Service Law – Age Relaxation – Recruitment – Appeal against High Court's direction for age relaxation under Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of the Age Limits for Recruitment) Rules, 1992 – Respondent sought age relaxation for appointment as Mukhya Sevika – High Court's decision overturned by Supreme Court – State's uniform application of age limit of 50 years upheld – No vested right to age relaxation – Eligibility criteria should be uniformly applicable to avoid arbitrary selection [Paras 1-16].

Public Services – Age Limit – Discretionary Power – Governor's discretion under Rule 3 of Age Relaxation Rules – Applicable to candidates recruited from open category through competitive examination – Respondent’s claim for relaxation as Anganwadi worker not justified under Rules – Uniform age criteria necessary for fair selection process [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Respondent’s writ petition dismissed – Uniform application of age criteria upheld – No arbitrary exceptions permitted in recruitment [Para 16].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Rule 5(1) – Appeal against High Court's order for reconsideration of respondent’s appointment to a Class IV post after failing typing test – Respondent appointed to Class III post on compassionate grounds but did not meet typing speed requirement – Termination upheld as per 2014 Rules – Compassionate appointment does not guarantee continued concessions beyond entry-level relaxation – Appointment to alternate post without fulfillment of required qualifications not permissible – High Court's direction inconsistent with legal provisions – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-15].

Compassionate Appointment – Eligibility and Qualifications – Respondent’s termination for failing to acquire requisite typing speed within stipulated period – Compassionate appointment provides entry-level concession, not continued relaxation from service conditions – Uniform application of eligibility criteria necessary to ensure fairness in recruitment [Paras 9-12].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Overreach – Setting aside High Court’s direction for alternate post appointment – Upholding termination as per service rules – Compassionate appointment rules to be strictly interpreted [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgments set aside – Respondent's writ petitions dismissed – Termination upheld based on failure to meet typing speed requirements within specified period [Para 15].

Civil Procedure – Bar of Jurisdiction – Section 71 and Section 177 of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 – Appeal against High Court’s decision that suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunctions is barred by Sections 71 and 177 of the Act – Trial court and appellate court held suit maintainable, High Court reversed findings – Supreme Court holds civil court’s jurisdiction not barred for reliefs sought by appellant [Paras 1-17].

Housing and Development – Unauthorized Construction – Suit for Injunction – Appellant’s suit for removal of unauthorized construction and restoration of water connection – Relief sought pertains to infringement of easements, not eviction under Section 66 – Suit maintainable in civil court as relief sought is beyond scope of Act [Paras 13-16].

Judicial Review – Ouster of Jurisdiction – Civil court jurisdiction presumed unless explicitly barred – High Court erred in reversing trial court and appellate court decisions – Second appeal restored for consideration on merits [Paras 14-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Second appeal restored for disposal on merits – High Court requested to expedite admission and disposal within three months [Para 18].

Insolvency Law – Admission of Application – Section 7 IBC – Appeal against NCLAT’s order allowing Corporate Debtor’s appeal and setting aside NCLT’s order admitting Section 7 application – Financial Creditor’s claim rejected without notifying proposal for closure – Supreme Court finds non-compliance with Section 7(5)(b) which mandates notice to Financial Creditor before rejection – Opportunity to rectify defects in application crucial – CIRP proceedings not barred by limitation as per Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act for acknowledgment of debt – Case remanded to NCLT for fresh adjudication [Paras 1-71].

Limitation Act – Acknowledgment of Debt – Section 25(3) of Indian Contract Act – Debt acknowledgment within limitation period necessary for CIRP proceedings – Supreme Court highlights continuous cause of action from Corporate Debtor’s settlement offers – Detailed scrutiny of debt acknowledgment essential for fair resolution [Paras 27-30, 64-66].

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness – Section 7(5)(b) IBC – Mandate for notifying Financial Creditor before rejection – Supreme Court stresses importance of procedural fairness and opportunity to address application defects – Appeal allowed, NCLAT order set aside, NCLT to reassess CIRP application [Paras 70-71].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCLAT order set aside – Case remanded to NCLT for fresh consideration of CIRP application in light of observations – Opportunity to file additional affidavits granted to both parties [Para 71].

Criminal Law – Initiation of Criminal Action – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for circumspection in initiating criminal proceedings in commercial transactions, highlighting the potential adverse economic consequences of frivolous actions against large corporations – The Court noted the importance of regulators acting as gatekeepers to prevent unwarranted prosecutions [Paras 1-30].

Disclosure of Documents – Right to Fair Trial – The Court underscored the principles of natural justice, requiring SEBI to disclose all relevant documents to the appellant – The duty of transparency and fairness by regulatory bodies was emphasized, rejecting SEBI's claims of litigation privilege over certain documents – The Court directed SEBI to furnish opinions and reports obtained during their investigation [Paras 31-59].

Adjudication of Delay – Section 473 CrPC – The Court held that the High Court must consider the facts surrounding the initiation of criminal complaints and the conduct of the investigating authority before adjudicating the issue of condonation of delay – Emphasized the need for a principled exercise of discretion by the courts [Paras 27-28].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court directed SEBI to provide the appellant with specific documents and opinions withheld during the investigation – The Court also remanded the matter to the High Court for consideration of the condonation of delay in light of the disclosed documents [Paras 56-59].

Transfer of Matrimonial Case – Convenience of Wife – Appellant sought transfer of the matrimonial case filed by her husband from Etah to Mathura citing her inability to travel, financial dependence, and allegations of threats – Supreme Court reiterated that in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife is of paramount importance – Appeal allowed, case transferred [Paras 1-7].

Matrimonial Matters – Consideration for Transfer – Emphasis on the wife's convenience due to socio-economic factors – Court referred to principles laid down in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, emphasizing the need to consider economic soundness, social strata, and the protective umbrella under which the wife is seeking sustenance [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The case was transferred from the Principal Judge Family Court Etah, Uttar Pradesh, to the Principal Judge Family Court Mathura, Uttar Pradesh – High Court's order set aside – Directions issued for prompt transfer of case records [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Law – Sexual Harassment – The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of the police to register an FIR whenever a cognizable offence is made out – Highlighted the importance of courts dealing with complaints of sexual harassment in a sensitive manner – Directed investigation to be supervised by a woman officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police [Paras 1-37].

Investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC – Magistrate’s Discretion – The Court noted that the discretion granted to a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC must be exercised judiciously, especially when there is evidence that can only be retrieved by the police – Directed the JMFC to order a police investigation in the case [Paras 19-28].

Sensitive Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases – The Court reiterated the need for sensitivity in handling cases of sexual harassment – Suggested measures for courts, including in-camera proceedings, installation of screens, and respectful cross-examination [Paras 25, 35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court directed the JMFC Gwalior to order an investigation by the police under Section 156(3) CrPC – Investigation to be supervised by a woman officer nominated by the DIG – Emphasized the responsibility of trial courts to handle sexual harassment cases sensitively [Paras 29-38].

Service Tax – Sale of Software – The Supreme Court held that once a lumpsum has been charged for the sale of a CD containing antivirus software and sales tax has been paid, the Department cannot levy service tax on the entire sale consideration on the ground that updates are provided – The Court emphasized that the transaction in question amounted to the transfer of the right to use the software, which is deemed a sale and not a service [Paras 1-57].

Transfer of Right to Use Goods – Deemed Sale – The Court reiterated that the transfer of the right to use goods is a deemed sale under Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution – The agreement between Quick Heal and its customers indicated a transfer of the right to use the software, thereby making it a sale of goods and not a service [Paras 42-54].

Composite Transactions – The Court rejected the artificial segregation of the transaction into two components: sale of CD and supply of updates – It held that the transaction is a single sale of software, and once software is classified as goods, there cannot be a separate service element [Para 55].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the antivirus software sold by Quick Heal Technologies Limited is goods and not a service – Consequently, no service tax is leviable on the sale consideration [Paras 56-57].

Industrial Disputes – Recovery of Wages – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not discussing the merits of the Labour Court’s order dismissing the application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Emphasized the necessity for the High Court to provide specific findings on the Labour Court's order – The case was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration and decision within six months [Paras 4.2-5].

Procedural Requirement – Merits Discussion – The Court stressed the importance of detailed discussion and reasoning when overturning lower court orders, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done – Highlighted procedural fairness and judicial thoroughness [Para 4.2].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order allowing the workman’s writ petition and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits – Directed the High Court to decide within six months – The appeals arising out of the writ petition filed by the management were dismissed [Para 5].