Criminal Law – Approver’s Testimony – Retracted Statements – Evidence Act, 1872 – The appellant challenged his conviction based on the testimony of an approver who later retracted his statement – Supreme Court held that the approver’s retraction must be examined, allowing for further cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC and Section 145 Evidence Act to ensure justice [Paras 6-12, 20-22].

Procedural Fairness – Right to Cross-Examine – Sections 311, 391 CrPC – High Court’s refusal to allow further cross-examination of the approver was held erroneous – Supreme Court emphasized the need for comprehensive examination of evidence and directed the High Court to summon the approver for further cross-examination, citing the principles of fair trial and justice [Paras 18, 29-33].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act – Supreme Court reiterated the principle that procedural safeguards must be upheld, especially in cases involving serious allegations like attempts on the life of high-ranking officials, ensuring all relevant evidence is thoroughly scrutinized [Paras 21-22, 27-28].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – High Court directed to summon Vikram (PW.1) for further examination – Appeals to be disposed of within six months – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 34-35].

Thika Tenancy – Definition and Applicability – Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949; Calcutta Thika and Other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 – Appellant claimed tenancy rights under Thika Tenancy Acts – Supreme Court upheld lower court's finding that the appellant did not qualify as a Thika Tenant under the relevant statutes as the structures were constructed before the enactment of the Thika Tenancy Acts – Held that Thika Tenancy applies to Kutcha structures, not Pucca structures [Paras 9-13, 29-33].

Procedural Law – Additional Evidence – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 27 – Appellant sought to introduce new documents at the appellate stage claiming tenancy rights under the Thika Tenancy Act – Supreme Court held that the conditions for admitting additional evidence were not met and rejected the application [Paras 17, 20, 33].

Property Description – Rectification – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 – Discrepancy in property description between lease deed and plaint – Supreme Court found no substantial misdescription and affirmed lower courts' decisions allowing rectification, citing clear identification of the suit property [Paras 26-28].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Appellant ordered to pay Rs. 25,000 to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee as costs [Paras 34].

Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Sections 149, 302, 307 IPC – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/149, 307/149, and 452 IPC – Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder and cause grievous injuries – Presence and participation of the appellants in the unlawful assembly established beyond doubt [Paras 10-13].

Procedural Fairness – Examination of Witnesses – CrPC Section 313 – Appellants contended that injured witnesses and independent eye-witnesses were not examined – Supreme Court noted that non-examination of certain witnesses was not raised during cross-examination of the Investigating Officer and thus could not be raised on appeal – Conviction based on reliable testimony of closely related witnesses deemed valid [Paras 3-8].

Prompt FIR and Medical Evidence – Corroboration – FIR lodged promptly within three hours of the incident – Medical reports and post-mortem examination corroborated the prosecution's case, establishing the cause of death and injuries as consistent with the account of the eye-witnesses [Paras 4, 6-8].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appellants sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC, seven years' imprisonment under Section 307/149 IPC, and three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC [Paras 14].

Disciplinary Action – Previous Employment – Article 311(2) Constitution of India – The appeal concerns the authority of the Burdwan Central Cooperative Bank to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee for misconduct committed during previous employment with an affiliated society – Supreme Court held that the Bank had the authority to proceed against the employee due to the affiliation and recruitment from the society – The integrity of the employee's conduct in previous employment is relevant [Paras 14-16].

Procedural Fairness – Non-Supply of Enquiry Report – The Bank failed to supply the Enquiry Report to the respondent, raising questions of procedural fairness – Supreme Court emphasized the need to consider whether actual prejudice was caused by the non-supply before setting aside the disciplinary action – Cited the principle from Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, stating that non-supply alone is not fatal unless prejudice is shown [Paras 17-18].

Jurisdiction and Link – Cooperative Societies – Rule 69(2) West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 – The link between the respondent’s previous employment and the appellant Bank, facilitated by Rule 69(2)(b), justified the Bank’s jurisdiction to conduct disciplinary proceedings – The integrity and fiduciary responsibility of employees in financial institutions warrant such oversight [Paras 15-18].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – High Court’s judgments set aside – Bank’s decision to dismiss the respondent from service is restored – No order as to costs [Paras 19-20].

Caste Determination – Inter-caste Marriage – Constitution of India, 1950 – The appellant's tribal certificate was cancelled on the grounds that his father was a non-tribal – Supreme Court held that caste determination in inter-caste marriages must consider upbringing and acceptance in the community – High Court erred by relying solely on the father's caste without considering evidence of the appellant’s upbringing as a tribal [Paras 2-4, 43-44].

Procedural Fairness – Evidence Consideration – Evidence Act, 1872 – Supreme Court emphasized the need for Scrutiny Committees to examine all relevant evidence before making decisions on caste status – Orders based solely on parental caste without further inquiry are inadequate and unjust [Paras 2-3, 43-44].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – High Court and Scrutiny Committee orders set aside – Case remitted to Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision considering all evidence – No order as to costs [Paras 44, 46].

Provident Fund – Exempted Establishments – Section 14B – Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – The issue concerns whether an exempted establishment can be subjected to the provisions of Section 14B, which allows for recovery of damages for default in provident fund contributions – Supreme Court held that Section 14B applies to exempted establishments and damages can be recovered for defaults in contributions to the provident fund [Paras 2-14].

Statutory Interpretation – Remedial Legislation – The Court emphasized a purposive approach to interpretation, considering the Act's social welfare objectives – Cited the need for a liberal construction of remedial statutes to fulfill legislative intent and promote social justice [Paras 22-33].

Expression "So Far As May Be" – The phrase in Section 17(1A)(a) of the Act was interpreted to include provisions for recovery of damages under Section 14B for exempted establishments – The Court rejected a narrow interpretation that would limit the application of Section 14B, instead endorsing a broader understanding to ensure compliance and safeguard employees' benefits [Paras 49-57].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Section 14B applies to exempted establishments for default in provident fund contributions – Respondents directed to comply with the order for recovery of damages – No order as to costs [Paras 58-59].

Power to Direct Charge-Sheet – CrPC Sections 173, 190 – Magistrate's Role – Question arose whether a Magistrate can direct the police to file a charge-sheet after rejecting a closure report – Supreme Court held that a Magistrate/Special Judge can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c) or direct further investigation under Section 156(3) but cannot direct the police to submit a charge-sheet if they submit a closure report – The functions of the police and the Magistrate are distinct and should not encroach on each other's domain [Paras 4-13, 16].

Re-investigation and Sanction – Prevention of Corruption Act – Special Judge’s refusal to accept the closure report and order for re-investigation without sanction for prosecution was found erroneous – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of legal compliance, including obtaining necessary sanctions before proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act [Paras 11-16].

Procedural Fairness – Importance of Enquiry – CrPC Sections 200, 202 – When rejecting a closure report, a Magistrate should either take cognizance and examine the complainant or direct an enquiry under Section 202 – Mere direction to file a charge-sheet without these steps is not permissible [Paras 15-17].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – High Court and Special Judge's orders quashed – Closure report dated 18.05.2004 accepted – Direction for further investigation without necessary sanction and the resultant harassment of the appellant were deemed a misuse of legal process – No costs [Paras 21-22].

Sales Tax Incentive Scheme – Extension of Time – Government Policy – The High Court granted Essar Oil Limited an extension of the benefit period under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme due to delays in obtaining necessary environmental and legal clearances – Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that the scheme’s conditions must be strictly adhered to, and extensions not specifically provided within the scheme cannot be granted [Paras 54-55].

Restitution and Equity – Acts of Court – The High Court applied the principles of restitution, suggesting that delays caused by court orders should not prejudice Essar – Supreme Court disagreed, stating that restitution principles do not apply as the State of Gujarat did not gain any unjust benefit from the delays, and Essar did not act with due diligence in obtaining the necessary clearances [Paras 59-60, 68-69].

Environmental Clearances – Compliance – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for compliance with statutory environmental clearances under the Forest (Conservation) Act, Wild Life (Protection) Act, and other relevant statutes before undertaking commercial operations – Essar’s failure to secure these clearances within the stipulated time led to its ineligibility for the extended incentive period [Paras 71-73, 85-87].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Essar Oil Limited not entitled to the extended benefit of the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme – No costs [Paras 89-91].

Jurisdiction Clause – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – The appeal involves a dispute over the jurisdiction clause in an agreement which specified that any dispute arising out of the agreement would be subject to Calcutta jurisdiction only – Supreme Court held that where two courts have jurisdiction, parties can agree to exclude one court’s jurisdiction in favor of the other – Such agreement does not violate Sections 23 or 28 of the Contract Act, 1872 [Paras 6-11].

Enforceability of Contractual Terms – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 28 – The Court reiterated that agreements restricting legal proceedings are void unless they pertain to arbitration – However, jurisdiction clauses that do not oust the jurisdiction of all competent courts but choose one among several competent courts are valid and enforceable [Paras 9-12].

Procedural Fairness – Return of Plaint – Given the exclusion clause, the Vijayawada court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit – Supreme Court directed the return of the plaint to be presented before the appropriate court in Calcutta, affirming the principle of procedural fairness [Paras 15-16].

Decision:

Special Leave Petition Allowed – Decree by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and High Court judgment set aside – Trial court at Vijayawada directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate court in Calcutta – No order as to costs [Paras 16-17].