Service Law – Disciplinary Enquiry – High Court found the enquiry against the respondent was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice – Respondent was not given a copy of the Inquiry Officer’s Report nor an opportunity to comment on it – High Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages – Supreme Court held that proper remedy is to remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated [Paras 1-7].

Natural Justice – Opportunity to be Heard – Principles of natural justice require that the delinquent employee be given a copy of the Inquiry Officer's Report and an opportunity to submit comments – Non-compliance with these principles vitiates the disciplinary proceedings – Proper course is to remit the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh enquiry from the point of violation [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Court should not order reinstatement when the disciplinary enquiry is set aside for procedural lapses – Instead, the matter should be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to rectify the lapses and conclude the enquiry [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – High Court's order of reinstatement with back wages set aside – Matter remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage it stood vitiated – Appellant to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent [Paras 7].

Customs Law – Demand of Duty – Fraudulent DEPB Licenses – DEPB licenses found to be forged/fake are void ab initio – Fraud vitiates everything – Department justified in invoking the extended period of limitation – Duty liability confirmed by the Department, Tribunal, and High Court upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 1-12].

Extended Limitation – Justification – Fraud as a basis for invoking extended period of limitation – Department acted within legal bounds – Supreme Court emphasizes that fraudulent DEPB licenses cannot grant valid exemption from customs duty – Timely payment of customs duty under protest by appellant noted but does not absolve duty liability [Paras 8-11].

Fraud and Knowledge – Penalty Considerations – Knowledge of fraud or forgery by buyers impacts penalty imposition – Not relevant for determining duty liability – Tribunal’s remand on penalty proceedings noted, directing expedited adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment confirming duty liability upheld – Penalty proceedings on remand to be completed within six months from the date of the judgment [Paras 12].

Service Law – Illegal Termination – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Appellant, a watchman, terminated without notice or procedure under Industrial Disputes Act – Labour Court and Single Judge found termination illegal, ordered reinstatement without back wages – Division Bench replaced reinstatement with lump sum compensation – Supreme Court restores reinstatement with back wages for two years prior to judgment [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Review – Delay in Litigation – Impact on Relief – Management's prolonged litigation unjustifiably delayed appellant’s reinstatement – Denial of back wages during such delay amounts to punishment for judicial delay – Reinstatement ordered with back wages for two years to mitigate unfairness [Paras 10-14].

Employment Law – Adverse Inference – Non-production of Records – Labour Court rightly drew adverse inference against management for failing to produce complete muster rolls – Evidence indicated junior employees were retained while appellant was unfairly terminated [Paras 4-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Appellant to be reinstated with back wages from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2022 – Continuity of service restored – Back wages to be paid within six weeks [Paras 14-15].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Enhancement – Appeals challenge compensation awarded by the High Court – Supreme Court enhances compensation further by Rs. 100,000 and Rs. 200,000 per acre for different sets of appeals, following precedent cases – Delay in filing appeals leads to denial of statutory benefits including interest from the date of the High Court judgment until the appeals were filed [Paras 1-6].

Delay and Statutory Benefits – Consequence of Delay – Significant delay in preferring first appeals noted – Supreme Court denies statutory benefits, including interest on enhanced compensation, for the period between High Court judgments and the filing of appeals in Supreme Court – Balance compensation to be paid promptly [Paras 5-6].

Precedent Application – Reliance on Prior Cases – High Court relied on previous decisions in Surjit Singh and Kapoor Singh cases – Supreme Court follows its earlier enhancement rulings in these cases, ensuring consistent compensation [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation enhanced as specified – Statutory benefits including interest denied for specified delay period – Enhanced compensation to be deposited within three months [Paras 6-7].

Motor Accident Claims – Compensation Enhancement – Deceased persons were drivers with valid licenses – Tribunal awarded compensation based on Rs. 7500/- per month income – High Court enhanced to Rs. 8500/- per month – Supreme Court further enhances considering income as Rs. 10000/- per month with 40% future prospects [Paras 2-4].

Loss of Dependency – Income Assessment – Considering drivers' earnings and adding 40% for future prospects – Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses – Applying relevant multiplier for compensation calculation [Paras 4.1-4.2].

Interest on Compensation – Balance enhanced amount to be deposited within eight weeks – Failure to deposit will attract 7.5% interest throughout [Para 5.1].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation enhanced – Respondents to deposit balance enhanced amount with Tribunal within specified time [Paras 5-5.1].

Maritime Law – Port Dues and Anchorage Charges – Vessel sold in public auction free of encumbrances – Dispute over liability for port dues and anchorage charges accrued prior to sale – Vessel docked at Mumbai Port since March 23, 2020 – Appellant contended charges should be borne by previous owner – Supreme Court held liability from the date of sanction of sale falls on the purchaser [Paras 1-25].

Port Dues – Definition and Liability – Port dues under Section 50-B applicable when vessel enters port without discharging/taking cargo or passengers – Anchorage fees determined based on duration of docking – Supreme Court clarified anchorage charges post-sale fall under purchaser’s responsibility, calculated from sale date [Paras 23-24].

Auction Terms – Free from Encumbrances – Vessel sold “as is where is” basis free of existing liens – Pre-sale liabilities not foisted on purchaser – Anchorage charges accrued from sale sanction date to removal date – Purchaser liable for costs from date of physical possession [Paras 10-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Appellant liable for anchorage charges from date of sale sanction [Paras 25].

Execution of Decree – Identifiability of Suit Property – Decree can only be executed if the suit property is easily identifiable – Dispute over exact boundaries of Plot No. 4/4 vs. Plot No. 4/5 – Court mandates precise demarcation by Local Commissioner [Paras 45-47, 51].

Possession and Mesne Profits – Determination and Restoration – Appellant directed to restore any excess land wrongfully claimed, including Plot No. 4/5 or land belonging to Delhi Government – Mesne profits to be computed afresh from 1st March 2006 till possession relinquishment [Paras 54-56].

Legal Standards – Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3 CPC – Plaint must include sufficient property description for identification – Decree execution based on exact property identification to avoid wrongful possession claims [Paras 49-50].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Executing Court to decide applications afresh, appointing Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner to demarcate and transfer possession of Plot No. 4/4 – Excess land to be restored to Appellant – Mesne profits computed in accordance with modified decree [Paras 55-56].

Right of Appeal – Statutory Basis – Appeal rights are conferred by statute and are not automatic – Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC can only be entertained on substantial questions of law, not on factual findings of lower courts [Paras 1-2, 36-37].

Substantial Question of Law – Definition and Tests – To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable, of general public importance, or directly affecting parties' rights – Well-settled legal principles applied to facts do not constitute substantial questions of law – Criteria laid out in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons, Santosh Hazari, and other precedents reiterated [Paras 27-32].

Second Appeal – High Court’s Jurisdiction – High Court can interfere only when substantial questions of law are involved – Mere reappreciation of evidence is not warranted – Findings of fact by First Appellate Court should be respected unless material evidence is ignored or wrong legal principles applied [Paras 23-25, 33-35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 361 of 1984 restored [Para 38].

Insolvency Law – Withdrawal of Application – Before Committee of Creditors (CoC) Constitution – Section 12A of IBC allows withdrawal of an application admitted under Sections 7, 9, or 10 upon approval by 90% voting shares of the CoC – Prior to CoC constitution, applicant can withdraw the application without CoC approval – NCLT’s inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules allow withdrawal to meet ends of justice [Paras 23-24, 28-29].

Settlement of Disputes – Inherent Powers of Tribunal – IBC aims to resolve insolvency efficiently, promoting economic growth – NCLT can permit withdrawal of CIRP applications to facilitate business operations and settlements, preventing undue hardship on corporate debtors [Paras 26-27].

NCLAT Interim Order – Scope of Appeal – Interim order staying CoC constitution but allowing CIRP process continuation – Settlement application under Section 12A pending – Supreme Court finds no substantial question of law warranting interference – NCLT directed to decide settlement application promptly [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – NCLT to expeditiously decide settlement application in accordance with observations [Para 32].