Patents – Revocation of Patent – Appeal against revocation order by Assistant Controller – Revocation challenged on grounds of procedural unfairness due to non-disclosure of Opposition Board's recommendation to the parties – Supreme Court found violation of principles of natural justice as report was not shared – Matter remanded to Controller for fresh consideration after providing report to parties [Paras 1-14].

Opposition Proceedings – Natural Justice – Requirement for Opposition Board's recommendation to be shared with parties – Controller’s reliance on undisclosed report violates natural justice – Report crucial for parties to effectively contest revocation – Order set aside due to procedural lapse [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Revocation order by Controller set aside – Case remanded for fresh hearing by Controller with direction to share Opposition Board’s report with parties – High Court orders set aside – Controller to decide afresh within one month [Paras 13-14].

Service Law – Seniority – Direct Recruits vs. Promotees – The dispute involves the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees to the post of Income Tax Inspectors. The seniority of direct recruits must be determined based on the year of recruitment initiation, not the actual date of appointment – Appeals by direct recruits and promotees contesting the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision on seniority – High Court upheld the CAT's decision – Supreme Court examined the principles of "quota" and "rota" and concluded that seniority should be assigned from the year in which the recruitment process was initiated [Paras 1-25].

Administrative Law – Recruitment and Promotion – Examined the DoPT's Office Memoranda dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986, which lay down the principles for determining seniority – Direct recruits to be assigned seniority from the year of the recruitment process initiation, avoiding unfair advantages to promotees with long service – Clarified that delays in recruitment processes should not penalize recruits – Seniority lists must adhere to these principles, and deviations leading to unfair seniority advantages should be corrected [Paras 18-25].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Supreme Court emphasized that clarifications and subsequent instructions from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) must align with the original principles of seniority determination – Any contradictory instructions or orders lacking legal sanction must be disregarded – Courts must ensure administrative fairness and compliance with established principles [Paras 24-25].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Seniority lists quashed and directed to be redrafted according to the principles established in the Office Memoranda dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 – Emphasized that direct recruits should not be disadvantaged due to administrative delays in recruitment processes – Correct interpretation and application of seniority principles directed [Paras 25-26].

Excise Classification – Soft Serve – Issue regarding classification of 'soft serve' served at McDonald's – Revenue contended it should be classified as "ice-cream" under heading 21.05, attracting 16% duty – Assessee argued it should be classified under heading 04.04 or 2108.91, with lower or nil duty – Tribunal classified it under sub-heading 2108.91 – Supreme Court applied common parlance test, held 'soft serve' is commercially understood as "ice-cream" – Rejected reliance on technical definitions from PFA Act and other sources – Classified 'soft serve' under heading 21.05 [Paras 1-47].

Common Parlance Test – Terms in taxing statutes should be construed according to their popular meaning or the meaning attached by those dealing with the product – 'Soft serve' commonly understood by consumers as "ice-cream" – Marketing terminology does not alter the common understanding of the product [Paras 18-34].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Tribunal's orders set aside – 'Soft serve' classified as "ice-cream" under heading 21.05 – Assessee's argument for exemption under Notification No. 16/2003-CE (NT) rejected as it was not argued before the Tribunal and did not apply in this case [Paras 48-50].

Penal Code – Appreciation of Evidence – Related and Interested Witness – The court should examine evidence of a related and interested witness with greater care and caution than that of a disinterested and unrelated witness – This is a rule of prudence, not law – A related or interested witness may not be hostile, but if he is, his evidence must be scrutinized carefully and all infirmities considered – In this case, the wife of the deceased, being related to the victim, would be interested in seeing the accused punished [Paras 1-42].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of the appellants upheld for committing the murder of Veerappan and Marudayi – The court found no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the related and interested witness, PW-5 Srinivasan, despite his enmity with the appellants [Para 43].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Signature Mismatch – High Court quashed 40 complaints under Section 138, concluding that dishonour due to signature mismatch does not attract penal provisions of Section 138 – Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that dishonour due to signature mismatch does fall within the purview of Section 138 – Court emphasized that the provision aims to ensure credibility and reliability of cheques in financial transactions, and a strict interpretation limiting Section 138 to only two contingencies would defeat legislative intent [Paras 1-19].

Legal Interpretation – Purpose and Object – Court reiterated that while interpreting penal provisions with remedial objectives, interpretation should uphold the legislative intent – Legislative intent behind Section 138 is to deter and penalize dishonesty in financial transactions, thus dishonour due to signature mismatch, akin to insufficient funds or exceeding arrangement, must be covered under Section 138 [Paras 7-19].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – High Court's orders quashing the complaints set aside – Complaints to proceed under Section 138 – Reiterated the presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued for a valid consideration unless rebutted by the accused during trial [Para 19].

Reservation in Services – Merit and Choice – Reserved category candidates more meritorious than open category candidates – Entitled to service/cadre/post of their choice within reserved category – Cannot be forced to accept lesser positions – Ensuring no disadvantage due to higher merit [Paras 1-20].

Equality – Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution – Literal application of rule leading to discrimination – More meritorious candidates of reserved category deserve higher preference within their quota – Ensuring fair treatment and non-discrimination based on merit [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Reserved category candidates securing higher merit allowed to opt for preferred service/cadre/post – Cannot be counted against open category posts – Ensures adherence to Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Cheating – Conviction of appellant and her husband under Section 420 of IPC – Primary role in offense by husband, appellant played subsidiary role – Appellant’s sentence reduced considering lesser involvement and her status as a woman [Paras 1-9].

Sentencing – Principles of Sentencing – Necessity of differential sentencing based on roles and circumstances – Highlighting the lack of attention to sentencing considerations in lower courts – Reduction of appellant’s sentence from two years to one year imprisonment while maintaining fine [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Sentence of appellant reduced from two years to one year imprisonment – Fine of Rs. 2000/- upheld [Para 9].

School Laws – Promotion – Promotional avenues for teachers in Bihar Government Service – Government Resolution dated 7.7.2006 – Recommendations by committee to tackle stagnation – Merger of cadres a matter of state policy – Resolution well-reasoned and justified, not arbitrary or unreasonable under Article 14 [Paras 1-47].

Finality of Decisions – Judicial Discipline – High Courts and State Governments bound by Supreme Court decisions – Reopening settled controversies undermines judicial discipline and finality of decisions – Importance of adhering to Supreme Court's interpretation [Paras 39-40].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment and order of Division Bench and Single Judge set aside – State Government resolution dated 7.7.2006 upheld – State directed to implement the resolution – No order as to costs, strong displeasure expressed towards the State Government's shifting stands [Paras 45-47].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Quashing of Penalty – High Court quashed disciplinary proceedings for violation of natural justice and statutory regulations – Disciplinary authority's failure to allow cross-examination of witnesses and improper proving of documents noted – Remitting case to authority for de novo enquiry considered necessary despite delay [Paras 1-12].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – Superior courts should provide opportunity to complete disciplinary proceedings from the vitiated stage – Judicial review does not permit quashing of proceedings solely on grounds of delay – Importance of examining the gravity of charges [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – Matter remitted to disciplinary authority to decide on conducting fresh enquiry considering gravity of charges – Authority to act expeditiously [Para 12].