Jurisdiction of DRT – Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Exclusive jurisdiction of DRT in adjudication of claims of banks and financial institutions – DRT empowered to order sale of properties of debtor company and distribute sale proceeds among secured creditors and workmen in accordance with Section 529A of the Companies Act [Paras 1-10, 45-46].

Priority of Claims – Companies Act, 1956 – Sections 529, 529A – Statutory charge in favour of workmen over the security of secured creditors – Charge is pari passu with that of secured creditors – Applies to sale proceeds of assets sold under recovery certificate issued by DRT if company goes into liquidation before final disbursement of proceeds [Paras 63-64, 66-69].

Role of Official Liquidator – Companies Act, 1956 – Sections 529, 529A – Liquidator's responsibility to determine workmen's dues – DRT cannot adjudicate workmen's claims but must distribute sale proceeds according to liquidator's determination [Paras 66-67, 71].

Date of Winding Up – Relevant date for determining ratio for distribution of sale proceeds between workmen and secured creditors is the date of winding up order, not the date of sale [Paras 64].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Distribution of sale proceeds by DRT to be made in accordance with Section 529A of the Companies Act – Workmen's dues to be determined by official liquidator – Orders of High Court upheld with modifications as per Supreme Court's observations [Para 72].

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence – Child Witness – The court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness if found credible and truthful – Corroboration is desirable but not a must – Testimony of a child witness should be scrutinized for reliability and corroboration from other evidence [Paras 16-17].

Behaviour of Witnesses – Reactions to Events – Human behaviour is unpredictable and varies from person to person – The court should consider if the witness's behaviour is acceptably natural in the context of the case – Unnatural behaviour may affect the credibility of the testimony [Paras 18-20].

Conviction on Sole Testimony – It is permissible to convict based on the sole testimony of a competent child witness if it is found reliable – The evidence of a child witness should be assessed with caution [Paras 13-15].

Reversal of Acquittal – Powers of Appellate Court – The appellate court has the power to review the whole evidence and reverse the acquittal if the trial court's view is not plausible – The appellate court should find compelling reasons and absolute assurance of guilt before reversing an acquittal [Paras 10-12, 20].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The judgment of conviction by the High Court is set aside – Appellants acquitted – The appellate court's reversal of acquittal by the trial court was not justified based on the evidence [Para 21].

Service Law – Promotion – Health Workers – Integration of various health schemes and redesignation of health workers – Government Orders waiving qualifications for promotion – The integration and redesignation of Health Inspectors Grade IB as Health Inspectors Grade I for administrative convenience was justified – High Court's decision upheld to grant retrospective seniority and other benefits from the date of integration [Paras 1-18, 40-45].

Qualifications for Promotion – Executive Instructions vs. Statutory Rules – Executive instructions cannot supplant statutory rules but can supplement them – Government acted within its powers to relax qualifications under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 – The relaxation of qualifications for health workers was legal and did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 38-44].

Merger of Posts – Leprosy Inspectors and Health Inspectors – Complete integration of Leprosy Inspectors with Health Inspectors Grade I – The distinction between Health Inspector Grade IA and Grade IB was unjustified and violated constitutional equality – Health Inspectors Grade IB should be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Health Inspector Grade I from the date of integration [Paras 19-22, 44].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Government Orders upheld – Health Inspectors Grade IB granted retrospective benefits – High Court's decision to quash the G.O. placing Health Inspectors Grade IB at the bottom of seniority list upheld [Para 45].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Appreciation – The court emphasized the importance of clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence – Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof – The chain of evidence must lead to only one conclusion: the guilt of the accused – Benefit of doubt must be given if the evidence does not conclusively establish guilt [Paras 6-23].

Section 313 CrPC – Examination of Accused – The statement under Section 313 CrPC is not substantive evidence but can be used to appreciate the prosecution's evidence – The accused has the right to remain silent and cannot be forced to testify against himself – False explanations or lack of explanation by the accused may be considered, but cannot solely be the basis for conviction [Paras 25-36].

Benefit of Doubt – When two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should be adopted – The court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and reasonable doubt based on reason and common sense should be considered in favor of the accused [Paras 17-20, 37-40].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences set aside – Appellant acquitted and to be released unless required in another case – Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt [Para 40].

Specific Performance – Relief – Agreements – The trial court decreed specific performance of agreements dated 25th and 27th July 1999 – The High Court upheld the findings of the trial court but denied specific performance, granting refund of earnest money due to undue hardship to respondents – The Supreme Court considered the appeal limited to the interest on earnest money received by respondents [Paras 3-8].

Interest on Earnest Money – The respondents offered to return the earnest money, but the appellants refused and sought specific performance – The respondents should have deposited the earnest money in the trial court to avoid liability for interest – The Supreme Court directed respondents to refund the earnest money with 9% interest from the date of receipt until payment [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeals allowed to the extent of awarding interest – Respondents directed to refund the earnest money with 9% interest from the date of receipt until payment within three months from the receipt of this order [Para 9].

Competition Law – Quasi-Judicial Functions – The Competition Commission and the Competition Appellate Tribunal must provide reasons for their decisions as their orders have far-reaching consequences – The impugned orders in this case lacked reasoning, rendering them unsustainable [Paras 4-7].

Contractual Dispute – Section 4(2) of the MRTP Act – The respondents argued that the appellant willingly entered into a contractual relationship and that the petition was not maintainable under Section 4(2) of the MRTP Act – The Supreme Court remanded the matter for reconsideration on merits, including the preliminary objections raised [Paras 5-8].

Decision – Appeals allowed – The orders of the Competition Commission and the Competition Appellate Tribunal are set aside – Matters remanded back to the Competition Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration of the entire issue on merits, including preliminary objections [Para 8].

Atomic Energy – Commissioning of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant – Safety Standards – The Supreme Court emphasized that while the judiciary should not interfere in policy decisions, it must ensure that national and international safety standards are rigorously followed – The Atomic Energy Act mandates the development, control, and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people – The Government is required to take all safety measures in setting up nuclear power plants and manage radioactive waste responsibly [Paras 1-46].

Environmental and Safety Concerns – Public Concerns – The Court acknowledged the public's concerns about potential adverse effects from nuclear plants – It was emphasized that safety and security are paramount and must be upheld – The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and other relevant bodies must ensure compliance with safety codes and practices – The environmental impact, including the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, must adhere to stringent standards [Paras 24-54].

Judicial Review – Policy Matters – The Court reiterated that it is not within the judiciary's purview to determine the fairness of a policy – The judiciary's role is to ensure that decisions comply with legal and constitutional mandates and protect fundamental rights – In matters of national policy, especially those involving international agreements, courts should not intervene unless fundamental constitutional principles are at stake [Paras 11-13, 22-23].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the commissioning of Kudankulam NPP – Directed authorities to implement the 17 recommendations by the Task Force of NPCIL and comply with all safety standards and environmental safeguards – The Court stressed the importance of transparency and public awareness in matters of nuclear safety [Paras 46, 54].

Motor Accident Compensation – Sections 168, 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act – Enhancement of Compensation – The appellant claimed Rs. 3,50,000/- for injuries sustained in a road accident – MACT awarded Rs. 1,94,350/- which the High Court enhanced to Rs. 2,65,000/- – Supreme Court considered the evidence for future medical expenses and found the High Court's award insufficient – The evidence supported a higher compensation amount to cover future medical treatment [Paras 1-14].

Medical Evidence – Future Medical Expenses – The appellant required significant future medical treatment costing more than Rs. 90,000/- – The Supreme Court accepted the medical evidence and enhanced the compensation by an additional Rs. 75,000/- – The final compensation awarded to the appellant was Rs. 3,50,000/- including future medical expenses, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition [Paras 12-15].

Interest on Compensation – The compensation amount was enhanced with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition until payment – The interest serves to fully meet the appellant's requirement for future medical expenses and overall compensation [Para 15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition – Respondent No. 2 insurance company directed to pay the enhanced amount within eight weeks [Para 15].

Land Acquisition – Incomplete Proceedings – Sections 4, 6, 11A of Land Acquisition Act – The High Court cannot compel the State to complete acquisition proceedings if they have lapsed under Section 11A – Government has the discretion to withdraw from acquisition at any stage before possession is taken, and owners are entitled to compensation for any damage suffered due to the notice or proceedings [Paras 2-9].

Court's Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Judicial Review – While the High Court can review administrative actions, it cannot compel the government to acquire property or pass an award outside the statutory framework of the Land Acquisition Act – Court cannot enforce instructions issued by higher authorities to subordinates if not governed by statute [Paras 9-10].

Compensation for Hardship – The Supreme Court recognized the prolonged suffering due to seepage from a canal project causing damage to petitioners' residential properties – Ordered the government to pay Rs. 1 lakh each to petitioners as damages for hardships, to be deposited within three months – This judgment does not prevent future acquisition if required in public interest [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Petitioners awarded Rs. 1 lakh each for damages – Government to deposit the amount within three months [Para 12].