Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Writ Petition under Article 226 – Maintainability – Appellant challenged the order of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) under Section 18 of the MSMED Act in a writ petition – Issue of whether a writ petition can be entertained against MSEFC orders/awards – Held: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is plenary and discretionary – Rule of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, especially where there is a violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of legislation – Referred to larger bench to determine the extent of writ jurisdiction against MSEFC orders/awards [Paras 12–15, 19].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Applicability – Section 18 of MSMED Act – Statutory Arbitration – Conciliators under MSEFC acting as arbitrators – Conflict with Section 80 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (A&C Act), which bars conciliators from acting as arbitrators in the same dispute unless agreed otherwise – Larger Bench to decide whether this conflict affects the validity of MSEFC orders/awards when its members act as arbitrators after failed conciliation [Paras 6–7, 19(iii)].

Statutory Remedies – Alternative Remedy vs. Writ Jurisdiction – Deposits under Section 19 of MSMED Act – Requirement of 75% pre-deposit to challenge MSEFC awards – Supreme Court emphasized that while statutory remedies must usually be exhausted, onerous conditions like pre-deposit could justify exercise of writ jurisdiction in exceptional cases – Reiterated principles from Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [Paras 13–18].

Judicial Precedents – Conflict in Interpretation – Divergent views between Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (writ petition maintainable in certain circumstances) and M/s India Glycols Ltd. (writ petition barred) – Larger Bench reference required to reconcile precedents and clarify the law [Paras 10–12, 19].

Decision: Questions referred to a larger Bench of five judges:
(i) Whether a writ petition can be entertained against MSEFC orders/awards.
(ii) Under what circumstances the principle of alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction.
(iii) Whether MSEFC members acting as conciliators can also act as arbitrators under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, in light of Section 80 of the A&C Act [Para 19].

Employment Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Allegations of Misconduct – Respondent, a former branch manager of Syndicate Bank, was dismissed from service after a disciplinary inquiry found him guilty of misappropriation, fraudulent withdrawals, and irregularities – Respondent challenged the dismissal, claiming violations of natural justice and lack of evidence – High Court set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits, which was partly overturned on appeal – Held: Disciplinary inquiry was conducted in accordance with natural justice, and the findings were based on evidence; however, the penalty of dismissal was found to be disproportionate [Paras 1–25].

Criminal Acquittal – Relevance to Disciplinary Proceedings – Respondent acquitted in criminal proceedings related to the same allegations – High Court relied on acquittal to justify reinstatement – Supreme Court clarified that standards of proof differ in criminal and disciplinary proceedings, and acquittal does not exonerate misconduct in disciplinary cases – Held: Findings of disciplinary authority based on evidence are valid [Paras 15, 16, 22].

Natural Justice – Fairness of Disciplinary Inquiry – Respondent argued that the inquiry violated natural justice principles due to non-examination of customers and cashier as witnesses – Supreme Court found the inquiry fair, as 95 documents were presented, and the respondent cross-examined the investigating officer – No evidence of procedural unfairness [Paras 22, 23].

Disproportionate Penalty – Modification of Punishment – Supreme Court considered the respondent's long unblemished service, recovery of misappropriated amounts, and mitigating factors such as work pressure – Held: Dismissal was disproportionate; penalty modified to reduction in pay scale under Regulation 4(e) of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 [Paras 23–25].

Key Observations – Responsibilities of Bank Officers – Court emphasized that bank managers are held to high standards of honesty and integrity – Misconduct of a serious nature, even without financial loss, undermines trust and discipline – However, penalties should be proportionate to misconduct [Paras 17, 24].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Disciplinary findings upheld, but dismissal modified to a minor penalty of reduction in pay scale for one year without cumulative effect – Respondent entitled to retiral dues within four months [Para 25].

Revenue Law – Mines and Minerals – Levy of Royalty on Brick Earth – The State Government levied royalty on brick kiln owners for excavating brick earth, which was declared a minor mineral under Section 3(e) of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The respondents argued that brick earth did not belong to the State. The Court ruled that the declaration of brick earth as a minor mineral allowed the State to levy royalty, irrespective of land ownership, as per the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964. The High Court’s decision was reversed, and the dismissal of suits by the Trial Court was restored. Paras1−15.

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Rule 54F of Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules – The Court found that civil suits challenging royalty were barred since Rule 54F provided a proper appellate remedy. Disputes about royalty should be resolved through statutory channels instead of civil courts. Paras12−13.

Presumption of Ownership – Section 42 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – For records completed before 18th November 1871, where ownership was not explicitly recorded as belonging to landowners, ownership is presumed to vest in the State. However, this was irrelevant for royalty collection under the Mineral Rules. Paras8−13.

Decision – Appeals allowed – The High Court judgment was set aside. The Trial Court’s dismissal of suits was reinstated. The ownership of the lands was not adjudicated, and respondents were directed to use statutory remedies for any disputes over royalty amounts. Paras14−15.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Sections 306 and 107 IPC – The appellant, Laxmi Das, was accused of abetment of suicide on the grounds that she disapproved of her son’s relationship with the deceased and insulted the deceased. The Supreme Court held that there was no direct or indirect act of instigation or incitement by the appellant that led to the suicide. Disapproval of a marriage, even if true, does not constitute abetment unless specific acts of instigation are proven. The allegations were found too remote to meet the legal requirements of abetment under Section 306 IPC Paras8−14.

Evidence – Requirements for Abetment under Sections 306 and 107 IPC – The Court emphasized that abetment requires clear evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid with mens rea. Casual remarks, disapproval, or indirect actions do not amount to abetment. The evidence did not demonstrate that the appellant’s conduct left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide Paras9−13.

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the charges against the appellant and dismissed the proceedings against her, while permitting the trial to continue against other accused persons. Charges under Section 306 IPC were set aside for the appellant  Para15.

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings – Initiation of Proceedings Near Retirement – Appellant, a Senior Medical Officer, subjected to disciplinary proceedings eleven days before retirement – Allegations included proceeding on leave without sanction, defiance of Election Commission directions, and non-participation in pulse polio program – Supreme Court found proceedings lacked fairness and evidentiary basis – Held: Disciplinary proceedings initiated with malafide intent to retaliate against appellant for earlier litigation against senior officials – Quashed [Paras 1, 2, 5, 38, 45].

Evidence – Lack of Substantiation – Charges Based on Telephonic Instructions – Prosecution relied on telephonic instructions purportedly informing appellant of non-sanction of leave – No evidence of such instructions produced in inquiry – Call details or corroborating records absent – Inquiry Officer found evidence hearsay, yet held charges partly proved – Supreme Court ruled: No legal evidence supports charges – Findings unsustainable [Paras 24, 25, 28, 38].

Natural Justice – Procedural Fairness – Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority failed to provide fair process – Appellant's detailed response to inquiry report dismissed without meaningful consideration – Supreme Court held: Procedural unfairness and lack of application of mind vitiated disciplinary proceedings – Punishment disproportionate to alleged misconduct [Paras 30, 36, 40].

Election Commission Directive – Exemption from Election Duty – Appellant, being within six months of retirement, exempt from election duties as per Election Commission order – No duty assigned to appellant during alleged period of misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings contrary to Election Commission’s directive – Held: Charges against appellant unfounded and malicious [Paras 44, 45].

Relief – Restoration of Full Pension – Supreme Court quashed orders of Disciplinary Authority and High Court – Directed full restoration of pension with 6% interest on withheld amounts – Awarded ₹50,000 costs to appellant for harassment – Liberty granted to Government of Punjab to recover costs from responsible officials [Paras 42, 45, 46].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Supreme Court reiterated: Judicial review confined to ensuring fairness in disciplinary proceedings – Orders based on extraneous considerations or unsupported by evidence liable to be quashed – Emphasized protection of public servants’ rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution [Paras 33–35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant entitled to full pension without deductions – Costs awarded for harassment – Proceedings declared arbitrary and vindictive.

Taxation Law - Excise Duty – Valuation of Goods – Price as Sole Consideration – Transaction Value Defined – Held: Sales between Oil Marketing Companies under an MOU did not satisfy conditions under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the price was not the sole consideration for the sale – The MOU primarily aimed to ensure uninterrupted supply, not commercial transactions – Revenue's determination under Section 4(1)(b) upheld [Paras 22-28].

Limitation – Extended Period Under Section 11A – Justification Lacking – Held: The extended limitation invoked on grounds of suppression of facts was unjustified as the MOU was known to the Department through prior Tribunal decisions and Board circulars – Demand for differential duty under the extended limitation period quashed [Paras 31-34].

Penalty – Applicability of Section 11AC – No Allegation of Fraud or Wilful Misstatement – Held: Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC requires proof of intent to evade duty – Absent allegations of fraud, collusion, or wilful suppression, penalty was unsustainable [Paras 35-36].

Judicial Review – Scope of Tribunal's Decision – Tribunal's Reliance on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Case – Held: Tribunal failed to consider the conditions under Section 4(1)(a) – Summary dismissal by Supreme Court in earlier appeal did not bind lower authorities on omitted issues – Orders remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 29, 39].

Relief – Setting Aside Demands – BPCL Appeal Allowed – Held: Entire demand quashed on limitation grounds – Connected appeals remanded for reconsideration in light of principles laid down [Paras 38-40].

Decision: BPCL appeal allowed, other appeals remanded – No costs awarded.

Constitutional Law – Article 32 – Scope and Limitations – Challenging High Court Judgments – Under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to declare a High Court judgment as illegal. The appropriate remedy lies in filing a review/recall application before the High Court or challenging the judgment under Article 136. (Para 3)

Judicial Review – High Court Judgment – Remedy for Non-Participation of Affected Parties – Petitioners claiming they were not heard in a High Court judgment must approach the High Court for recall of the order or challenge the judgment through a petition under Article 136 before the Supreme Court. Article 32 cannot be invoked for such purposes. (Para 3)

Survey and Regularization of Encroached Properties – Relief Denied – The petitioners sought regularization and survey of their apartments allegedly constructed on government land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioners to avail remedies under applicable laws. (Paras 2–4)

Finality of High Court Decisions – Dismissal of SLP and Modification Application – A Special Leave Petition against the High Court judgment had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court, and an interlocutory application for modification was also rejected. The Court emphasized the need to follow proper procedural remedies. (Paras 2, 3)

Dismissal of Petition – Availability of Alternate Remedies – The Supreme Court dismissed the petition under Article 32 while clarifying that the dismissal does not preclude the petitioners from availing alternative remedies under law. (Para 4)

Decision:

Writ Petition Dismissed:

i) The Supreme Court held that it cannot declare the Bombay High Court’s judgment as illegal under Article 32.

ii) Petitioners were advised to pursue alternate remedies, such as a review/recall application or a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.

iii) Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Abetment of Suicide – Framing of Charges – Discharge of Accused - Mens Rea and Instigation Required – For an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of direct or indirect acts of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding by the accused to commit suicide – Held: Mere heated exchanges or demands for loan repayment do not constitute instigation or abetment in law. (Paras 12–17, 19)

Suicide Note and Transcripts – Threshold for Abetment Not Met – The deceased left a suicide note and audio recordings accusing the appellant of harassment related to a loan dispute. The court held that the appellant's conduct, even if heated, did not create circumstances that left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. (Paras 5, 6, 19)

High Threshold for Section 306 IPC – The court reiterated the consistent jurisprudence requiring clear intent, proximate causation, and active participation to establish abetment of suicide – Held: The FIR and chargesheet failed to meet the legal threshold for framing charges under Section 306 IPC. (Paras 13–19)

Delay in Filing FIR – The FIR was lodged nearly 2 months and 20 days after the suicide, casting doubt on the veracity and credibility of the allegations. (Para 19)

Framing of Charges – Role of Trial Courts and Investigating Agencies – The court emphasized the need for caution and sensitivity by police and trial courts when dealing with cases under Section 306 IPC, to prevent abuse of process and baseless prosecutions. (Paras 20–21)

Discharge from Proceedings – Absence of Mens Rea and Proximate Cause – Held: The appellant was discharged as the case against him was found groundless for framing charges under Section 306 IPC. The trial court and High Court orders were quashed. (Paras 19, 21)

Decision:

Appeal Allowed:

i) The appellant is discharged from Sessions Case No. 19 of 2023 pending before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone District, Mandleshwar.

ii) The High Court judgment dated 25.07.2023 in Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023 is set aside.

iii) Proceedings against the appellant under Section 306 IPC are quashed.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Questions of Law Mandatory – Interim Orders Without Framing Substantial Questions Invalid – The High Court granted interim relief directing status quo in a second appeal before framing substantial questions of law – Held: Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal is maintainable only if the case involves substantial questions of law, which must be framed before any substantive orders – The impugned interim relief was contrary to Section 100 CPC and therefore set aside [Paras 2, 9–10].

Civil Procedure – Interim Orders – Application of Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – Limited Scope in Second Appeals – High Courts may invoke inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to prevent abuse of process or meet the ends of justice – Held: The use of inherent powers cannot override or nullify specific provisions of the CPC, such as the mandatory requirement to frame substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC before granting interim relief [Paras 10.3–10.4].

Injunction Suit – Suit for Bare Injunction Without Declaration of Title – Not Maintainable – The plaintiff had sought an injunction without establishing title – Held: Following Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, bare injunction suits are not maintainable without a declaration of title where ownership is disputed – The First Appellate Court correctly overturned the trial court's decree based solely on revenue records, which do not confer title [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Doctrine of Substantial Question of Law – Precedents – Jurisdictional Limits of High Courts in Second Appeals – Reiterated principles from Ram Phal v. Banarasi and Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt, that substantial questions of law must be framed before hearing or granting relief in a second appeal [Paras 9, 10.3].

Decision: Appeal allowed: The High Court’s interim order dated 20.09.2024 in SA No. 518 of 2023 is set aside. The matter remanded to the High Court for compliance with Section 100 CPC.