Criminal Law – Production of Original Complaint – Appellant sought production of original complaint leading to Anti-Corruption Bureau inquiry – Special Sessions Court and High Court rejected the application – Supreme Court held that the complaint triggered the inquiry but was not the basis for the charge-sheet or relied upon by the prosecution – No prejudice to accused from non-disclosure [Paras 1-10].

Fair Trial – Access to Documents – Reference to V.K. Sasikala case – Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the complaint was not part of the police report or in court custody – Emphasized the principle of fair trial and non-relevance of the complaint to the prosecution's case [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Special leave petition dismissed – High Court's order upheld, rejecting the request for the original complaint [Para 12].

Service Law – Seniority – Respondent promoted to Reader and given seniority from date of promotion – Claimed retrospective seniority from date of vacancy – High Court granted relief, finding hostile discrimination as ten others were granted retrospective seniority – Supreme Court found no evidence of discrimination as respondent governed by different rules [Paras 1-7].

Service Rules – Applicability – Distinction between promotions under different rules – Respondent's seniority governed by Rule 21 of 1990 rules, not by 2005 amended rules applicable to others – No entitlement to retrospective seniority without explicit provision in rules [Paras 6-15].

Legal Precedents – Applicability – High Court misapplied Keshav Chandra Joshi case, which dealt with seniority between direct recruits and promotees – Incorrectly inferred retrospective seniority principle [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Seniority of respondent to be reckoned from date of promotion [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Transfer of Investigation – Appellant sought transfer of investigation to CBI – High Court rejected the plea, finding no substantial grounds or subsequent events to warrant such transfer – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of exceptional circumstances for such transfers [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Principles – Exercise of Constitutional Powers – Transfer of investigation to CBI only in rare and exceptional cases – High officials’ involvement or prima facie biased investigation as possible grounds – Supreme Court highlighted that such transfers must instill public confidence and ensure a fair investigation [Paras 6-10].

Case Evaluation – Fifteen years of elapsed time – Multiple police officers involved in investigation – No specific malafide established against all officials – Supreme Court found no merit in transferring investigation at belated stage [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order upheld, rejecting the request for transfer of investigation to CBI [Para 15].

Property Law – Lis Pendens – Whether mortgagor can induct tenant during pendency of litigation – Mortgagee (Gangabai) purchased part of mortgaged property – Mortgagor (Respondents) inducted tenant (Respondent No. 1) without mortgagee's consent – Supreme Court held such induction during pending litigation violates Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – Lessee bound by litigation outcome [Paras 12-14].

Tenant Rights – Maharashtra Rent Act – Tenant inducted during subsistence of mortgage not protected under Maharashtra Rent Act – Legal principle affirmed by Supreme Court [Para 16].

Mortgage Law – Mortgagee's Right – Mortgagee entitled to possession despite mortgagor's actions – Induction of tenant by mortgagor without mortgagee’s consent held illegal and prejudicial to mortgagee's rights [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Lower courts' judgments set aside – Appellant entitled to decree as prayed for, without mesne profits [Para 17].

University Administration – Appointment of Vice-Chancellors – Appointments made without effective consultation with State Government – Chancellor flouted mandate of law under Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and Patna University Act, 1976 – Supreme Court upheld the need for effective consultation, transparency, and adherence to academic and moral standards – Quashed impugned notifications [Paras 1-15].

Consultation Requirement – Meaningful Consultation – Highlighted the necessity for meaningful and effective consultation between Chancellor and State Government – Emphasized preparation of a panel by considering persons of eminence in education, integrity, high moral standards, and character [Paras 6-10].

Legislative Intent – Ensuring High Standards – Court emphasized that appointments must promote public interest and higher education standards – Chancellor required to follow a transparent mechanism ensuring the best candidates are selected [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned notifications quashed – Directions issued for fresh appointments in consultation with State Government [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC while examining acquittal orders – Supreme Court reiterated the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that re-appreciation of evidence is not permitted unless there is a manifest error of law or procedure causing miscarriage of justice [Paras 6-7].

Evidence – Evaluation – The High Court found that the Trial Court's acquittal order lacked clarity and overlooked material evidence – Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the Trial Court had adequately addressed all material aspects, and there was no justifiable reason for the High Court to interfere [Paras 8-9].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Prosecution’s witnesses (PWs 1-4) claimed dowry harassment but had inconsistencies in their statements – Supreme Court highlighted contradictions between prosecution witnesses and medical evidence, undermining the prosecution’s case – Acquittal by the Trial Court held as a reasonable view [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order reversed – Acquittal of the appellant by the Trial Court restored [Para 10].

Public Employment – Selection Criteria – Appellants challenged non-selection due to fixation of benchmark after the selection process started – Supreme Court held that fixing benchmarks for final selection after written test and interview is permissible and does not amount to changing the selection criteria mid-way – Distinguished from Hemani Malhotra case [Paras 11-14].

Legal Principles – Benchmarking – Benchmarks can be fixed to ensure meritocracy – CCI's action in setting 70% for General category and 65% for OBC category as cut-off marks after interview was legal and justified – Shortlisting through benchmarking held permissible [Paras 15-17].

Employment Law – Change in Selection Process – No change in initial selection criteria – Written test and interview marks distribution (80% and 20%) remained unchanged – Fixation of benchmarks for final selection rational and within the employer's prerogative [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's order upheld, confirming legality of CCI's fixation of benchmarks for final selection [Para 18].

Central Excise – Liability of Purchaser – Appellant purchased land, building, and machinery of a defaulting borrower in auction conducted by UPFC – Excise Department demanded recovery of dues from the appellant – Supreme Court held that statutory liabilities arising out of land and building or machinery do not include excise dues – Purchaser not liable to discharge excise dues of the previous owner [Paras 1-24].

Legal Interpretation – Statutory Liabilities – Clause in Sale Deed and Agreement stated statutory liabilities arising out of land/building/machinery to be borne by purchaser – Supreme Court interpreted this to mean liabilities directly related to the property, not excise dues which pertain to manufactured goods [Paras 23-24].

Priority of Creditors – Secured vs. Unsecured Creditors – Examined priority of secured creditors (UPFC) over excise dues – Affirmed that UPFC, as a secured creditor, had priority over unsecured excise dues – Relied on precedents distinguishing between liability for entire business unit and specific property assets [Paras 16-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order and demand by Excise Department set aside – Appellant not liable for excise dues of previous owner – Costs awarded to appellant [Paras 24-25].

Land Acquisition – Publication Requirements – Notification under Section 4(1) not published in the locality as mandated – Supreme Court held that such publication is mandatory to enable affected parties to file objections under Section 5A – Non-publication vitiates the acquisition process [Paras 12-15].

Right to File Objections – Failure to Publish Notification – Appellant deprived of the opportunity to file objections under Section 5A due to non-publication in the locality – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of this procedural safeguard for landowners and occupiers [Paras 13-15].

Industrial Unit – Existing Industry – Appellant's land had a running industrial unit at the time of notification – Court found no justification for acquiring a functioning industry for industrialization – Exclusion of similar lands from acquisition supported the appellant’s case [Paras 16-17].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Timeliness – Supreme Court held that the writ petition filed within five weeks of the award was within reasonable time – High Court's reliance on precedents involving significant delays was misplaced [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Acquisition proceedings quashed concerning the appellant’s land – No costs awarded [Para 18].