Criminal Procedure - Right to be Heard - Revision Petition - Section 401(2) CrPC - Criminal appeal challenging the High Court's decision to set aside the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, which had taken cognizance against only one accused (Sunita Devi) and rejected the protest-cum-complaint petition - Appellant (Accused No. 4) contended violation of Section 401(2) CrPC, as he was not given an opportunity to be heard - Supreme Court held that non-issuance of notice to the accused in the criminal revision proceedings resulted in a violation of his rights under Section 401(2) CrPC - High Court's order set aside, matter remanded for fresh consideration after issuing notice to all concerned accused. [Paras 1-10]

Right to Fair Hearing - Section 401(2) CrPC - Interpretation and Application - Supreme Court reiterated the principle that an accused has a right to be heard in revision proceedings under Section 401 CrPC if the decision could prejudice them - Referred to precedent in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel, emphasizing that the accused must be given an opportunity of hearing before any prejudicial order is passed in revision. [Para 7]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - High Court's impugned order dated 18.4.2011 set aside due to non-compliance with Section 401(2) CrPC - Case remanded to the High Court to issue notice to all accused and dispose of the revision petition in accordance with law. [Paras 9-10]

Referred Cases:

Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others (2012) 10 SCC 517

Wealth Tax – Valuation of Property – Determination of Applicable Rule – Dispute over the correct method for valuing a residential flat used as a guest house for wealth tax purposes – Assessee valued the property using Rules 3 to 7 of Schedule III, but the AO invoked Rule 8(a) due to discrepancies in market value and the valuation provided – Supreme Court upheld the AO's decision to apply Rule 8(a) and refer the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer, affirming the use of market value for assessment. [Paras 1-28]

Practicability of Applying Rule 3 – Assessment Criteria – The AO justified the decision to not apply Rule 3 based on significant variation between market value and municipal tax valuation, use of the property as a guest house, understated ratable value, difficulty in ascertaining improvement costs, and an agreement to sell indicating a higher value – Supreme Court held that the AO's invocation of Rule 8(a) was reasonable and backed by sufficient grounds. [Paras 23-28]

Discretion and Judicial Scrutiny – Use of AO's Discretion – The Court emphasized that the AO’s discretion to discard Rule 3 must be judicially exercised, reasonable, and subject to objective scrutiny – Affirmed that the AO’s decision met these criteria and was not arbitrary. [Paras 24-25]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, validating the assessment of wealth tax based on the valuation provided by the Departmental Valuation Officer and confirming that the AO's approach was correct under the circumstances. [Para 28]

Referred Cases:

K.M. Mammen Vs. Wealth-Tax Officer, City Circle-II (1) Madras, (1983) 139 ITR 357

Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia Vs. N.C. Upadhya and Others Kusumben D. Mahadevia Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City-I, (1980) 14 CTR 20 : (1980) 124 ITR 799 : (1979) 2 TAXMAN 225

Civil Law - Grant of Increments and Selection Grades - Determination of Service Period for Selection Grade Calculation - Civil Appeal from High Court order affirming grant of increments for period of temporary service prior to regularization - Supreme Court held: Increments during ad-hoc service period cannot be counted towards computation of selection grades - Circulars clarify selection grades to be calculated from date of regularization - High Court order set aside - Appeals allowed. [Paras 1-32]

Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Rejection of Review Application - Supreme Court emphasized duty of courts to correct patent errors to prevent miscarriage of justice - Held: Review application should have been allowed due to misapplication of precedent - Concession in court not binding when based on incorrect legal premise - Division Bench erred in dismissing appeal on ground of consent order - Orders of Single Judge and Division Bench quashed. [Paras 17-27]

Role of Government Counsel - Responsibility and Ethical Standards - Advocates representing the State are held to higher standards of honesty, accuracy, and public interest - Duty to assist the court accurately and responsibly emphasized - Observations on the ethical duty and expected conduct of government advocates. [Paras 29-31]

Decision: The appeals are allowed, the orders of the High Court and the decision in intra-court appeal are set aside, and the writ petition stands dismissed. [Paras 28, 32]

Referred Cases:

B.S. Bajwa and Another v. State of Punjab and Others, (1998) 1 AD 261

City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, AIR 2009 SC 571

State of Rajasthan and Others v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, AIR 2010 SC 157

State of Haryana v. Haryana Veternaty and A.H.T.S. Asson. and Another, AIR 2000 SC 3020

Shivdeo Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1963 SC 1909

Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137

Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others, AIR 1979 SC 1047

Ram Ganesh Tripathi and others v. State of U.P. and others, (1997) 7 AD 260

Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674

Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372

O.P. Sharma and Others v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 2101

In Re: Sanjiv Datta and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 619

Union of India (UOI) v. Hira Lal and Others, (1996) 7 AD 541

State of Punjab and Others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and Others, AIR 2001 SC 2691

State of Punjab and Others v. Ishar Singh and Others, (2001) 90 FLR 709

Service Law – Promotion – Personal Bias Allegations – Assessment of ACRs – Role of DPC – Article 226 of the Constitution of India – High Court directed promotion of the respondent due to alleged personal bias by superior officer E.N. Ram Mohan – Supreme Court held High Court erred in adjudicating disputed issues of malafide without evidence and directing promotion instead of remitting the matter to DPC – Bias adjudged based on evidence, not mere assessment variances in ACRs – Promotion to be based on merit-cum-suitability assessed by DPC – High Court cannot sit in appeal over DPC’s assessment or assess merit of one employee – Appeal allowed, High Court’s order set aside. [Paras 1-18]

Promotion – Review of DPC Decision – Held – Supreme Court emphasizes that the High Court under Article 226 can remit the matter to the DPC for reconsideration if the assessment was not properly conducted but cannot directly promote the individual – Detailed review of service records and DPC’s discretion in assessment upheld. [Paras 12-16]

Decision – Setting Aside High Court’s Directive for Promotion – High Court's order directing promotion was set aside – Appeal allowed, remitting matter to appropriate authorities for reconsideration in line with observations on assessment procedures. [Para 17-18]

Referred Cases:

B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. v. K. Addanki Babu and Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 720

Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and Ors. (1973) 2 SCC 836

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310

Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 109

Military Law – Disability Pension – Entitlement – Appeal against High Court's dismissal of writ petition seeking disability pension and service element of pension – Supreme Court rules in favor of appellant – Held, appellant entitled to disability pension despite disability being less than 20% due to injury sustained during service – Respondents failed to provide valid grounds for invaliding appellant out of service without appropriate compensation – Benefit of doubt extended in favor of the appellant – Appeal allowed. [Paras 1-12]

Attribution and Aggravation of Disability – Analysis – Held, disability not recorded at the time of recruitment presumed to be caused during service – Medical board's assessment of less than 20% disability not sufficient grounds for denial of pension – Regulatory provisions and benefit of doubt necessitate granting of disability pension – Authorities directed to disburse arrears and pension to appellant. [Para 10]

Decision – Grant of Disability Pension to Appellant – Supreme Court directs Union of India to release disability pension along with arrears to appellant – Pension to be disbursed within three months – Appeal accepted – No order as to costs. [Para 11-12]

Referred Cases:

Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 459

Union of India v. Ram Avtar (2014) 8 SCC 256

Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 316

Criminal Law – Conviction – Appeal against – Non-explanation of injuries on accused – Importance – Prosecution's failure to explain injuries sustained by accused at the time of the incident raises significant doubts about the prosecution's case – Held that non-explanation of such injuries casts a serious shadow on the credibility of prosecution witnesses, especially when these witnesses are interested or inimical. [Paras 12-18]

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility – Injuries on Accused – Ocular evidence inconsistent with medical evidence – Prosecution witnesses did not explain injuries on accused Sudarshan Verma and Deep Narain, contradicting medical evidence – Held that such inconsistencies render eyewitness testimony unreliable, leading to reasonable doubt about the prosecution's narrative. [Paras 14-18]

Evidence – Medical Evidence – Discrepancies – Absence of firearm injuries despite claims – Medical reports of the deceased Prabhunath did not support eyewitness claims of firearm injuries – Held that discrepancies between medical evidence and eyewitness accounts diminish the reliability of the prosecution's case. [Para 14]

Place of Occurrence – Inconsistencies – Prosecution's failure to establish exact place of occurrence due to inconsistent witness statements and failure to chemically examine seized bloodstained earth – Held that such lapses create doubts about the prosecution's version of events. [Para 19]

Decision – Acquittal – Reasonable Doubt – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and investigative lapses – Held that convictions and sentences of appellants are set aside, appellants acquitted. [Para 20-21]

Referred Cases:

Babulal Bhagwan Khandare and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 10 SCALE 188 : (2005) 10 SCC 404

Securities Law - Non-compliance with SEBI Orders - Directions for Refund of Investments - Criminal Contempt - Sahara companies' failure to comply with SEBI orders and subsequent Supreme Court directions to refund over Rs. 24,000 crores to investors with 15% interest - Supreme Court affirms necessity of compliance - Orders release of assets and properties to facilitate refund - Contempt petitions disposed of with detailed compliance instructions. [Paras 1-26]

Bail Conditions and Compliance - Modification of Bail Conditions - Contempt Proceedings - Application for modification of conditions for interim bail of Subrata Roy and other Sahara directors - Requests for relaxing custody terms and lifting restrictions on asset sales - Supreme Court denies relaxation of custody but allows controlled sale of assets to raise funds for compliance - Directs submission of detailed sale and transaction plans to SEBI. [Paras 10-22]

Decision - Interim Bail Conditions - Asset Liquidation for Compliance - Court permits liquidation of specified assets to facilitate partial compliance with refund orders - Rejects modification of interim bail conditions and transfer of custody from jail to guest house - Directions issued for sale proceeds to be deposited with SEBI. [Paras 23-26]

Referred Cases:NONE

Patents Law - Jurisdiction of IPAB and High Courts - Determination of Validity of Patents – Civil Appeal against the High Court decision on concurrent patent revocation petitions and infringement suits – Appellants alleged Respondents continued unauthorized use of patents post-termination of license agreements – Multiple revocation petitions and infringement suits filed – Supreme Court clarifies procedures for addressing concurrent challenges under Sections 64 and 104 of the Patents Act - Held that only one remedy for challenging the patent can be pursued at a time, either through a revocation petition before the IPAB or a counter-claim in an infringement suit. The continuation of both proceedings concurrently amounts to an abuse of process. [Paras 1-31]

Choice of Forum - Counter-claims and Revocation Petitions – Analysis – Held – The word "or" in Section 64 of the Patents Act indicates a disjunctive choice between a revocation petition and a counter-claim, prohibiting the simultaneous pursuit of both remedies by the same party – If a party initiates a revocation petition before the IPAB, it is precluded from filing a counter-claim in an infringement suit on the same patent and vice versa. [Para 22-23]

Decision - Exclusivity of Remedies – Court's Analysis – The court directs that if an infringement suit was filed before the revocation petition, the counter-claim will proceed and the revocation petition must be withdrawn, and vice versa – This ruling aims to streamline the adjudicatory process and prevent contradictory rulings. [Para 24-25]

Consent Orders and Procedural Compliance – Affirmed – The court upheld the High Court's consent order for consolidated proceedings to ensure expedited trial and resolution of issues, reinforcing the parties' agreement on procedural matters. [Para 28]

Referred Cases:

NONE

Arbitration Law – Arbitration Agreement – Governing Law – Jurisdiction – Appeal against High Court order allowing challenge to arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Parties agreed to arbitrate in London, governed by English Law – Proper law of the contract is Indian Law; proper law of the arbitration agreement is English Law – High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain challenge under Section 34 rejected – Supreme Court held that applicability of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 excluded by agreement – Held, Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition – Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside. [Paras 1-77]

Public Policy – Non-arbitrability of Claims – Appellants claimed reimbursement under the Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs) – Union of India contended that disputes relating to royalties, cess, service tax, and CAG audit not arbitrable – Supreme Court held these are contractual issues and arbitrability governed by English Law – Objections under public policy grounds not sufficient to retain jurisdiction under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – High Court’s conclusion on arbitrability and jurisdiction overturned. [Paras 57-60]

Referred Cases: State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) (2013) 1 AD 325 Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. v. Ssang Yong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. (2011) 9 SCC 735 Reva Electric Car Company P. Ltd. v. Green Mobil (2012) 2 SCC 93 Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. and Another (2002) 4 SCC 105 Enercon (India) Ltd. and Others v. Enercon GMBH and Another (2014) 5 SCC 1 Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. and Another v. State of Punjab and Another (1992) 2 SCC 411 Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. and Another (2008) 4 SCC 190 Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios and Another (1981) 1 SCC 523 Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust and Another (2014) 5 SCC 68 Videocon Industries Limited v. Union of India (2011) 6 SCC 161 Bharat Aluminium Company and Others v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. and Others (2012) 9 SCC 552