Protection of Monuments – Notification Validity – Ancient Monuments Act – The appeal concerns the validity of construction activities near Jantar Mantar, New Delhi – Supreme Court held that Jantar Mantar is a protected monument as per the notification dated 4.10.1956, which was saved under Section 39(2) of the 1958 Act – The subsequent notification dated 3.5.1957 was not published in the Official Gazette and did not affect the earlier notification [Paras 10-14].

Construction Prohibition – Notification Review – The Court emphasized that the prohibition on construction within 100 meters of the protected monument under the notification dated 16.6.1992 is valid – Directed the Central Government not to review this prohibition, reinforcing the need for strict adherence to the protection of national monuments [Paras 29-30].

Public Interest and Development – The Court acknowledged the conflict between development needs and monument protection – Emphasized the priority of preserving monuments of national importance over new constructions, especially when such constructions threaten the structural integrity or the historical significance of the monuments [Paras 30-32].

Decision:

Civil Appeal No. 2430 of 2006 Allowed – Direction for review of the notification dated 16.6.1992 set aside – Central Government instructed not to act contrary to the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and the rules thereunder in future decisions regarding construction permissions.

Civil Appeal No. 2431 of 2006 Dismissed – Injunction against the construction on plot No. 14 Janpath Lane upheld – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 33-34].

Contempt of Court – Abuse of Process – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Appellants challenged the dismissal of their contempt petition by the High Court of Karnataka, which related to non-compliance with an eviction order and subsequent obstructive actions by the respondents – Supreme Court found that the High Court's dismissal lacked adequate reasoning and failed to address prior findings that prima facie established a case for contempt [Paras 6-9].

Judicial Consistency – Coordinate Bench – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of judicial consistency, noting that the High Court’s subsequent coordinate bench should have considered the prima facie findings of contempt made by the earlier bench – Highlighted that dismissing the case without addressing the evidence and prior findings was inappropriate [Paras 8-9].

Procedural Fairness – Need for Speaking Order – The Court reiterated that judicial orders must contain adequate reasons, especially when reversing or dismissing cases with prior detailed findings – Directed the High Court to reassess the contempt petition with a detailed and reasoned order [Paras 8-9].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – High Court's order dated 18.06.2008 set aside – Case remitted to High Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law – High Court directed to restore Crl. CCC No. 32 of 2005 and pass a speaking order after affording opportunity to both parties – No costs [Paras 9].

Amendment of Pleadings – Post-trial Commencement – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – The appeal concerns whether the High Court was correct in permitting an amendment to the plaint after the trial had commenced – Supreme Court held that amendments should not be allowed after trial commencement unless the court concludes that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before trial commenced – The request was made after the arguments were concluded and the case was reserved for judgment, citing a 'typographical error' [Paras 5-7, 10-12].

Due Diligence – Requirement for Amendment – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – The plaintiffs claimed the absence of mandatory averments under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act was due to a typographical error – Supreme Court rejected this, stating the error could not be classified as typographical and demonstrated a lack of due diligence – Emphasized that due diligence is essential and amendments post-trial commencement must meet stringent criteria [Paras 8, 12-15].

Typographical Error – Definition and Application – The term typographical error includes minor slips during typing or printing and does not encompass substantive omissions such as mandatory averments – Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim of typographical error was baseless and failed to meet the requirements for post-trial amendments [Paras 15-16].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order dated 08.02.2011 set aside – Trial court's order dismissing the amendment application reinstated – No order as to costs [Paras 17-18].

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Section 302, 307 IPC – The appellant contested the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the second respondent, who faced multiple criminal charges, including murder and attempt to murder – Supreme Court held that criminal antecedents alone do not justify denial of bail if the role in the present case and possibility of fleeing are properly assessed – Emphasized the duty of the court to balance these factors while granting bail [Paras 5-6].

Threat to Witnesses – Procedural Safeguards – Appellant reported receiving threats from the second respondent – Supreme Court acknowledged the provision of adequate protection to the appellant by the State – Directed the trial court to take immediate action if further threats were reported during the trial, ensuring the appellant’s safety and proper conduct of proceedings [Paras 8-9].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed – High Court’s order granting bail upheld with additional instructions to the trial court to complete the trial within four months and ensure strict adherence to bail conditions – Directed immediate action by the trial court upon any report of fresh threats to the appellant [Paras 9].

Representing Advocates:

for appellant: Jaspal Singh, Imtiaz Ahmed, Naghma Imtiaz, Mohd. Asad K., and Equity Lex Associates

for respondent: Basava Prabhu S. Patil, J.P. Tripathi, Asha Upadhyay, R.D. Upadhyay, Manoj K. Mishra, Alka Sinha, and Anuvrat Sharma

Jurisdiction – Consumer Forums – Seeds Act, 1966 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – The appeals question whether Consumer Forums have the jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding defective seeds under the Consumer Protection Act, despite the special provisions under the Seeds Act – Supreme Court held that the Consumer Forums do have jurisdiction as the Seeds Act does not provide an adequate mechanism for compensating farmers for loss or inadequate yield due to defective seeds [Paras 12-17, 23-27].

Consumer Definition – Section 2(d) Consumer Protection Act – Farmers/Growers – The Court addressed whether farmers/growers who purchase seeds for cultivation fall within the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act – Supreme Court affirmed that farmers/growers are consumers as defined under Section 2(d) because they purchase seeds for earning their livelihood and not for commercial purposes [Paras 18-22, 25-26].

Arbitration Clause – Section 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The Court considered the applicability of arbitration clauses in agreements between seed suppliers and growers, and whether such clauses bar jurisdiction of Consumer Forums – Supreme Court held that the presence of an arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, given that the remedies under the Consumer Act are in addition to other remedies [Paras 27-31].

Decision:

Appeals Dismissed – Consumer Forums have jurisdiction to entertain complaints under the Consumer Protection Act regarding defective seeds – Farmers/growers are covered under the definition of 'consumer' – Arbitration clauses do not bar Consumer Forums from entertaining such complaints – No order as to costs [Paras 31-32].

Circumstantial Evidence – Admissibility – Evidence Act, 1872 – The appellant was convicted based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of ornaments from the deceased – Supreme Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be evaluated with care and only a complete, unbroken chain of events can justify a conviction – The conviction based on circumstantial evidence was found insufficient due to lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime [Paras 5-9, 17-18, 24].

Confessional Statements – Police Custody – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 25, 26, 27 – Confessional statements made to police officers while in custody were deemed inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 – The exception under Section 27 was inapplicable as the confessional statements did not lead to the discovery of any new facts, casting doubt on the reliability of the recovered evidence [Paras 17-18].

Evaluation of Evidence – Contradictions and Inconsistencies – The evidence presented had contradictions, including differing accounts of the presence of utensils at the crime scene and the manner of the victim’s death – These discrepancies weakened the prosecution’s case and contributed to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the conviction [Paras 20-22, 24].

Decision:

Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentences set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in another case – The same benefit extended to co-accused Sibi, who did not appeal but was convicted on similar grounds – Ordered acquittal of both accused [Paras 25-28].

MODVAT Credit – Testing Materials – Central Excise Rules, 1944 – The appeals involve the eligibility of MODVAT credit for materials used in testing machines before dispatch – Supreme Court held that materials used for testing, tuning, and adjusting machines are essential to the manufacturing process, qualifying them as inputs under Rule 57A – Emphasized that testing is integral to completing the manufacturing process and making the product marketable [Paras 3-8, 17-21].

Interpretation – "In or In Relation to Manufacture" – The Court interpreted the expression "in or in relation to the manufacture of final products" broadly, including activities necessary for ensuring the final product meets customer specifications – Materials used for testing machines as per customer requirements are covered within the scope of this expression, even if not physically present in the final product [Paras 10-14, 21].

Marketability – Completion of Manufacture – Emphasized that manufacture is complete only when the product is rendered marketable – Testing to ensure compliance with customer specifications is part of the manufacturing process, thus materials used in such testing are eligible for MODVAT credit [Paras 17-20].

Decision:

Appeals Allowed – High Court’s opinion set aside – Held that testing materials are eligible for MODVAT credit under Rule 57A – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 22].

Premature Retirement – Fundamental Rule 56(c) – Screening Committee – The appellant was prematurely retired by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam based on the criterion used by the Screening Committee – Supreme Court held that the criterion adopted by the Screening Committee, which was found illegal in earlier judgments, cannot be enforced – However, the validity of the retirement order must still be independently assessed based on the appellant's service record [Paras 3-6, 9].

Service Record Evaluation – Independent Examination – Despite the criterion's invalidity, the Court examined the appellant’s service record independently – Found consistent deterioration in performance and multiple instances of misconduct, including financial irregularities and negligence resulting in loss of life – Held that the premature retirement order was justified based on objective assessment [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Consistency – Adherence to Final Judgments – The earlier judgments declaring the criterion illegal had attained finality as special leave petitions against them were dismissed – The respondents cannot re-agitate the validity of the criterion used by the Screening Committee [Paras 8-9].

Decision:

Appeal Dismissed – High Court’s judgments upholding the order of premature retirement were affirmed – The retirement order dated 1.9.2005 deemed valid based on independent assessment of service record – No costs [Paras 13-14].

Discrimination – Monetary Incentives – Circular No. 40 of 1985 – The appeal challenges the High Court's decision declaring Circular No. 40 of 1985 discriminatory, which accorded monetary incentives to in-service employees of the FCI for acquiring higher qualifications – Supreme Court held that the classification between employees acquiring higher qualifications after joining and those already possessing such qualifications is reasonable and has a rational nexus with the objective of enhancing the professional skills and efficiency of the workforce [Paras 1-7, 13-15].

Reasonable Classification – Articles 14, 16 – The Court emphasized that reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia having a nexus with the objective sought to be achieved does not violate Articles 14 and 16 – The incentives aimed to motivate in-service employees to acquire higher qualifications, thus improving their performance and benefiting the FCI [Paras 8, 11-12, 15].

Incentive Scheme – Validity – The scheme of granting incentives in the form of two special increments as 'personal pay' to in-service employees acquiring higher qualifications was held valid – The Court noted that this classification serves a legitimate purpose and does not affect the inter-se seniority or future promotions of the employees [Paras 14-16].

Decision:

Appeal No. 7268 of 2002 Allowed – High Court’s judgment declaring the Circular discriminatory set aside – The Circular is upheld as valid and not violative of Articles 14 and 16.

Appeal No. 6878 of 2003 Dismissed – The request to extend similar incentives to employees already possessing higher qualifications is rejected – No costs [Paras 18-19].