Service Tax – Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency – Appellant engaged FSE for the appearance of tennis player VA in the Chennai Open Tennis Tournament – Service tax demand raised under 'manpower recruitment or supply agency' – Supreme Court held that the definition under Section 65(68) does not require an employer-employee relationship between the agency and the person whose services are supplied – Agreement with FSE falls within the ambit of manpower recruitment or supply agency – Appeal on this ground dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Service Tax – Programme Producer – Agreements with Zee Telefilms and Trans World International for licensing and sale of telecast rights – Tribunal's reliance on BCCI case erroneous – Production of programmes and sale of telecast rights do not fall under the definition of 'programme producer' – Supreme Court reversed Tribunal's decision on this aspect [Paras 17-21].

Extended Period of Limitation – Invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty – Tribunal acknowledged the matter involved interpretation of statutory provisions – Supreme Court held that extended period not applicable, and penalty unwarranted – First show cause notice confined to normal period of limitation [Paras 22-25].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – Tribunal's decision on manpower recruitment upheld – Decision on programme producer services reversed – Extended period of limitation not applicable – Penalty set aside [Paras 26-27].

Service Benefits – Pensionary Benefits – Appeal against the grant of pensionary benefits to Commission Vendors/Bearers in Northern Railway – High Court directed counting 50% of their service before absorption for pensionary benefits – Union of India contended that such benefits should not be granted as Commission Vendors/Bearers do not have the same status as casual laborers – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision on the grounds of parity with other zones/divisions – Held, Commission Vendors/Bearers working in Northern Railway entitled to the same benefits as those in Western, Eastern, Southern, and South-Eastern Railways – Denial of similar benefits would amount to discrimination and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 1-12].

Parity in Treatment – Commission Vendors/Bearers in different zones/divisions – Supreme Court emphasized that employees working under the same employer (Railway Board) in different zones/divisions must be treated similarly – Differentiation in benefits between zones/divisions violates equality principles under Articles 14 and 16 – Commission Vendors/Bearers entitled to similar benefits as their counterparts in other zones/divisions [Paras 7-8].

Financial Implications – Argument of financial burden rejected – Supreme Court held that pensionary benefits once granted to similarly situated employees in other zones cannot be denied on financial grounds – Financial implications cannot justify discrimination among employees of the same employer [Para 9].

Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Previous decisions by High Courts and Tribunals on similar issues attaining finality – Supreme Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis to dismiss appeals, reinforcing the consistency in legal rulings – Benefit of counting 50% service for pensionary purposes affirmed [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Commission Vendors/Bearers in Northern Railway entitled to count 50% of their service prior to absorption for pensionary benefits – No costs [Paras 11-12].

Defamation – Criminal Law – Appeal against summoning order and complaint quashing – A news article titled "Mission Misconduct" published in INDIA TODAY magazine led to defamation complaints – The article reported allegations of sexual misconduct, corruption, and sale of passports by Indian officials – The complainant, a senior officer, sought action against the Editor-in-Chief, author, and public servants – Supreme Court held that the Editor-in-Chief cannot be held liable without specific allegations against him – The public servants' actions were protected as they reported in their official capacity – The author of the article to be tried on facts to determine if the act was justified – Appeals allowed for Editor-in-Chief and public servants, appeal by author rejected [Paras 1-26].

Presumption – Editor vs. Editor-in-Chief – Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 applies presumption to editors but not to Editor-in-Chief – Supreme Court clarifies that Chief Editors can be proceeded against if specific allegations are made – In absence of specific allegations, no presumption against Chief Editors – Case reinforced by lack of presumption for Editor-in-Chief [Paras 17, 22-23].

Exceptions to Defamation – Section 499 IPC – Benefit of exceptions to defamation can be considered at the stage of application under Section 482 CrPC – Accurate and good faith reporting of public conduct of public servants protected – Reporting made to a superior officer alleging misconduct protected under Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – Summoning order and complaint against Editor-in-Chief (A-1) and public servants (A-3, A-4, A-8) quashed – Appeal by author of the article (A-2) rejected – Author to face trial on facts [Paras 26].

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act – Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Dispute resolution – Independent arbitration agreements and statutory rights under MSMED Act – Appeals challenging the jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council under MSMED Act despite the existence of independent arbitration agreements between the parties – Supreme Court held that the MSMED Act, being a special statute, would have precedence over the Arbitration Act – Facilitation Council has jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator even if conciliation proceedings were initiated under the MSMED Act – Provisions of the Arbitration Act apply to the proceedings conducted by the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act [Paras 1-35].

MSMED Act – Overriding Effect – Chapter V of the MSMED Act would override provisions of the Arbitration Act – No party to a dispute regarding any amount due under Section 17 of the MSMED Act precluded from making a reference to the Facilitation Council due to an independent arbitration agreement – Facilitation Council entitled to act as arbitrator despite the bar contained in Section 80 of the Arbitration Act – Proceedings before the Facilitation Council/institute/centre acting as an arbitrator governed by the Arbitration Act – Facilitation Council competent to rule on its own jurisdiction [Paras 34-35].

Supplier Definition – A party not a 'supplier' under Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act on the date of contract cannot seek benefits under the Act – Subsequent registration has prospective effect and applies to the supply of goods and services after registration [Para 33].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgments set aside where they conflicted with the overriding effect of the MSMED Act – Facilitation Council’s jurisdiction to proceed with disputes upheld – Proceedings to be continued under the Arbitration Act post conciliation failure – Applications for setting aside awards to be filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law – Money Laundering – Appeal against quashing of proceedings under the PMLA – Respondent alleged to have handed over Rs.50,00,000 as bribe to a public servant – High Court quashed proceedings under PMLA on the ground that money assumed the character of proceeds of crime only upon receipt by the public servant – Supreme Court held that the intent to hand over the bribe is crucial and precedes the actual transfer – Respondent’s actions fall within the ambit of Section 3 of the PMLA as they knowingly assisted in the process connected with proceeds of crime – High Court’s decision set aside, and proceedings under PMLA to continue [Paras 1-21].

Money Laundering – Definition and Scope – Section 3 of PMLA includes anyone knowingly assisting or involved in the process connected with proceeds of crime – Money becomes proceeds of crime when intended to be handed over as bribe – Active participation in such transfer constitutes involvement in money laundering – Supreme Court emphasizes the broad scope of Section 3 to include pre-transfer intent and actions [Paras 15-18].

Intent in Money Laundering – The intent to hand over money as a bribe is key to determining its character as proceeds of crime – Such intent exists before the actual transfer, making the person involved in the transfer liable under PMLA – Supreme Court highlights that requisite intent is at the core of the offense [Para 16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashing proceedings under PMLA set aside – Respondent to continue to be arrayed and proceeded against in accordance with law – Proceedings under PMLA to continue based on prima facie involvement in money laundering activities [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder Conviction – Appellant challenges the acquittal of the respondent for the rape and murder of the victim – The trial court had convicted the respondent, but the High Court acquitted him – Supreme Court restores the conviction and sentence, emphasizing the probative value of the dying declaration and the irrelevance of the victim’s sexual history – The court also criticizes the use of the "two-finger test" [Paras 1-70].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Probative Value – Statement of the deceased recorded by the police officer in the presence of a doctor – High Court erred in rejecting the dying declaration based on the doctor’s cross-examination – Supreme Court upholds the declaration as credible and voluntary, establishing the respondent’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 32-48].

Two-Finger Test – Prohibited Practice – Court condemns the use of the "two-finger test" in cases of sexual assault – Test deemed regressive, invasive, and without scientific basis – Conducting such tests re-victimizes survivors and violates their dignity and privacy – Directions issued to Union and State Governments to ensure compliance with guidelines prohibiting the test [Paras 60-68].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s acquittal set aside – Conviction and sentence by Sessions Court restored – Directions issued for the implementation of guidelines against the "two-finger test" [Para 69].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation Enhancement – Appeal against the High Court’s decision on compensation for the death of a housewife aged 25 years in a vehicular accident – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in assessing the income of the deceased and in not considering future prospects – Income of the deceased should be considered at Rs. 7500 per month, with an addition of 40% towards future prospects – Appeal allowed, compensation enhanced [Paras 1-6].

Future Prospects – Calculation of Dependency – Court emphasized adding 40% of the income towards future prospects while considering loss of dependency – Contribution of a housewife to the family and her additional work, such as tuition, must be acknowledged – High Court failed to apply settled legal principles in calculating compensation [Para 5].

Compensation for Foetus and Consortium – The claimants entitled to Rs. 1 lakh for the loss of foetus instead of Rs. 50,000 as awarded by the High Court – Each claimant entitled to Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium or loss of love and affection – Appropriate compensation must reflect the loss and suffering of the claimants [Paras 5.1-5.2].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment modified – Appellants entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 32,82,000 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum – No order as to costs [Paras 6].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Appeal against the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent accused of sexually assaulting his 12-year-old niece – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail given the seriousness of the allegations and the statutory presumptions under Section 29 of the POCSO Act – Observations made by the High Court suggesting the acts might be manifestations of affection were unwarranted – Investigating Officer requires a free hand to conduct a thorough investigation – Appeal allowed, anticipatory bail set aside [Paras 1-19].

POCSO Act – Presumptions under Section 29 – High Court overlooked statutory presumptions under Section 29 of the POCSO Act – Courts must consider these presumptions while dealing with bail applications in cases of sexual offences against children – Presumption of guilt unless proven otherwise [Paras 9-11].

Investigative Procedure – Custodial Interrogation – Importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving serious allegations – Mere absence of need for custodial interrogation not a sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail – Courts must first consider the prima facie case against the accused and the nature of the offence [Para 17].

Observations on Conduct – High Court’s observations suggesting familial affection as possible motivation were inappropriate given the serious nature of the allegations – Specific allegations supported by the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC should have guided the court’s decision [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 1 set aside – Investigating Officer granted liberty to proceed according to law – No costs [Paras 19-21].

Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules 2022 – Rule 30 – Motor Accident Claims – Claims Tribunal's duty to record evidence through a local commissioner when the insurance company disputes liability – Insurance company to bear the expenses of the local commissioner [Paras 60-61].

Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 – Section 159 – Information regarding accident – SHO to take steps as per Section 159 on receiving accident intimation – Investigating Officer to submit First Accident Report (FAR) within 48 hours to the Claims Tribunal and follow subsequent procedures [Paras 62(ii)-62(iii)].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of the lower courts affirmed – Specific directions issued to ensure compliance with the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act and Rules [Paras 62-62(xvi)].