Principle of Res Judicata - Application in Successive Stages of Same Litigation – The Supreme Court emphasized that for the doctrine of res judicata to apply, there must be a conscious adjudication of an issue. In the absence of an expression of opinion on the merits, the principle cannot be invoked to bar subsequent applications in the same litigation. The court found that the learned Company Judge had not adjudicated the application for leave on merits in the initial order and had only recorded a statement made by the counsel for the respondent, thus not attracting res judicata. The Division Bench's decision was held to be in error for treating the initial order as res judicata. [Paras 23-38]

Liberty to Apply – Interpretation – The court clarified that the phrase "liberty to apply" granted by the learned Company Judge must be understood in context. It does not inherently grant the right to reopen matters already adjudicated, but in this case, it allowed for future applications as the initial application had not been decided on merits. The Division Bench's interpretation that it barred subsequent applications was incorrect. [Paras 34-38]

Grant of Leave for Filing Eviction Suit – Company in Liquidation – The court noted that the learned Company Judge had correctly granted leave for the appellant to file an eviction suit against the company in liquidation, as the company's tenancy rights were not assets of the company for liquidation purposes and the official liquidator had no objection. The Division Bench's decision to revoke this leave was overturned. [Para 22]

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Division Bench's order and restoring the order of the learned Company Judge. The respondents were directed to pay costs. [Paras 38-39]

Banking Law - Pension and Leave Encashment Entitlement - Civil Appeal against denial by Bank - Respondent, a former bank clerk, removed from service with superannuation benefits as a measure of penalty post-disciplinary inquiry. Claim for pension and leave encashment rejected by the bank citing forfeiture of past service upon removal. Tribunal and High Court upheld entitlement based on Bipartite Settlement providing for removal with superannuation benefits due otherwise under prevailing rules. Supreme Court affirms lower court's decision, recognizing entitlement to superannuation benefits for eligible employees removed with such penalty. [Paras 1-15]

Interpretation of Bipartite Settlement and Pension Regulations - Harmonization of seemingly conflicting provisions - Held - Regulations stipulate forfeiture of past service upon removal, disqualifying pensionary benefits. Bipartite Settlement clause providing for removal with superannuation benefits should be interpreted to apply to eligible employees meeting qualifying service criteria. Ensures no provision is rendered redundant, maintaining the integrity of both the settlement and the regulations. [Para 10-13]

Decision - Denial of Benefits Overturned - Employee's heirs entitled to superannuation benefits, including pension and leave encashment. Interest at 6% p.a. on dues awarded. Appeal dismissed with costs imposed on appellant bank. [Para 14-15]

Industrial Law - Termination of Daily-Wage Worker - Violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act - The respondent, Bhurumal, claimed wrongful termination by BSNL without compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F, such as notice and retrenchment compensation. The CGIT found that Bhurumal had worked directly under BSNL for almost 15 years, establishing an employer-employee relationship, and ruled the termination illegal. [Paras 3-5, 14]

Employer-Employee Relationship - Evidence and Findings - The tribunal relied on work diaries maintained by Bhurumal, which documented his daily work activities and supported his claim of direct employment with BSNL. The tribunal drew adverse inference against BSNL for not producing original employment documents, strengthening the respondent's case. [Paras 5, 16-17]

Judicial Review - Concurrent Findings of Fact - High Court upheld the CGIT's findings, rejecting BSNL's writ petition. The Supreme Court reiterated that interference under Articles 226 and 136 is limited to cases of perversity or lack of evidence, which was not established by BSNL. [Paras 7, 10, 15]

Relief - Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement - The Supreme Court, aligning with the recent trend, decided against automatic reinstatement with back wages for daily-wage workers terminated in violation of procedural requirements. Considering the long gap since termination and advancements in technology reducing the need for linemen, the Court awarded monetary compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs instead of reinstatement. [Paras 19-26]

Decision - Award Modified - The CGIT's award of reinstatement with back wages was modified to a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs, to be paid within two months, failing which interest at 12% per annum would apply. The appeal was disposed of with a cost of Rs. 15,000 awarded to the respondent. [Paras 26]

Constitutional Law - Reservation Policy - Compliance with Supreme Court Judgments - Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging AIIMS's admission procedures and reservation policy - Allegations of exceeding the prescribed reservation quota and mismanagement during counseling - Examination of the legality and fairness of the admission process - Held, the reservation policy adopted by AIIMS adheres to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney and other relevant judgments - The process ensures meritorious reserved candidates (MRC) are given the opportunity to opt for institutions of their choice, maintaining their status in the general category while preventing any breach of the 50% reservation limit. [Paras 1-24]

Counseling Process - Reserved Category Candidates - Merit-Based Allocation - Analysis of the AIIMS's counseling procedure for MBBS admissions - Held, the method of allowing MRCs to opt for better institutions in their reserved category while being counted in the general category ensures fairness and meritocracy - This practice prevents lesser meritorious candidates from gaining undue advantage and aligns with the Supreme Court's mandate in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul - The overall reservation ceiling of 50% remains intact - Petition dismissed as no rights of the petitioners were violated. [Paras 15-24]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - The Supreme Court dismisses the writ petition challenging the AIIMS’s admission procedure, ruling that the process was fair and adhered to constitutional principles - The method used ensures that the 50% reservation limit is not breached and does not disadvantage meritorious candidates from reserved categories - No costs awarded. [Para 24]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Limitation Period for Issuance of Notice - Complaint Validity - Criminal Appeal - Held: The complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is not maintainable if the statutory notice demanding payment is not issued within 30 days of receiving information about cheque dishonor. The Supreme Court finds that the complainant received information on 10.11.2008 but issued the notice only on 17.12.2008, beyond the prescribed period. Hence, the complaint is dismissed as non-maintainable. [Paras 9-15]

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Quashing of Complaint - Abuse of Process - Held: The High Court erred in dismissing the petition to quash the complaint. The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court order, recognizing the procedural lapse in timely issuance of notice as stipulated under Section 138 of the NI Act, and quashes the complaint as an abuse of process of law. [Paras 2-3, 15]

Role of Admitted Facts - Legal Notice and Cheque Presentation - Analysis - The complainant’s acknowledgment of receiving information about the dishonor on 10.11.2008 is pivotal. The delayed issuance of the notice invalidates the cause of action under Section 138. [Paras 12-14]

Decision - Complaint Quashed - The Supreme Court allows the appeal, overturns the High Court's decision, and quashes the criminal complaint for failure to meet the statutory requirements of Section 138 of the NI Act. [Para 15]

Constitutional Law - Use of Symbols of Authority - Petition challenging the use of signs and symbols such as red lights on vehicles by public servants - Whether the use of such symbols is contrary to the constitutional ethos and basic feature of republicanism - Held, use of red lights on vehicles carrying "high dignitaries" specified by the Central Government is permissible, but misuse and unauthorized use by others is unconstitutional - State Governments to amend rules in conformity with the Central Government notifications. [Paras 1-25]

Motor Vehicles Law - Use of Red Lights and Multi-toned Horns - Interpretation of Rule 108 and Rule 119 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Whether the use of red lights with or without flashers on vehicles carrying dignitaries other than those specified by the Central Government is legal - Held, only specified high dignitaries can use red lights while on duty - Unauthorized use is illegal - Enforcement authorities directed to impose penalties on violators - Detailed directions issued to curb misuse. [Para 24-25]

Decision - The petition partially allowed - Red lights can only be used by specified high dignitaries while on duty - Unauthorized use of red lights and multi-toned horns is illegal - State Governments to amend rules and impose penalties - Enforcement to be strict and notices to be published. [Para 25-26]

Civil Law – Ownership and Possession – Evidence of Title – Civil Appeal arising out of concurrent findings by lower courts decreeing plaintiff’s claim of ownership and possession of 1/3rd of property. Appellant failed to produce documentary evidence to prove title; courts erroneously relied on oral evidence and inferred admissions not explicitly made by respondents. Supreme Court held the onus to prove title lies strictly with the plaintiff and emphasized the importance of documentary evidence over oral assertions. Reversed lower courts' findings due to perverse and arbitrary conclusions unsupported by concrete evidence. [Paras 1-26]

Burden of Proof – Establishing Title – High Court’s Role in Second Appeal – Examined under Section 100 CPC – Held – High Court justified in reassessing evidence and correcting lower courts' errors where findings were unsupported by clear evidence or misapplied legal principles. Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s intervention as necessary and legally sound, reinforcing that substantial questions of law warrant reappraisal of evidence in second appeal. [Para 23-25]

Decision – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment which set aside the concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts. The High Court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden of proof regarding title to the property, necessitating reversal. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. [Para 26]

Urban Development - Change of Land Use – Environmental and Security Concerns – Appeal against High Court decision quashing permissions for residential and commercial construction near HPCL refinery – Development Control Regulations mandate considerations of safety, health, and environment – Supreme Court notes HPCL's consistent objections citing security threats and health hazards due to proximity of hazardous refinery operations – High Court directed Municipal Commissioner to reconsider the applications in light of objections from various agencies and security regulations. [Paras 1-45]

Land Use Regulations - Application of Planning Laws – Analysis – Held – Regulation 16 of DCRs requires the Commissioner to consider health and safety before permitting construction – Regulation 57(4)(c) cannot override these considerations – The Supreme Court emphasizes the need for planning authorities to prioritize public safety over commercial interests – Permits for other constructions in vicinity do not justify further permissions without proper scrutiny. [Paras 43-44]

Decision – Reconsideration Ordered – Court remits matter to High Court for fresh consideration – High Court to evaluate security threats and health impacts on future occupants – Interim construction halted; expedited reconsideration by Municipal Commissioner mandated. Appeals allowed. [Paras 24-26]

Criminal Law – Sole Eye-Witness Testimony – Reliability

Criminal appeal against High Court judgment upholding the conviction of appellants based on the sole testimony of an injured eye-witness (Harbans Kaur). Supreme Court held that the testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient for conviction if it is cogent and reliable. Despite initial inconsistencies, the detailed later testimony of the witness aligned with the surrounding evidence and the early FIR, making her testimony trustworthy. [Paras 1-18]

Motive for the Crime – Analysis – Validity of Conviction

The motive attributed was financial disputes and personal enmity between the victim’s families and the appellants. The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's finding that there was sufficient motive established through consistent testimonies, indicating revenge as the primary driver for the brutal attacks. [Paras 19-20]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Affirmation of Convictions

The appeals were dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences for all appellants. The Court found the evidence presented, particularly the sole eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical and forensic reports, sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The sentences imposed by the lower courts were deemed appropriate. [Paras 20-21]