing the amount of compensation were wholly untenable and the approach adopted by the HC in dealing with the issue of payment of compensation to the appellants was ex facie erroneous and unjustified - Impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal set aside - Appellants entitled to compensation of Rs.6 lacs - Respondent no.1 directed to pay the said amount of compensation along with interest - Appeal allowed.

Obiter Dictum

Time has come for the Parliament to have a rethinking for properly assessing the value of homemakers and householders work and suitably amending the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and other related laws for giving compensation when the victim is a woman and a homemaker. Amendments in matrimonial laws may also be made in order to give effect to the mandate of Article 15(1) in the Constitution.

(B) Electricity & Energy - Constitution - Electricity Act, 2003, s. 82(1) - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 136 - Non-conventional energy - Determination of tariff - Interference by the SC - Whether determination of tariff by the Court is justifiable - Held, 6th appellant/Regulatory Commission constituted u/s. 82(1) of 2003 Act, being a specialized body, is expected to examine issues relating to the rate of tariff - SC in exercise of its powers u/art. 136 of the Constitution would not sit as an appellate authority over the formation of opinion and determination of tariff by the specialized bodies - Determination of tariff is a function assigned legislatively to a competent forum/authority - Whether it is by exercise of legislative or subordinate legislative power or a policy decision, if the Act so requires, but it generally falls in the domain of legislative activity and the Courts refrain from adverting into the said arena - Appeal disposed of.

(C) Contract & Commercial - Electricity & Energy - Development of non-conventional energy - Incentives by State and Central Governments - Alteration of incentives - Plea of promissory estoppel - Sustainability - Respondent/Developers claimed that the State Government and the Regulatory Commission both were bound to continue the incentives as were provided to them in furtherance to the letters and orders of Central as well as the State Governments and they had a legitimate right to expect that those incentives were to be continued indefinitely in the same manner and the authorities concerned were estopped from altering the rates and/or imposing the condition of no sale to third parties - Is the principle of estoppel attracted in the present case, if so, to what extent - Held, Tribunal erred in law in treating inter-se letters and guidelines between the Government of India, State Government and the 6th appellant/Commission/the State Electricity Board as unequivocal commitments to the respondent/purchasers/generators/developers so as to bind the State for all times to come - Policy guidelines issued by the Central Government were the proposals sent to the State Government, which the State Government accepted to consider, amend or alter as per their needs and conditions and then make efforts to achieve the objects of encouraging Non-conventional Energy Generator and Purchasers to enter into the field - No definite and clear promise was made by the authorities to the respondent/Developers that would invoke the principle of promissory estoppels - Further, the present matter which, primarily, falls in the realm of contract and the parties would be governed by the agreements that they have signed - Once those agreements are singed and are enforceable in law then the contractual obligations cannot be frustrated by the aid of promissory estoppels - Therefore, State or the Regulatory Commission or erstwhile State Electricity Board were not bound to allow same tariff and permit third party sales for an indefinite period to any extent - Respondents plea of promissory estoppel, hence, cannot be sustained - Appeal disposed of.

(B) Constitution - Labour & Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 7 and 33C -Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act 36 of 1964), s. 23 - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, s. 10-A - Jurisdiction - Suspension/subsistence allowance - Whether Labour Court at Dibrugarh could have entertained the application u/s. 10-A of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946? - Held, from a plain reading of s. 10A(2) of Act it is evident that the Labour Court constituted under the ID Act, 1947 within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the establishment is situated, has jurisdiction to decide any dispute regarding subsistence allowance - In the present case undisputedly dispute pertains to subsistence allowance and the Labour Court where the workman had brought the action has been constituted u/s. 7 of the ID Act, 1947 and further the appellant bank is situated within the local limits of its jurisdiction - Workman had, though, chosen to file application u/s. 33C(2) of the ID Act but that it shall not denude jurisdiction to the Labour Court, if it otherwise possesses jurisdiction - Incorrect label of the application and mentioning wrong provision neither confers jurisdiction nor denudes the Court of its jurisdiction - Labour Court, Dibrugarh satisfies all the requirements to decide the dispute raised by the respondent before it - Appeal dismissed.